Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Where to begin.. and this has not been an easy story, in this case a purely factual one based on observation alone, to tell, so don't think, don't assume, that it hasn't been painful to come to grips with or that I wanted it to be this way or get a thrill out of telling it to you, but like I say it's only REALLY bad if we all fail to learn from it whatever there is to be learned, not merely as information, but in terms of a historical causation, and a noble and just historical pursuit, to do it's many victims, both on that day and in their wake and for their name's sake and the sake of "security" and "justice" (oh the hypocrisy!), real and authentic historical truth and justice.

History WILL look back on this entire historical episode in the rear view mirror of 20/20 historical hindsight, and it's verdict will be just, to the tears and sorrow not only of us, but of those who need to learn how to cry, like Dick Cheney for example among others.


We'll begin with the self evident proof of controlled demolition (CD).


NewAgeMan

Just LOOK!

The buildings, the STEEL buildings..



Went down, from top to bottom, to within maybe three seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air, alone..




ok, with that out of the way, let's consider the implication of that, running the tape back through the plane impact, to all the 9-11 War Games Operations that were going on that day, something which Osama bin Laden could not have known about from a cave in Afghanistan to take advantage of as the smoke screen by which to ensure the operation's success (no jets scrambled on time, confusion about radar blips with air traffic controllers saying "is this real world or simulation?", Pentagon impacted.).

It's simple reason and logic, nothing more, and we know of course that a pretext was needed to wage war, but for the purpose of this thread we're examining only the physical evidence in terms of what is "in plain (plane) sight" the most obvious sad fact of life being that the twin towers were and had to have been demolished with explosives to explain the actual phenomenon or occurrence of destruction itself, an "event" that the NIST report failed to address by citing only a collapse initiation hypothesis, in assuming, beforehand, the actual cause of the destruction itself, and never mind if the event itself on that basis violates the laws of physics - we'll just consider collapse initiation only and assume that it was the only possible cause of what can be seen is an explosive event! (could it BE so obvious? yes it can and it is).


Next, there's this


_BoneZ_

Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) (Edit by NAM: who was fired for asking questions about the steel he was involved in testing and certifying as it related to the twin towers), made a post back in January of 2008 at 9/11 Blogger showing that the floors of the WTC that had the fire-proofing upgraded, matched almost exactly to the floors that were impacted and failed in both towers:



www.911blogger.com...

It now turns out the company that did those upgrades is Turner Construction company.

i224.photobucket.com...

Turner Construction Company also helped plan and oversee the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome in 2000:

seattlepi.nwsource.com...
www.stadium.org...

Turner Construction Company also occupied the 38th floor of WTC 1:

en.wikipedia.org...

Turner Construction Company particpated in the collection and disposal of the steel wreckage of the WTC towers following September 11, 2001:

en.wikipedia.org...


from the thread Bush's connections and now a possible connection to controlled demo consulting and planning company comliments of _BoneZ_.


So, with CD as self evident, playnig the tape back in recognizing that the plane impacts were to serve as the sole cause of the destruction of the buildnigs, it must be an absolute certainty that they will meet their targets and not left up to chance alone based on a successful highjacking, although the south tower plane did almost miss the south tower, pulling a super high-G turning course correction at the very last couple of seconds, just barely managing to hit the building through the corner, which would have been a rather large screw-up as far as operational success goes, because then they could not have neem an;e tp destroy the south tower, leavnig one tower standing and intact. Therefore, the plant that impacted the tower tower was not flight 175, but a swapped in military drone aircraft, according to a scenario not dissimilar to that which was proposed to JFK by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called

Operation Northwood (pdf)
www2.gwu.edu...


To get an idea as to the type of scenario involved. ala Northwoods, to pull this kind of thing off and reaize the operational objective in the midst of the 9/11 War Games involving simulated hijacked aircraft being flown into landmark sites, or precisely what happened when it happened, see this hypothesis recognizing, I invite you to read this article, bearing in mind that it is not intended to explain precisely what did happen, only how it could be done.

Flight of the Bumble Planes
www.public-action.com...


Therefore, let us now er-examine the south tower plane, within the context of swapped-in military, remotely piloted drones being the only possible conclusion to be drawn in light of the self evident nature of the proof of the controlled, top down (never before) explosive demolition of the twin towers on 9/11..




posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Cont'd

In fact, magnification of the south tower plane, from two separate angles, and cameras..





i.cnn.net...

[Request: for that second image from CNN, could someone with the skill level please magnify that to show the same little dark circle under the tail? thanks]

- Shows a small dark circle under the tail precisely where the retracted or removed rear refueling boom resides in the Tanker variant of the Boeing 767 commercial airliner.


Just in case anyone tries to raise the idea that it's a "tail skid" device to protect the plane's "ass" when rotating on liftoff in the event that it's too steep, there is no such device on the Boeing 767-200ER (the alleged model of the south tower plane), and where there is such a thing on the larger variants because their tail is longer, even then it's not circular (see image above, lower right).

Re: Speed


New York Times
February 23, 2002
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds

By ERIC LIPTON AND JAMES GLANZ
Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.
The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.
Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.
In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.
''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''


Tanker Transport Performance, & Pallet Info (which contains the fuel/incendiary)
Note the mention of price difference pointing to the variations in the age of the aircraft, since this was a retrofit build/re-build, either from a new or a used Boeing commercial airliner, which may or may not have windows.



KC-767 Common Widebody Tanker & Transport

www.globalsecurity.org...

The Boeing 767 family of aircraft, specifically the –200C/F, 300C/F and –400C/F models, have been proposed by Boeing as a replacement for the KC-135 family of aircraft, and have been vigorously marketed by Boeing. In terms of offload performance, the proposed Boeing KC-767 modestly outperforms the standard KC-135R. Costs for used 767-300ER aircraft vary between $51M and $88M, depending on the age and condition of the aircraft. In terms of speed its Mach 0.8 performance compares to the Mach 0.85 or better performance of the KC-135 aircraft.

Standard Military 463-L Fuel Cargo Pallet
"In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried."

www.inetres.com...

Pallet Dimensions
Width: 108 inches. Length: 88 inches.
Height: 2 1/4 inches.

Pallet Usable Dimensions
Width: 104 inches. Length: 84 inches.

Pallet Weight, Empty 290 lbs
Weight of Nets (side and top) 65 lbs
Maximum Cargo Weight 10,000 lbs
Desired Load Capacity 7,500 lbs
Maximum Gross Weight 10,355 lbs

-------------------

With regards to the fireball and smoke cloud magnitude of the south tower impact, a group of German Engineers led by a line of inquiry completely separate from and therefore presumably unaware of other physical evidence showing that the south tower plane was not UA175, N612UA,


The United Airlines Flight 175 aircraft was a Boeing 767-222 that had been built in 1983, registration number N612UA
en.wikipedia.org...


deduced, that a fully fueled Boeing 767-222 (200, same diff) for a transcontinental flight from Boston to LA, could not possibly have had enough fuel to account for the magnitude of the fire ball(s), even if the vast majority of the fuel and fire was ejected from the confines of the building. But the conclusion they arrived at, even as an approximation, showed it to be larger by many many orders of magnitude than what would be possible.




9-11 = False Flag "Shock and Awe" Global Psyop.


edit on 1-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


"Possible connection to controlled Demo" can only be possibly considered if even one piece of leftover demolition material is was found in the rubble.

No?

Fine.

(You'd think someone would have faked that by now.)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


And you can explain how it's a KC-767, when the first one wasn't built or flown, or even ordered until after 9/11 right? The AF lease was cancelled long before any aircraft were ordered (it didn't happen until 2002 anyway), and Boeing doesn't just build planes that might be ordered.

The first flight of any KC-767 was in 2005 for the Italian Air Force. They didn't start building one until after 2002, when they were ordered. The KC-767 had been put down on paper prior to 2001, when RFPs were issued, but they weren't even close to building them in 2001.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   


The Official Story - by Philip D. Zelikow




9/11 was an inside job.

Don't shoot the messenger.

It's only bad news if nothing is learned from the entire episode of historical insanity, much of which has continued even to this day in regards to the overall policy objectives, outlined by Philip Zelikow, not only after 9/11, in the form of the only official historical accounting of the event, including the "public myth" in regards to it in hindsight, but also before it, making of the imagined event, it's eventual realization, as a policy position, set out three years prior to the event itself as "the New Pearl Harbor" and the "catalyzing catastrophic terrorist event" enabling just about everything that we've seen go down, including the Afghan and Iraq wars, precisely as outlined in the PNAC Document "Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century".

It's only REALLY bad, to the degree that nothing is learned from it, looking back on it as future history.


NewAgeMan

Catastrophic Terrorism:

Elements of a National Policy

by Philip D. Zelikow, December 1998

www.hks.harvard.edu...

You may note how his language found it's way into this policy report by Dick Cheney.

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of the Project for the New American Century
September 2000

www.newamericancentury.org...

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."


On September 11, 2001, George W. Bush wrote in his journal: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." He was echoing the summary of a September, 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" published by a neoconservative think tank called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).


Zelikow, in his own words, before 9/11.

The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to [the] notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.'

Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."


So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.

If 9/11 was nothing but a huge HOAX, you would naturally expect that the event itself would have to be perfectly scripted.

In 1998, Zelikow actually wrote Catastrophic Terrorism about imagining "the transformative event" three years before 9/11.

Here are Zelikow's 1998 words. Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination.

An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.

Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.

Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after."

Philip D. Zelikow


www.ksg.harvard.edu...



"... if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed even in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security..Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with.."

~ Philip Zelikow, pre-9/11



While at Harvard he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."

Zelikow's focus was on what he calls 'searing' or 'moulding' events [that] take on 'transcendental' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experience generation passes from the scene."

In Rise of the Vulcans (Viking, 2004), James Mann reports that when Richard Haass, a senior aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell and the director of policy planning at the State Department, drafted for the administration an overview of America’s national security strategy following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dr. Rice, the national security advisor, "ordered that the document be completely rewritten. She thought the Bush administration needed something bolder, something that would represent a more dramatic break with the ideas of the past. Rice turned the writing over to her old colleague, University of Virginia Professor Philip Zelikow." This document, issued on September 17, 2002, is generally recognized as a significant document in the War on Terrorism.

en.wikipedia.org...


The Family Steering Committee for the 9-11 Commission repeatedly called for Philip Zelikow’s resignation. The families, citing Zelikow’s close connections to the Bush Administration, were concerned that Zelikow’s appointment made a mockery of the idea that the Commission was “independent.” But the Zionist controlled Bush Administration ignored their complaint.

Zelikow's Conflicts of Interest

1989-91: Zelikow works closely with Condoleezza Rice as part of the National Security Council during George Bush Sr’s Administration.

1995: Zelikow & Rice write a book together.

1996-98: Zelikow & Rice are together again when Zelikow is Director of the Aspen Strategy Group, a Zionist foreign-policy strategy “think tank.” Rice, along with Dick Cheney & Paul Wolfowitz, are also members.

2000: Zelikow & Rice are reunited when Bush names Zelikow - etc etc no more space le



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Zaphod58
And you can explain how it's a KC-767, when the first one wasn't built or flown, or even ordered until after 9/11 right?


Come now, you do not expect facts to stop a silly conspiracy theory, do you?

Facts like the plane the silly conspiracy theory claimed hit the WTC never even existed at the time it happened just prove the silly conspiracy theory, as obviously Boeing built them secretly just for 9/11!

As for why no demolition material was found again proves the government was involved in the silly conspiracy theory, as they must have used super sekret military demolitions that leave no trace at all!
edit on 1-12-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I said a prototype didn't I, and the KC-767 Tanker is nothing more than a rebuild/retrofit which can make use of older Boeing 767 commercial aircraft. I'm not saying that it was one with the label on it that says it's a KC-767 model, only that the technology to make one was certainly already in place for September 11th, 2001, as well as tight control remote piloting of such aircraft, something that I haven't covered yet, but which would make a nice addition to the thread.

Best Regards,

NAM



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Why would Boeing build a prototype before 2001, when the first aircraft wasn't ordered until 2002? You don't build airplanes to test until you have a firm order in hand. You wind tunnel test until you have a firm order in place. Italy was the launch customer for the KC-767, and didn't award the contract until 2002.

It costs a lot to develop a new plane, even a "bolt on" package like the KC-767. You can't just slap a boom on it and call it a tanker. You have to repipe the fueling system, do wind tunnel testing for aircraft flying near it, to make sure it's not going to flip them or something... It's a lot of work, and it's expensive. So there's no way Boeing would have done it without an order in hand.
edit on 12/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Thank you! I have read/watched a lot of material on 9/11, but this adds a lot. You have a BIG finger pointing at Turner Construction, and it would no doubt be rewarding to probe that rabbit hole. S&F!



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You've misunderstood and assumed. I'm pointing a sturdy finger at the technology which would or could and quite obliviously did, make a retrofitted Boeing 767-200 into a giant fuel-air bomb, and saying hey, this plane must have not only been remotely piloted, where again the technology was in place (to be covered by me or someone) by September 11th, 2001, but also filled to the max with incendiary fuel, perhaps even other types of incendiaries beyond that of kerosene.

This is a reverse engineered analysis, starting with CD evidence and then moving backward from there to the impact and extraordinary fireball display, with all the cameras trained on the twin towers from every angle and perspective.

It's just deductive reasoning and logic that I'm employing with this analysis. I don't have to prove that there was a KC-767 model prototype a year before Boeing wanted to make the lease deal on them. You've missed the point of this thread and the evidence being offered, which begins with one and only one presupposition according to the self evident proof of controlled demolition of the twin towers on 9/11, and then working back from there in examining what actually took place.

CD proves swapped-in remote controlled military aircraft, and it just so happens that Boeing had a protocol in place for converting a Boeing 767 into a hardened, advanced avionics military Tanker, which would be perfect if you wanted to create the largest possible fuel air bomb for maximal "shock and awe" (Rumsfeld) viewing horror, befor the eyes of the watching world, as a global psy-op by which to enact Zelikow's and Cheney's PNAC think tank policy proposals.

It's self evident.

You've missed the point.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


That's a very snide remark. Please, keep it civil.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



- Shows a small dark circle under the tail precisely where the retracted or removed rear refueling boom resides in the Tanker variant of the Boeing 767 commercial airliner.



Tanker Transport Performance, & Pallet Info (which contains the fuel/incendiary)
Note the mention of price difference pointing to the variations in the age of the aircraft, since this was a retrofit build/re-build, either from a new or a used Boeing commercial airliner, which may or may not have windows.


That sure looks like you're going beyond saying "the technology was available" and saying "it was" a KC-767.

Boeing didn't have anything "in place" until after the aircraft was ordered, except for on paper.
edit on 12/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Ok, i've done some heavy lifting work here to start the thread, could someone, anyone please do a nice presentation on the 9/11 War Games Ops under way that day as the smokescreen grid and the context within which the event actually did happen? Thanks for chipping in and helping out, because people really need to see and understand this information, including it's historical implications that we've been subject to throughout this entire episode of historical insanity and utter madness.

Thanks again, and Best Regards to one and all no matter what you might think or believe or cling to it makes no difference because we'll all in this same boat together, so again, please keep it civil, if you can.

NAM aka Bob (in all humility)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Let me get this right, you are saying the structure would prevent the fall of the building within the time specified. Therefore there can be no structure to prevent the fall of the building, which means it had to be removed/destroyed etc in order to collapse the building.

According to your logic there cannot be ANY structure left intact otherwise the fall would have been slowed, therefore the total internal steel structure MUST (according to YOUR logic) be completely destroyed BEFORE the building collapsed.

Now, we KNOW there was no external demolition of the building from top to bottom. So any demolition had to have taken place internally from top to bottom ALL FLOORS (in order to meet the conditions of collapse). This demolition occurred with such precise timing that EVERY floor exploded at the identical time (otherwise a ripple would have been heard). Not only that but these explosives managed to suck the air out of every floor to prevent the shockwave from bursting the glass.......hmmmmm........BS.....massive huge very smelly BS.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


There is quite a lot of evidence that very powerful explosives demolished the sub-basements of the WTC towers BEFORE the planes struck. Further, if you have the ability to see what you are looking at, squib charges were going off ahead of the collapse. Further, the towers were not merely exploded and/or collapsed, they were "dustified" by advanced weapons which also affected buildings and vehicles for some distance away from the WTC site. We do not know, as yet, the exact nature of the weapons, but we see the effects, and work backwards. In some of the collapse videos, you can see solid steel turn to dust, not just collapse and fall. Do your homework.
edit on 1-12-2013 by Lazarus Short because: dum-de-dum



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
There is a minor stumbling block I rarely see addressed, yet has to be, if anything along this line of theory can ever be entertained.

4 plane loads of people took off that day. Everything from ground tapes of airport surveillance across common areas to the standard coverage of take-offs to include radar tapes all show that. I've never heard that disputed and it would be an enormous re-write of history to say that part didn't happen at all. Not least of which, to the families.

None of those people, to my knowledge, were ever seen or heard from again. If that isn't because their planes crashed that morning, as it would appear and seems obvious by all official evidence, what did happen to them?



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


Actually I was indirectly pointing to the laws of motion, whereby for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and where an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless it encounters a force of resistance, while at the same time showing the explosive occurrence of the actual destruction itself, and pointing out that this destructive process took place, from top to bottom, to within a mere few seconds, one, two, three, of absolute free fall from the same height for any object dropped through nothing but air alone, which is just over 10 seconds, given the extreme height of the towers when air resistance is factored in.

Initiated from around the level of impact, as per where the upgrades took place (same thing with the Pentagon), and then descending as an explosive debris wave all the way down the remaining structure, timed to coincide with a simulated "gravity collapse" in terms of what people were/are intended to assume, since the plane impacts are the only causal mechanism that people would assume to be the sole cause, yet at the same time violating the laws of physics in accordance with the official story, a BIG LIE easily fed to the people, and the world at large. Evil genius.

And lo and behold because we "KNOW" that there wasn't and couldn't have been a top-down controlled explosive demolition, as you say the NIST Report did not address the actual destruction of the buildings themselves only offering a "collapse initiation" hypothesis while stating that once the threshold for collapse initiation was reached what ensued as a "global collapse" was inevitable "as seen in the videos" but that's an assumption not founded on science and neither is it the least bit congruent to what's actually THERE or with the laws of motion.

Absent the use of explosives, the official story amounts to what can only be described, facetiously, as "The Foot of God" hypothesis.


Best Regards,

NAM



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

NewAgeMan


This is a reverse engineered analysis, starting with CD evidence and then moving backward


The problem with your theory is YOU because like many on here you seem to have no idea re construction, loadings, or structures in general.

There is NO cd evidence, it's people who think they see a cd and ignore everything else.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


No one's saying, Wrabbit, that those things didn't happen ie: planes boarded, even hijacked.

See this, from the OP, as to the means and the opportunity while bearing in mind the 9/11 War Games Operations, which involved the very thing that happened and which were "in play" ON 9/11.



Operation Northwood (pdf)
www2.gwu.edu...

Flight of the Bumble Planes
www.public-action.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Your dark circle under the plane looks like a shadow to me!





new topics




 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join