Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The PentaCON

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Well....out of that post, this I zeroed in on:


Proof of foreknowledge...


And, here's why.

I have nothing else except a fair understanding of the way the various agencies ("alphabet agencies, as they're sometimes called ) operate in the U.S.

There are inter-agency rivalries, turf wars, etc all the time. Stupid, and detrimental to the actual *job* of intelligence gathering, monitoring, and thwarting real threats to security, and to stop attacks before they occur.

My feeling, without any proof to back it, is something along the lines of the ....well, I have heard much that it was the CIA in particular who were not sharing what they knew, in terms of having sniffed out this potential plot [which turned into 9/11], and they were actively monitoring and doing intelligence gathering. If anything *stinks* in the manner of a 'cover-up', it would be this (if true). And, if any pf those involved had been caught with their pants down this badly, then it stands to reason they would be covering their butts every way they could, in order to not get the blame.

Hence, the *aroma* of something not quite *kosher* begins.

Furthermore, it seems likely that the monitoring of the men involved in plotting to carry this out was not perfect (obviously), because it seems CIA (not sharing with FBI, NSA, etc) might have thought they had it under control, and would be deemed "heroes" once they had enough evidence, and could then swoop in, and capture and foil the plot, before it was set into motion.

They failed.

That is the most likely scenario, it seems. Or some version of it, those details still need to be filled in.

So, at its least, it was gross incompetence; at its worst, might rise to the level of criminal negligence.




posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by anoncoholic
 

What? Is "Truther" any more insulting/damaging then "OSr"? Wasn't it the Truth movement that actually coined the term originally?

Here's a thought for you...if 9/11 was all a put up, then ALL of it was a put up right? Well, show us where the "put up" in the Pentagon attack is? (Something you've been asked repeatedly to do - but *just* can't seem to mange)If you can't, then we've just seen a foundation block of all of 9/11 being a put up removed - haven't we? Sort of like when a single person lies they lose all credibility - take away a foundation block and suddenly the whole structure becomes unstable - doesn't it?



When an adjective is added to describe a person it takes on a whole new meaning. rabid truther is just one example but I am almost sure every time the word truther is used it is either preceded or followed by some derogatory adjective and in my ears, you reap what you sow.

What is fishy about the Pentagon attack? How about testimony of Cheney refusing to rescind the stand down orders that allowed an approaching plane to get closer, and closer, and closer, until it actually "supposedly" hit.

Many reports came out on 911 and if all are to be believed there were also helicopters hijacked that day. With so much confusion how can anyone say with 100% certainty that the plane that was reported flying over the Pentagon was the one that supposedly hit it and what did hit it was a missile launched from a helo that was also seen and in fact had just went over the building when it exploded?

Fly a C130 overhead (cover story of "oh look at the plane") where the f was the shoot-down order? but instead all we have is a C130 ordered to go "oh,... look" and open its cargo doors, climb while dumping random plane parts and presto, instant jumbo jet crash site. ... could have happened as easily as and even more likely than a jumbo jet flying circles around Washington with proven attack underway that was seen coming, profit maximized, and world changing.

I do not buy into any theory so easily when the possibility is there for any scenario to fit what little evidence we had been allowed to formulate an educated opinion with.


Were you there ? Were any of us? Who but those that were there could say for sure and with even a single doubt, never mind a full blown lie, a single doubt would acquit any defendant. in any court.

Yet 911 we knew who we were going after and wasted no time in starting a murder spree that continues around the clock unabated and without any moral conscience as to its validity?

There is something wrong when you declare a never ending war and massive profits are made at the expense of lives and fomenting hatred that feeds the problem, not solves it.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Interesting. For I mean, how can you have eye witness reports of planes and no plane pic wreckage?


Please look at the pics in this link www.911myths.com...


I looked at all the pics and there is one that is conspicuous in its absence. The one of the blue tarp being carried off.



This blue tarp? www.rense.com...


yes, ty. I should have known a website would explain it away



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic
What is fishy about the Pentagon attack? How about testimony of Cheney refusing to rescind the stand down orders that allowed an approaching plane to get closer, and closer, and closer, until it actually "supposedly" hit.

After ten years, the Truth movement has yet to substantiate these "stand down orders." There was no stand down order. No one testified that there was a stand down order. No staff duty log or message traffic recorded a stand down order. None of the taped conversations discuss a stand down order. The sequence of events does not indicate there was a stand down order. It's just another Truther myth like the laser satellite or the giant 757-shaped air-to-ground missiles launched by helicopters.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


Gee, right now I am working with many of the men and women who were a part of the Air Guard fighter wing at Andrews that day. Most of them had just returned for a deployment. That Tuesday was the first day back at work. None of the jets were loaded for combat. In other words, there was not a realistic chance in hell that there would a successful intercept of Flight 77.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Originally posted by anoncoholic
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by anoncoholic
 




What is fishy about the Pentagon attack? How about testimony of Cheney refusing to rescind the stand down orders that allowed an approaching plane to get closer, and closer, and closer, until it actually "supposedly" hit.

Fail - check the testimony again


Many reports came out on 911 and if all are to be believed there were also helicopters hijacked that day. With so much confusion how can anyone say with 100% certainty that the plane that was reported flying over the Pentagon was the one that supposedly hit it and what did hit it was a missile launched from a helo that was also seen and in fact had just went over the building when it exploded?

How about dozens of eyewitnesses to the impact - actually watched the plane fly right in. Yeah, I'm likely to believe such a large number of people describing exactly the same thing


Fly a C130 overhead (cover story of "oh look at the plane") where the f was the shoot-down order? but instead all we have is a C130 ordered to go "oh,... look" and open its cargo doors, climb while dumping random plane parts and presto, instant jumbo jet crash site. ... could have happened as easily as and even more likely than a jumbo jet flying circles around Washington with proven attack underway that was seen coming, profit maximized, and world changing.

1 - Do you have testimony that the rear cargo door was open from a *single* witness?
2 - How easy do you think it would be to drop debris without people on the major secondary road right beside the Pentagon not noticing? How did the debris get *inside* the building? How did it get insed the C and B rings?
3 - I'm not all that familiar with the standard configuration of a C-130 - do they come equipped with missiles for air to air combat?




Were you there ? Were any of us?

Actually - yes. From 06/00 until 10/05. The only exception was the period between 9/12/01 and 01/02 when I was reassigned to a building in Alexandria while clean up occurred and our new offices were built.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Andrews was not the only base within reach, though. Like I said, them fighters out playing in North Carolina could have been called back in enough time. But forgetting the fighters of Andrews, there was still Langley in Virginia, where fighters were eventually scrambled and sent to DC...but only like about 5 or 10 minutes before Flight 77 crashed. And it took them some 20 minutes to get to DC, since they weren't flying at top speed. Had they gotten the order to fly when Flight 175 crashed, even from Langley, them birds could have been over DC in time to take out Flight 77 before it struck.

Just finished watching the C-SPAN vid discussing the failure of the air defenses. Alot of it I had already guessed. I was in the army during the early to mid 90's, I remember the drastic draw-downs and downsizing of the entire military. This was no great surprise or revelation to me. And of course, I am more than aware opf the inter-agency infighting, as I remember even in the army, different divisions and offices didn't like others coming to play in their sandbox. This territoriallity explains, at least to my satisfaction, why the FBI and other federal legal/security agencies dropped the ball in tailing and tracking the terrorists, and lost tabs on them.

But it still did not explain the lack of action in DC after both planes in NYC crashed. Dick Cheney was the vice president, he certainly had the ability and authority to demand air protection. And one thing I learned about inter-agency in-fighting: orders from the very top tend to cut through all that BS, and agency heads tend to jump through hoops to appease the big wigs. Cheney was also no stranger to the defense establishment. Hell, he was secretary of defense when I first joined the army, under Bush Sr. It is the fact that neither Chney, nor Rumsfeld, both the highest ranking politicians in DC at the time, didn't do squat. At the time, the country supposedly had no idea what was going on, but for all they knew, it could have been an invasion or larger scale attack. Certainly an old, veteran hawk like Cheney wouldn't have thought twice about doing what he had to do to get the nation's capital secured.

Bush was out of the loop, sort of, which is another curiosity (mostly for the fact that the secret service didn't forcibly haul him out of the school and get him relocated somewhere safer), but that's another arguement. Cheney and Bush had to have been in constant contact, it's not like the President of the United states doesn't travel everywhere with the most cutting edge commo technology.

So I guess my biggest question/arguement about the lack of response really boils down to the highest level of govornment and the military establishment, and their failure to act. Everyone else, like NORAD and the FAA, I think, were honestly confused and shackled by outdated and useless defense policies, and I certainly do not believe either NORAD or the FAA had anything to do with any foreknowledge. They were as confused as the rest of us.

But the very core of power? I do not believe it was the same, and a word for the VP or the prez himself could have cut through all that. It is the highest levels, in the executive branch, where my suspicion rests the heaviest. Especially given the long and shady ties with the Saudi Arabian royal family.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I have not see this mentioned here , so i`ll quote from a post i put up in another thread ->


Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Still , no one is highlighting the fact that the official story for the supposed Honeywell rotor that was found was aload of tripe , they said that it was from the rear APU engine in a Boeing 757`s tail section ... BUT ... when Honeywell were asked about it and saw the pictures they said .. "there is no way that is any part of a APU engine we manufacture" ...

Maybe not case closed , but it doesnt look good for the web spinners
edit on 18-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)


Discuss



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Discuss? Sure. How about talking to the people who actually build the ROLLS ROYCE engines for the Boeings? I'll give you a clue, there's a factory in canada where they repair and overhaul them. Better yet, ask the nice folks in Derby, UK, who actually BUILD the engines what they think the the wreckage.

Oh wait, they have.



Screw Loose Change

Aerospace Web

Loser Change's Viewer Guide

You do realize that it helps to point people towards the proper channels. Asking a company spokes person in Indiana is not going to garner as much information as asking an actual engineer, factory foreman, or other expert that is involved in the actual building of these parts.

Honestly, I really can't believe this particular arguement regarding the Pentagon's "mystery parts" is still being touted, especially as it had been blown out of the water all over the web, this site included.

Cat herder's Legendary Debunkfest



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Traveling at 150 nots above operating speed, you my friend need to reserch "ground effect".
It is impossible!!!
A plane never went into that building. Theres no plane in those 5 frames at the pentaCON.
Did you ever wonder WHY?



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Let me ask it yet again... why the need to lie if all was as we are being told?

That simple, no conjectures, attitudes, personal slanders or hidden slurs, no hidden agenda, merely a simple question regarding evidence in the public domain. No opinion or conjecture, EVIDENCE.

why do deniers always avoid that simple question?


A passenger plane hit the Pentagon. There is no evidence for anything else but there is a great deal of opinion and conjecture on the part of many who desire an "inside job." The childish belief that the same omniscient group of insiders who planned this conspiracy left photographic and video evidence on the web for armchair sleuths to discover has generated some of the most contrived conspiracy theories to see the light of day.
We have seen claims of flyovers with timed demolitions, missiles painted like passenger jets, modified A-3 's painted like passenger jets, missiles not painted like passenger jets and all variations on the themes.

I believe that those desperate to liven up their lives by finding conspiracies secretly know that a good conspiracy is simple, with minimal links back to the conspirators. If this was a conspiracy run by competent conspirators to accomplish some devious goal, it would have been to let the hijackers hijack and to take what came.
This brings up the problem for the truther community; if that were the case, then there would be no way to discover a conspiracy on the web. To alleviate this problem, inconsistencies and 'evidence' must be discovered to show a complex conspiracy with many interconnecting links and odd connections. Those that have financial interests in selling books, DVD's, t-shirts, and such or going on a lecture circuit have fed this beast with all manner of disinformation, misinterpretations, and concentrated incompetence pretending to be science.

The rallying cry of "new investigation" is meant to sound reasonable even though the bases for such are not. What evidence will trigger a new investigation? Who is disinterested enough to carry it out? If the conclusions are the same, what then? More "new investigations" until a desired outcome is reached?

So far, there is insuffcient reason for a new investigation. Congress is now wrestling with things far more important than satisfying the curiousity of a fringe element and can't be bothered wasting time, money, and energy on this. If you have hard evidence, take it to a some-guys-for-truth group and they will help you start the lawsuit.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock2009
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Traveling at 150 nots above operating speed, you my friend need to reserch "ground effect".
It is impossible!!!


Honestly, that bit about ground effect is simply more Truther nonsense.

To save typing it out again please allow me to quote myself from a previous post on the subject...


post by Drunkenparrot
 


Most here are misunderstanding what ground effect is. In short aircraft wings are designed with a small amount of dihedral so as they fly the boundary lair travels from the wingroot towards the tip which means the wing stalls at the ailerons last,

As the turbulent air spills off the wingtips, vortices are created which decrease the efficiency of the airfoil due to parasitic drag.

The reason is related to the purpose of the small, upturned "winglets" utilized by some aircraft. The winglets prevent wingtip vortices and their associated parasitic drag from forming and increase the aircrafts fuel economy a few percent.

In the case of ground effect, at a given point the wing is low enough so that drag inducing vortices are prevented from developing by the proximity of the ground. Ground effect might allow an aircraft a control a couple of knots slower at a slightly warmer ambient temp but it doesn't turn the airplane into a hovercraft.


There is no "magic" cushion of air forcing the aircraft away from terra firma, on the contrary, if ground effect prevented aircraft from impacting with the ground, there would be far fewer airplane crashes, would there not?

Hope this helps...





Edit to add:You should have a bit of aeronautical experience before screaming fraud otherwise your point is rather moot.

For example, are you referring to knots IAS, TAS or EAS?

As aircraft are flown by their v-speeds, when you say "150 nots (sic) above operating speed" do you mean 150 knts above Vc (optimal cruise),Va (maximum speed you can input full deflection into the controls and not break something), Vmo (maximum operating speed) or Vne (never exceed)?
edit on 20-10-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Hard evidence would be the video footage.
It does exist BUT, the people are denied access to it.

Heres your 5 frames, the ones that dont show what it is.
Are we supposed to be content with that??



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by anoncoholic


regardless what altitude you seem o think makes that difference. .


Silly truther, 740 feet per second is a velocity not an altitude.

740 fps would be subtracted from the engines exhaust velocity in relation to the ground. The exhaust coming out of the engine would be pretty close to standing still in relation to the ground.

You need to learn the difference between static and dynamic thrust.

edit on 19-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


silly makeup artist the difference between ground speed and airspeed is not determined by exhaust gas being expelled but the difference between the distance traveled in air vs the distance traveled on ground. But the point is what you yourself made in the above.

IN RELATION TO THE GROUND

example, a head wind will increase travel time and decrease air speed. This however has nothing to do with jetwash as the velocity of the exhaust will remain a constant and the only thing that could change its speed is throttling up or down. The ability of air to accept change is why jet thrust is such a poor means of propulsion since air like a fluid will adapt to change.

Now the issue I am raising isn't whether that change is evident in a plane in flight, that is without dispute, however, when that flight is at ground level as it had to be to strike the ground floor, then the ground itself isn't air that will adapt to change hence my remark about altitude and yet all you see is a chance to try to poke fun at logic by scrambling the issue with unrelated facts.

The fact is, ground is not air and will not yield (but evidence of its attempt to is NOT evident is my entire point) therefore the airflow out of the jet engine, its thrust, is not much difference to being parked on solid ground where the air has no place to move downwards as the fantail disperses but is focused straight back and up. It is that force down that I am talking about and 58,000 lbs (partial) thrust is not changed by motion Ground doesn't move to decrease affect

Now getting back to the video of the vehicles (the second one I posted is better as it actually goes on to explain that any more than 20 seconds will peel the runway) that 58,000 lbs thrust is irrelevant to headwind or tailwind, it is a force of its own yet by your reasoning that force is dependent upon distance traveled and the time taken (velocity) and not at what height the thrust is which is blowing smoke as far as reality of why there is no evidence of jetwash on the grass.

Now I didn't reread my comment to get context of how I meant the comment as I still know how it is meant. The altitude of the plane is irrelevant to the grass when that plane had to be at ground level to hit the ground floor and yet as mentioned above I too recall pilots stating a jumbo jet will not fly at ground level as it has no air under its wings to generate lift and yet again, that attitude is absent in the markings on the ground which not only would have been peeled grass but more than likely a long trough as the plane skidded into the building rather than glide or fly at full thrust and we have to assume full thrust by logic of a terrorist seeking full impact potential.

Now why is simple logic being challenged with trivial facts whether the test was static or dynamic when the grass doesn't care. Grass only cares about two things, manifestation of growth and change in growth pattern. It doesn't care about air speed it cares about thrust that threatens its growth and yet that evidence of change is absent which is the entire point isn't it?

no matter. You lot have it all figured out so who am I to challenge your reality? Whether it is feasible isn't the issue, what is the issue is that according to your solution there can never be a solution as there is nothing to see here, move along.

Why can't you see the direction? You need a moral compass. 3000 dead that day and millions since and counting and yet you would rather dismiss all charges.

Sorry, I can't look the other way and pretend

w/e, I said what needed to be said and at the least the issue isn't dead like the futures of so many or the direction humanity is embarked upon.

Why not just start the damn war and kill as many in a single shot? Man has perfected killing and we all know you love your toys and want to use them every chance you get.

Shameful and a disgrace in abuse of power and responsibility never entered the equation as there is no morality in your math.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock2009
 
You're right about this, and I believe it should be our starting point. Once the ball is rolling it will all come apart, but we are diluting our efforts and 'they' know this. 'They' are hiding the footage that HAS to exist of that day. "Where's the plane?" should be our cry, at every opportunity, to every one we meet. This is the weakest point of their story, the lack of an actual airplane, and not a 'trunkful' of scraps these A-holes keep pointing to. The elephant in the room is beginning to get some attention, so perhaps we should focus ours. I will stake my life on this one statement : Anyone who looks at the first pictures of the pentagon immediately after the explosion, and says that they see evidence of an airliner full of passengers and luggage is a liar. We should stick right here, because it is their weakest link.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock2009
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Traveling at 150 nots above operating speed, you my friend need to reserch "ground effect".
It is impossible!!!
A plane never went into that building. Theres no plane in those 5 frames at the pentaCON.
Did you ever wonder WHY?


Not really, because...

a) it was a security camera, and it's standard procedure for security cameras to skip a few frames to save on media storage. When a very fast object comes by, you're lucky to even capture it on one frame

b) in the one frame that was captured, the ticket dispenser in the foreground was between the camera and the plane, so the only details visible was really the plane's rudder

c) this entire campaign of sowing doubt that a plane actually hit the Pentagon is coming 100% from those damned fool conspiracy web sites spreading these inane rumors to make a buck off of gullible people. Once we realize they're just a bunch of snake oil peddlers, the snake oil they're peddling becomes moot.

Look over this animation and mull it over.




posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


just because a passenger plane hits something doesn't mean it was piloted by an on-board pilot.

In fact many professional pilots are on record stating the spiral was a difficult maneuver even for the experienced yet someone with minimal training and no flight experience pulled it off.

This alone doesn't strike you as just a wee bit suspicious?

The fact that the Pentagon wasn't hit at nearest approach also doesn't raise your eyebrows when as far as a hijacker knows every second increases odds of intercept?

Again no consideration of why enters your mindset?

A plane on a day when other planes are hijacked and targeted into buildings manages to circle Washington during the height of a major attack and in response there is no shootdown order?

Someone said that is all bs and yet lets just let the evidence speak for itself. Was the plane shot down?

Norman Minetta (sp?) went on record first describing the Cheney incident and later recanted testimony isn't suspicious?

Never mind guys... nothing will change your mindset , not reasoning rationale or honor. There is a stronger force than truth in play here


edit on 20-10-2011 by anoncoholic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Sherlock2009
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Traveling at 150 nots above operating speed, you my friend need to reserch "ground effect".
It is impossible!!!
A plane never went into that building. Theres no plane in those 5 frames at the pentaCON.
Did you ever wonder WHY?


Not really, because...

a) it was a security camera, and it's standard procedure for security cameras to skip a few frames to save on media storage. When a very fast object comes by, you're lucky to even capture it on one frame

b) in the one frame that was captured, the ticket dispenser in the foreground was between the camera and the plane, so the only details visible was really the plane's rudder

c) this entire campaign of sowing doubt that a plane actually hit the Pentagon is coming 100% from those damned fool conspiracy web sites spreading these inane rumors to make a buck off of gullible people. Once we realize they're just a bunch of snake oil peddlers, the snake oil they're peddling becomes moot.

Look over this animation and mull it over.



contrary to what you might think you are not god and don't have all the answers. Posting animation is not proof of anything other than creativity. What would have been proof is the tower radar tapes yet they too were destroyed and once again everything is copacetic in the world of subterfuge.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


If you are sincerely interested in facts and not just trying to get a rise out of a stranger on the internet you may want to spend some time to superficially familiarize yourself with some of the principles at work.

Just because you dont understand does not neccisairly mean that nobody else does either.

Honest, you've been fooled by bad science in a slick production.

Watch closely....












edit on 20-10-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Sherlock2009
 
You're right about this, and I believe it should be our starting point.


Ah yes, the typical truther tactics that milks the paranoia for all its worth. As I pointed out in another thread, you truthers ALREADY have the chemical formula for the demolitions explosives as per Steven Jones, you ALREADY have the blueprints of the towers as per Richard Gage, you ALREADY have a list of engineers, chemists, architects, and other professionals as per the AE911TRUTH petition, you ALREADY have miles of footage of the collapse of the towers from every conceivable angle as per the army of Youtube posters, and you ALREADY have piles of cash from years of peddling DVDs, tickets to truther symposiums, and outright donations.

The logical starting point...heck, the MANDATORY starting point...is to show in precise details how controlled demolitions brought the towers down in the way the videos show becuase the only thing you'd need now is a calculator and a week of spare time, and once you're irrefutable able to prove what happened down the very rivet everything else would naturally fall into place from there. Instead, you deliberately steer it away from any true practical research and wallow in these "missing Pentagon footage" when you truthers are the only ones who are insisting there even is any "missing Pentagon footage" to begin with. It's as if you're going through every motion imaginable to make sure there ISN'T any investigation in order to make yourselves feel as weak, helpless, and paranoid as humanly possible. *THIS* is supposed to be a movement to "investigate the truth behind the 9/11 attack"?!?

The more the truthers grasp at straws to justify their claims like this, the more they only wind up proving the truther movement is nothing but a self serving dog and pony show. The only difference is the consession stand is selling "investigate 9/11" t-shirts instead of cotton candy.






top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join