It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Professional Pilot Questions 9/11 Scenario - Video

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Namaste1001
 


Well, I stood for the first five minutes, then had to take a break before tackling the rest....I needed a break before I punched my computer monitor out of frustration!! Loaded with the same claptrap from the so-called "truth movement"....This is nothing more than a thinly disguised propaganda piece for certain "XXXFor9/11Truth" sites, to include foremost, it would seem, the "Pilots' tribe that dances the same tune.....tip off was their LOGO in the opening montage.

OK....Shaw. Likely I guy I could sit down and have a drink with, and discuss these misconceptions of his. We speak the same "language" of flying, and it would be easier to get through to him that way, one would hope.

But...."Professional" pilot??
Careful with that one....it carries a certain connotation in most people's minds...subtle, and orchestrated here to do just that...convey what THEY want you to interpret it as.

In most arenas, "professional" pilot refers to one who performs some sort of commercial air transport commerce....passengers, cargo, etc. A Flight Instructor...well, that is stretching the intent of the term a bit much. There are such animals as "professional flight instructors"....but, let me tell you, the pay SUCKS!! Being a CFI is seen, within the industry, as a stepping stone to some higher paying airline type flying job of some sort....when I was doing it "full time" ALL I really wanted was a cushy, higher paying "real" flying job.

Firstly....yeah, about 5,000 hours is respectable, but I didn't see ANY turbine jet time listed in his CV at the beginning. He's an accomplished aerobatic pilot, certainly.....but really, that just indicates a serious dedication and specialization to it...and practice, practice, practice....and when that's done, MORE practice.... Having 5,000 hours, all in light airplanes, regardless of his aerobatic skills, is irrelevant in his assessment of flying jets. BTW....as I was Flight Instructing, when starting out, I built up a lot of hours too, that way. You are able to log ALL of it....even when all you're really doing is sitting there, and teaching. When I got my first "real" flying job, at a commuter....I had about 3,500 hours. AND, I STILL had not yet flown a jet!! So, I was "ignorant" of that aspect, then..... in many ways. You know what, though? Transitioning to jets is EASIER than you'd think, once you have even the basics down in other airplanes....



NOW, notice how his "doubts" and "concerns" are cleverly hinted at, but the video spins them, and goes off on its own tangents to promote the "stock mantra" version that is spewed almost like a script, from any number of so-called "truth movement" places.

Let's show examples: By about 2:30, one common "script" piece is the wive's tale about the Towers falling "into their own footprints". Even as he is saying this, the editors cut to a video of a Tower collapsing, and it CLEARLY refutes his assertion!! You can see huge amounts of debris ejecting laterally, and arcing out and down, as we all know happened during the collapse sequence. Still, does anyone not see this blatant distraction technique? WHAT does the Towers' collapses have to do with the abilities of the hijacker pilots??

By 3:00, he's again talking about the hijacker pilots...and their "piss-poor abilities as student pilots.."

What? What does their poor performance, during parts of their months of training, have to do with it? Mantra/Script (strawman?) number 2. They HAD been deemed, even if only marginally passable, they PASSED FAA written tests, orals and check-rides in order to be issued the Airman Certificates they held.

It's fading from memory a bit...oh, yeah....Script (strawman) #3....taking the various testimonies and statements of some ATC personnel out of context. Oh, boy!! That is particularly hard to get teeth into, in written form....BEST way (not available to me) would be a side-by-side form of refutation....what the controller says, then EXPLAINING the context of it, so that the "TM" twists and spins become more evident....works better if it's in video format. Written words lose their impact.

So, first "half"? Nothing new....absolutely NOTHING new!! Just a "new" face with a voice, reading the same basic script, and getting it WRONG along the way. This happens to well-meaning people, because they sometimes get talked into it...convinced, because they are given less-than-truthful information and impressions.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
This is what should've happened (at minimum) at the Pentagon (and WTCs) seeing this plane was just taxiing.






but instead we have planes barrowing and burrowing into buildings as if they were made out of paper mache.




And here's what the wings of a plane looks like when encountering resistances (like 5 lamp posts)




How even a single person is able to defend the officially government approved nonsense version after all this evidence has been presented is beyond me ...



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


You know, it's about time someone actually ADMITTED what is a very, very commonly seen trait of most "truthers":


....because I am such a doubter (Truther) that I don't bother listening to the other side anymore...


BRAVO!! (applause) Finally! The admission of something no one else would admit, but is painfully obvious everywhere you look, here on ATS......oh, and hint? When you "don't bother listening to the other side" then, what sort of so-called "truth" are you "seeking"? Hmmmmmm?



I'd be interested if you can find me one resource via the Internet from a pilot (with verifiable credentials) that states without any hesitation that the feat that was performed that morning up in DC is 100% possible.


Well...you see, THAT was your problem! You weren't listening!!!

First of all....that "feat", as you called it, in DC? Could you describe what was so incredibly complex or difficult? Because, as many times as I've watched the Flight Recorder animation, and looked at the other info, like the radar ground tracking and such....I can't see anything "difficult" at all about it. Perhaps you never saw that Dutch documentary, where they had a very low-time pilot, a college student if I'm not mistaken, do it in a simulator...THREE TIMES, and he hit the Pentagon on each try. It comes as close to simulating the event as is possible, in a simulator....nothing can EXACTLY match it, but it doesn't need to be "exact", in order to demonstrate the possibility. It has likely been down HUNDREDS of times by many, many others too....just not filmed, and not blogged about. Not everyone is willing to dance to the "truthers" tunes.....

Here is a portion of that documentary, from the Netherlands (with English subtitles). It starts, first, with a tearing apart of that ghastly "film" Loose Change....and rips it a new place to sit, regarding the engine debris at the Pentagon.

Then, they fly the simulator:




If you're really serious, you can help by chipping in to a junket I'd proposed, two years ago (ATS Admin didn't think it was worth the effort) to get a group together, rent a full-motion Level D simulator for a few hours, and video the results. I won't charge a fee for my consulting services....and everyone could see for themselves as many different people, with different skill levels, put the simulator through its paces.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Completely wrong. NOW I think I understand just why these ridiculous topics of "9/11 conspiracy" continue...it's due to things like this:


This is what should've happened (at minimum) at the Pentagon (and WTCs) seeing this plane was just taxiing.




At first I was going to suggest you're living in a fantasy reality....then I saw that you acknowledge, as if you comprehended, that the Continental jet was only taxiing. HOW can you get it right, and be SO WRONG at the same time?? Is it lack of experience? Has to be....and I can't help you, if you haven't figured it out by now...manybe someone else would like to take a crack?

BTW...I hasten to point out some history behind that incident. YES, both people in the cockpit are OK (but, thanks for not asking...). AND.....this was the result of two MECHANICS who did not properly follow the "Mechanic Taxi Checklist" procedures. (They have a special laminated card, in all cockpits, just for them that they train to, and are supposed to follow). That was a Boeing 727, being positioned to a gate by Maintenance personnel...very routine. BUT, they had not configured the hydraulic system properly....and wheel brakes requre hydraulic pressure to function correctly. Jets' brake systems have an "accumulator" that 'traps' some pressure, in case of a loss of normal hydraulic system function....it is enough for two to three applications of the brakes, and then....ZIP! NADA!! Well, there is the next level of emergency brake, using air pressure...but the guys never trained on it, forgot it....panicked, and jumped out of their seats just before hitting the terminal...self-preservation, saved them from any injuries......like getting beheaded....(THAT came later, when they got fired).




And here's what the wings of a plane looks like when encountering resistances (like 5 lamp posts)



Oh, for CRYING OUT LOUD!! You couldn't be more wrong!! Man, I have some Terms and Conditions "terms" that would be useful right now....


THAT is the aftermath of the (tragic)...American 1420, in Little Rock, Arkansas.

DID YOU REALIZE PEOPLE DIED??? :shk: (Insert appropriate insult here:________________).

The levels of ignorance are, frankly, stunning....I don't know what else to say about that aspect of this, as people make such boneheaded claims....

WHY don't you do yourself, and the rest of us a faovr? LEARN to research, and learn about the details before you post?? Because, this is drivel....but, it DOES make one other thing clear: How this crap keeps being spread. Because of misconceptions like this, with NO ONE to set the record straight.


HERE-- I'll get you started o the research for AA 1420. Just as the NTSB has accident animations for American 77 (and United 93), they do it for other crashes:



Written report abstract (final report not yet finished): www.ntsb.gov...

Wiki, to fill you in in "layperson" speak: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Do I realize people died? I know the ones in the Trade Centers died but short of that, I am not 100% convinced there were others though. You think because I have my doubts on what transpired that I am a cold uncaring person do you? Well, that was a weak shot but I can understand seeing you've run out of ammunition.


My photos didn't suit you either? I couldn't be more wrong?

Well I am sure you've seen this and I am positive you'll have one of your handy excuses ready to refute this too.

You see.....you'll never change your mind about 9-11 (or ANY conspiracy Weed) and I......well, I can never close my eyes to all the inconsistencies, mysteries, improbabilities, first-time-ever events and coincidence in which that day produced for me forever!

It's all good. You live on your line of the Truth. I'll stay over here





posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


You know, it's about time someone actually ADMITTED what is a very, very commonly seen trait of most "truthers":


....because I am such a doubter (Truther) that I don't bother listening to the other side anymore...


BRAVO!! (applause) Finally! The admission of something no one else would admit, but is painfully obvious everywhere you look, here on ATS......oh, and hint? When you "don't bother listening to the other side" then, what sort of so-called "truth" are you "seeking"? Hmmmmmm?





I no LONGER listen to the other side. Nothing enlightening or newly developed has been produced in nearly 10 years for me to re-listen to your side.
It's all been said before.


Just for the Weed-record: I believed the story from almost a year.
I was pissed at the Arabs. Scared for Americans and was proud of Bush.


HA!!!!

Now, I am ashamed of being an American, feel sorry for the Middle East and embarrassed of this government!

Oh the irony.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The word professional was my description not that of the video. I used it in the truest sense of what it means. Someone who makes a living from what they do. Nothing more. You are just picking at semantics.

I respect your right to share your opinion but that is all it is - an opinion. I see you presenting little evidence of your own, just picking at words and twisting them to suit your own argument. That is all you can do when the official story is built around a lie.

Another thing you have done is try to divide people by appointing labels such as 'truther'. I'm sure you want the truth as much as I do. Creating a them and us attitude is very simplistic stance to take which reminds me a lot of probably the most stupid statement I have ever heard: "you're either with us or against us" - Bush.

Such a divisive trick. I can see right through it.


edit on 28-12-2010 by Namaste1001 because: spelling

edit on 28-12-2010 by Namaste1001 because: punctuation



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I believe that the planes were remote controlled.. some reasons why... well pilots insist the maneuvers were next to, or impossible.. plus, how many times have terrorists hijacked planes and not make a demand or a statement, as tk confirm who they are and why they are doing it, surely the terrorists who wanted to make a statement, would leave no doubt it was them or their organisation, otherwise, some other fool could take responsibility, thus hijacking the hijackers cause.. the only "statements" they made, were on accident... plus, no one, except some small group, not al queida, took responsibility for it.. and last, well I think it was a very powerful group of people, with endless resources, who have so much arrogance, that they'd even make a commercial suggesting flying a large jet liner by remote control.. please see my previous thread if you wish to see the commercial.. there is no doubt they are suggesting flying the large jetliner remotely..



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


I can't think of another thing (except perhaps religion) that has drummed up more questions than answers. Ever. Not one single incident in my 50 years on this planet has one single event caused more issues than understanding!


Just the fact that 4 men were able to storm a LOCKED cockpit with plastic butter knives (and 'box-cutters if you believe that story. But I ask ya, who the heck uses that term? Box-cutter? Really? Movin' on.....) is questionable in itself.

Oh man, I can type about this all day and all it gets me is upset by dinner time.

Even if I started reconsidering one part of the story (like the collapse of the Towers or the events in Shanksville) it still leaves 95% of the story questionable. So what good is it? What would ONE correction prove? That I was wrong in that one area? Okay. I'll concede. I might be wrong. Still doesn't change the outcome.

Okay so maybe we're (I'm) wrong about one or two or even THREE aspects of the story but that wouldn't eradicate the rest of the unbelievable, questionable, coincidental and improbable version of the events that day (post and prior too)

So that's why I don't even bother listening anymore. I am willing to yield a little (because after all, there's not too much wiggle room left) but it doesn't remotely change the aftermath.

Just look at your world. Look at the Orwellian state we're living in because of that day.
19 men had THAT much influence over this entire planet? Really???? And yet their leader, Bin Laden, still dines with the Bushes?
Yeah, okay, I might be wrong about one account. But does it REALLY matter now????



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gixxer
thx that's really what i was asking, now my only problem with that scenario is this, for those passenger jets that were supposed to of hit the towers to not actually be the real culprits it would basically mean that 3 jets and possibley 4 jets full of people would have to of been landed somewhere else and all the people on them.....basically executed.

now i am not saying it didn't happen but ( because it is soo horrible) i can not wrap my mind around it enough to agree with it. i think that as horrible the world is, we (me) still like to think civilization has a chance and personally if it came to light that this is what happened i would say were all doomed.


Before we prematurely toss out any direction because of the shocking implications of no 757's we should take small bites of this and advance our understanding. If the the wings tear off @ X-mph above "Vmax" or the rate of climb exceeds what the air plane is capable of I'd like to see that established. then we go into other posibilities of what actually happened.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



And here's what the wings of a plane looks like when encountering resistances (like 5 lamp posts)


It was a landing accident !

American 1420 - Little Rock Ark, June 1 1999

For one plane did not strike lamppost, it hit a plyon supporting steel walk bridge after skidding off wet runway
falling down 25 ft embankment then hitting bridge

Check out National Geographic "AIR EMERGENCY" series - goes in detail

url=http://]http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/air-emergency/1073/Overview[/url]

Two lamposts are designed to break away when struck - seen enough of them responding to MVA calls on Fire
department



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Namaste1001
 



Such a divisive trick. I can see right through it.


Another thing you have done is try to divide people by appointing labels such as 'truther'.


Just a second......this IS your thread...and when a thread is IN THE "9/11 Conspiracies" Forum, then the terms "truther", etc, are common. I could type out "Truth Movement Adherent" each time, or some similar variant, but that is cumbersome. ATS Staff and Admins have determined that monikers such as "truther", "truster", etc are acceptable 'shorthand' terms. (AND, that certain derisive, sneering, mocking derivations of those terms are contrary to the Terms & Conditions rules). They are descriptive, and they do represent the opposing viewpoints....although, it isn't entirely "black/white", there are multiple shades of gray involved. So, no it is not "divisive"....


I respect your right to share your opinion but that is all it is - an opinion.


Thank you. But, it is MORE than "just" an opinion. What I am able to bring to the table, here, could be considered "expert" opinions. Someone "just" having an opinion is what has started this entire (and fruitless) "9/11 conspiracy" mess in the first place!! People speculating from OUTSIDE their particular areas of knowledge and expertise. Each of us, in life, has a speciality, an area that we are most "expert" at....usually by virtue of study, training and life experience. Aviation, and flying in particular, and even more specifically, operational details and parameters of the Boeing 757/767 family of jets IS like second nature, to me. Years and years, and thousands of hours experience have brought me to that stage.


I see you presenting little evidence of your own....


Well...you are correct, in as much so far in THIS thread, regarding the response to that video in the OP. However, if you will take note -- I had not finished watching/responding to it. For me, it was nearly midnight, so I left a brief assessment, with intent to further analyze and present "evidence" then. Of course, THAT video is rather short on "evidence", in and of itself.....n'est pas??

Now, "picking and twisting words"??? That, my friend, is EXACTLY the tactic of those who keep claiming that the so-called "official story" (there is no such animal, BTW...only a conveniently-named strawman, created by...yes, by the "truther" movement)....the so-called "OS" is, you opined, "built around a lie". You have it backwards, I'm afraid. The vast majority of any "lying" comes from those who twist facts and evidence, and also IGNORE "inconvenient" evidences that they can't distort, in order to shoehorn into the InterWebz blogosphere their particular skewed "opinions" of what THEY think "went down" on that day. In other words, the "LYING" all comes from what can be collectively termed the "truth movement"...or "TM"....or "truthers". Et Al. Pay particular heed, as you see the ACTUAL "picking and twisting of words" that is taking place, on this topic.

I can see it, quite clearly. AND, point it out to the best of my ability.




....which reminds me a lot of probably the most stupid statement I have ever heard: "you're either with us or against us" - Bush.


Agreed!! Well, with one caveat --- it is NOT the "most" stupid statement ever to be uttered by that fool, George W. Bush. I haven't assigned it a rank, but would imagine it's in at least his top 25....maybe top 30.


It is NOT an "us versus them" discussion, should never be....BUT, guess WHO causes it to devolve into that sort of yin/yang??? Yup! Examples like that video, in your OP....and the "powers that be" who are in fact behind its production. You don't realize, it seems, how well you are being played by the likes of "PilotsFor9/11Truth" and its incestuous "sister" group, "PatriotsFor9/11Truth".

The use of the word "truth", in their context? It is an oxymoron........


edit on 28 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


This amazing acrobatic-airliner at the Pentagon: Flight 175, hit FIVE, count 'em, FIVE lamp posts and never skipped a beat.

That can NOT possibly happen I don't care HOW fast or slow they're traveling. Resistance is resistance. (The Tower floors managed to resist resistance too)

One of two things 'should've' happened when that Arab hit those poles: That Kamikaze craft should've gotten knocked off course OR at minimum, had its wing severed (thus ending up on that pristine lawn).
But none of that happened (of course).

I am merely trying to find examples of what planes always do, have done and will continue to do, when crashing. But those planes on that day were remarkable. They became aerodynamic steel locomotives opposed to vulnerable metal planes!


Amazing.
I was impressed. Were you?

But wouldn't you know it, logic started setting in and all my awe went out the window.


I highly recommend you to wake up, just a little, from your naive slumber even though you'll be waking up into a nightmare. I know it's safe where you reside, within the confines of confusion and safety but, it won't behoove you in the long run.

We're being rung through the ringer.

And if you're around (and this planet is around) in 50 years (as old as the JFK murder is then) you'll look back on this and realize how utterly ridiculous it was to believe this. Just like it is to think we believed in the lone-gunman tale.

You know where your 'awe and amazement' should be? Within our own governments! Not in those19 Arabs who (allegedly) performed the most amazing aviation stunts to date!



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

Two lamposts are designed to break away when struck - seen enough of them responding to MVA calls on Fire
department



So what? I am not questioning the fact they broke off. I am questioning the effect it had (or lack thereof) on the plane. Which was nothing.

Once again, it was like knife through butter.

Are the wings designed to withstand an object after being hit (whether it breaks away or not) and continue to fly as if it were business as usual too?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I'm not the "dman"....but you continue to fail at the grasp of these concepts, as evidenced by some of these post comments:


This amazing acrobatic-airliner at the Pentagon: Flight 175, hit FIVE, count 'em, FIVE lamp posts and never skipped a beat.


This is amazing hyperbole....and, once again, demonstrates a lack of comprehension of physics, AND the timing of the events.

Roadway lamp posts are FRANGIBLE at the base. An automobile impact, just at the level of the bumper height (what? 2 1/2-3 feet?) at sufficient velocity (and thus, force) will allow the attaching bolts at the base to shear....this helps to mitigate the impact forces to the OCCUPANTS of the vehicle, as it provides some energy absorption. Vehicular impact survivability ALL depends on the rate of deceleration, and the G-forces that are involved during the crash sequence. A lamp post that doesn't "give way" like that is going to cause the vehicle to decelerate MORE abruptly. NOW....consider the concept of leverage and torque. IF those attachment bolts are easily sheared at a distance (leverage) of only about three feet distance out (that provides the "torque" force), then imagine how LESS force would be required if you were to apply it near the TOP of the pole!!! This should be intuitive, to most people......

Secondly, at the velocity of American 77, the impacts of the poles upon the airframe WILL cause damage to the airplane structure......but, now you have to consider that the distance from the pole strikes, until the building impact, was only a few hundred feet. The airplane was travelling at about 800 feet per second!!!

Do you understand those implications??

SO, you are terribly mistaken, due to an incompletely grasp of physics, momentum, velocity, force...NEWTON, when you write this:


That Kamikaze craft should've gotten knocked off course OR at minimum, had its wing severed (thus ending up on that pristine lawn).


Of course, ALL of this nonsense back-and-forth seems to ignore a very, very logical point: IF (this is just an "if")....the Pentagon attack were "staged"....then WHY over-complicate it with the light poles???

People, you aren't looking at this logically.....the light poles were struck, because they were IN THE PATH of the flying airplane!!! It is the height of ridiculous to imagine, and to "claim", that somehow it was "planned" to all this detail....when it would not have been necessary, IF this was, as asserted, "planned and staged"!!!

You would do yourself a great favor if you got hold of some physics textbooks, or online courses, or something. Your "imagination" isn't quite up to par......



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
One more important occurrence we ought to mention about these 'break-away' poles. Pole number three allegedly damaged the starboard engine (from that high quality video tape we were presented with). So, so much for the 'break-away' safety aspect of these poles.

Considering the sheer strength of the poles it's hard to imagine that that wing wasn't severely damaged. The other thing about the light poles is that the plane was traveling very fast, about 400 MPH. If the plane hit the poles going that speed the poles wouldn't be close to the road or on the road, rather they would be thrown a long way from the road, providing they didn't sheer the wings off.

But let's put aside the pole-wing conundrum. Let's look at the overall picture please.

This plane...............




penetrated this much and created all this damage................





?????????????????????????????????????????????



Now once you try to wrap your head around that...it gets better. Look see what else:
Four days PRIOR to the Pentagon being "hit by a missile" as Rumsfeld said, this white, what appears to be outline chalk line, was photographed EXACTLY where the trajectory of that plane, er....missile followed.





Will the coincidences ever cease?????



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Do not worry about weedwhacker...his cognitive dissonance is at EPIC levels...and will continue to rise until complete total shutdown occurs...then he will join us in actually looking for real truth.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Let me guess, there were no planes and it was all an illusion perpetrated by unknown forces that designed this to be a " conspiracy"? There was no point to this thread.

THREAD fail!



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gixxer
whats the point? so some guy who flys planes doesnt beleive the story, i saw nothing new introduced just some reports that people say it wasn't possible.....

so let me ask you, if it wasn't possible for the terroiststo fly the planes the way they were flown what is the alternative? did someone else fly the planes? or are you one of the " their were no planes" guys cuss if thats the case move along.............


What are you new ?

Wtf does the title say ?

"Professional Pilot Questions 9/11 Scenario - Video"


WTF did the video do ???


Extactly what the title says .


Back under your rock you go.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Source of the bottom photo?? The overhead view of the Pentagon??

Oh, and why would a "missile" need a [ahem] "chalk line" to follow??

Oh, and...."chalk line"??



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join