Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

by **Qutb** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:32 am

I think the totality of the evidence is pretty convincing. For one thing, flight controllers tracked it on radar almost all the way. I also don't really see the point of using a drone. If they swithced planes, that means Flight 77 must have been remote controlled... so why not just slam it into the Pentagon. Much simpler. Every passenger and crew member was identified by DNA analysis by the way (which is meticulous work), so that whole process must have been faked as well. I don't see any good reason to doubt it was Flight 77, other than "the Government always lies". FWIW, John Judge wrote that he's been told that a missile from the Pentagon's air defense system hit the plane before it struck the building. This is supposedly why the videos were confiscated and haven't been released (I assume because everything about the air defense system is classified).

by **NewKid** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think the totality of the evidence is pretty convincing. For one thing, flight controllers tracked it on radar almost all the way. I also don't really see the point of using a drone. If they swithced planes, that means Flight 77 must have been remote controlled... so why not just slam it into the Pentagon. Much simpler.<hr></blockquote> I don't think any of that is necessarily true. As for why not slam it, good question. Perhaps to muddy the waters. Not much mud if everyone sees the plane. We're also assuming everything went as planned. But why the hell did the Pentagon not get hit first anyway? Why not hit it first, and then argue, oh gee, they took out our eyes and ears and that's why we couldn't scramble jets to New York? The why not? game is too speculative and doesn't establish proof of anything. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Every passenger and crew member was identified by DNA analysis by the way (which is meticulous work), so that whole process must have been faked as well.<hr></blockquote> Pretty easy if there's no DNA there to test. Irrespsective of the arguments that claim this is impossible, are you familiar with the track record of certain DNA labs in garden variety criminal cases? Can we really be sure any of this actually happened? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>FWIW, John Judge wrote that he's been told that a missile from the Pentagon's air defense system hit the plane before it struck the building. This is supposedly why the videos were confiscated and haven't been released (I assume because everything about the air defense system is classified). <hr></blockquote> Unfortunately, John Judge's writings on this topic aren't worth very much to me. In addition to being radically implausible, it doesn't explain the absence of any other video footage from regular people. Moreover, it's not at all what the govt says in their briefing papers. (And yes, the govt will say it's classified in papers if they need to.) But I think the main problem with what you're saying is that it starts with the assumption that flight 77 did hit, and shifts the burden on people to knock it down. We're all certainly entitled to disagree on the weight of evidence, but from what I've seen of Hoffman, et al. there's not even a remotely convincing case that a plane did hit. Nor is there by the way, a convincing case that something else happened. The only thing I think we can safely say is that Hani Hanjour wasn't flying that day.

by **NewKid** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:18 am

BTW, does anyone know what happened to the Salters? Are they still around?

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:08 am

the absence of any other video footage from regular people I don't see the benefit of swapping out Flight 77 when the aircraft could be controlled just as easily from the ground. And all it would take to destroy the illusion was one regular person with a video camera. They had no means of controlling that variable. I can't imagine they would have run such a high risk for so little return. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 3/3/06 2:11 am

by **NewKid** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:35 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I don't see the benefit of swapping out Flight 77 when the aircraft could be controlled just as easily from the ground. And all it would take to destroy the illusion was one regular person with a video camera. They had no means of controlling that variable. I can't imagine they would have run such a high risk for so little return. <hr></blockquote> I'm not sure I'm on the same page with you here, but I think it depends on what you mean by swapping out. If it means diverting flight 77 somewhere else and then driving another plane, drone, or object into the Pentagon, then yes, under normal circumstances, I think it would be a loose end to have the potential for anybody to video something other than flight 77 hitting the pentagon. However, if what damaged the pentagon was purely internal, then there would be nothing for anyone to film until after the fact. Nobody would have their cameras out if nothing was in the sky approaching. And again, we're all assuming a normal state of affairs, without considering any of the more technologically exotic options. The MindFreak can levitate people in the middle of the street; David Copperfield can make the statue of liberty disappear; in an era of reality deregulation, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"It Is possible to create an incident . . . <hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 3/3/06 2:36 am

by **apeguia** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:15 am

Quote: 9/11 "truth" upon the sand of physical evidence. The "no plane" hypothesis (more than a hypothesis for many; more like an unforgiving creed) is one of the most egregious missteps. One I believe encouraged, if not led, by COINTELPRO.>> Hi. I usually agree with everything you write about in your blog (it is Jeff, right?), but not on this one, respectfully. I do believe that physical evidence is the strongest; witnesses can lie, failure from the authorities to do this or that may be attributed to 'human error' or 'unfortunate coincidence', but physical evidence cannot be denied. If only physical evidence was properly examined. For me the bottom line is this one: A jetliner the size of a passenger plane cannot fit through the original hole on the Pentagon wall. Maybe the cabin could, but not along with the engines, the wings and the tail. Maybe the walls were reinforced with steel and only the cabin could penetrate them, but the engines, the wings and the tail did not even leave a mark on the walls, nor did the windows break, nor was the grass damaged, etc. Also, in the article I posted, there's a picture of the hole that one of the airplanes left on WTC. It is comparably much bigger than the one in the Pentagon, and the shape of the tip of the wings can even be seen. Why is there not even superficial damage on the wall of the Pentagon, appart from the original small hole? For me, this is the most 'in your face' kind of evidence against the official 9/11 story. "shutting down" discussion. Far from it. There ought to be room for disagreement when speculating about the mechanics of 9/11. I hope those who believe they know what happened will allow such a discussion without descending to personal attack and presumption of "disinfo.">> Agreed. Thank you. I personally don't know what happened that day, but I have become convinced of what did NOT happen, i.e. the official version of the story. In the case of the Pentagon strike, I can only speculate what hit it, but because of many physical pieces of evidence, I think I know that it was not a passenger plane. A.

by **apeguia** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:13 pm

Quote: 77 when the aircraft could be controlled just as easily from the ground.>> That's a good observation. My hypothesis is that they were afraid that a real plane of that size would create more damage than desired. It's the Pentagon, after all, and we all agree that it was an inside job, don't we? If they decided to hit it, at least they would try to do it in a controlled way, limiting the damage to the targeted section that was under renovation. Rumsfeld was in his office, wasn't he? Probably the man was worried about his personal safety! > Well, they did control the variable of the videos that they won't release to the public! I get the impression that their arrogance leads them to commit some pretty outrageous and risky things. That's why we know about all the holes in the official story, because they trust their 'winners' luck', and then people who care to pay attention notice their mistakes. As for the photos of the damage inside the Pentagon, bear in mind that maybe it was indeed some kind of aircraft that hit it afterall, with tyres and everything, only a much smaller one. A drone, probably with a limited amount of explosives. I personally don't think it was a missile as such (though Rummy himself did call it that way). The article I posted discusses those photos in more detail ( <a href="http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm">signs-of-the-times.org/si...rticle.htm</a> ). A.

by **NewKid** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:43 pm

Sunny posted this in another thread. Interesting to see this as W's pants are getting pulled down right now on everything else. Whatever you think of Judicial Watch, they are a fairly "mainstream" group. Ignore for a minute the truth of what's being asserted in here and note the tone of the press release, considering the gravity of the allegations. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Experts Call for Release of 9/11 Evidence Wed Mar 1, 7:00 AM ET March 1, 2006 -- A society of experts and scholars has now joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of videos that are being held by the Department of Defense, which are essential to understanding events at the Pentagon that transpired on September 11, 2001. Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and establishing truths about the events of 9/11, has gone beyond Judicial Watch by calling for the release of other films and evidence that, its officers maintain, are essential to understanding 9/11. "It is outrageous that the government is withholding this vital information", said James H. Fetzer, founder and co-chair of the society. "This concerns one of the monstrous events of our time and deserves to be in the public domain." The group, whose members include such prominent figures as David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, John McMurtry, Wayne Madsen, Robert Bowman, Webster Tarpley, and Andreas von Buelow, has been speaking out against what its own research suggests has been complicity by elements of the administration in the crime. They are calling for immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tape as well as video tapes seized by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit; a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from Flights 11, 77, 93, 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to their location (whether warehoused or otherwise), catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any items from the planes, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of these items. Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit demanding that DoD release its film footage. In addition, the scholars call for the release of a complete inventory of any steel, other metal, or other materials from the World Trade Center, including, but not limited to the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items, catalog of photographs and videotapes of any items from the scene, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of those items. Judy Wood, a professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University and a full member of the society of scholars, has emphasized the importance of this material for those studying the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. "This material has the potential to resolve crucial questions about the forces that were responsible for the buildings' fall, including the possible use of incendiaries and explosives", she observed. "It is of great importance that we have access to it." They also call for release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST; tape recordings of interviews by air traffic controllers, at least some of which were deliberately destroyed while in the possession of representatives of the government; a complete accounting of "terror drills" that were being conducted that morning, which may have been used to mask the attack; the cockpit voice recorders and other "black boxes", three of four of which are reported to have survived the Twin Towers' collapse; and other related evidence. According to Professor Fetzer, the SEC possesses knowledge of "put options" on American and United Airlines, which are suggestive of advanced knowledge that the attacks would take place;Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta gave very important testimony to The 9/11 Commission, which it chose not to include in its report; and the Secret Service conducted itself in a manner suggesting that it knew there was no serious threat to the President, even following the attacks in New York, while the Commander-in-Chief ignored the unfolding drama. "We are inclined to believe that these events were orchestrated by the Bush administration in order to instill fear in the American people," Fetzer said. "The use of violence and threats of violence to manipulate a populace based on fear," he observed, "is the definition of terrorism. The release of this vital evidence will help to confirm or to dispel our concerns about what happened on 9/11." Added Wood, "The American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history. If the government has nothing to hide, it should have no objections to releasing all this evidence for experts and scholars to study." Fetzer also noted today's Zogby International Poll, which shows that 90% of American troops in Iraq believe that they are fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11. "This would be funny if it weren't so sad", Fetzer said. "The administration falsely linked Iraq to 9/11 even though it knew better", he remarked. "Even the Osama Bin Laden 'confession tape' appears to have been faked. We want to know the identity of those who perpetrated these despicable acts." Scholars for 9/11 Truth maintains its own public web site at www.st911.org. Documentary support for its request is available at www.st911.org/petition/. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060301/bs_prweb/prweb352979_1" target="top">news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060301/bs_prweb/prweb352979_1</a>

by **NewKid** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:23 pm

Judicial Watch Press Release <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Against Defense Department for Withholding Video of 9/11 Attack on Pentagon DOD has "no legal basis" to refuse release of videotape (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit on February 22, 2006 against the Department of Defense to force the release of a video that allegedly shows United [sic] Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Judicial Watch seeks the information in part to help put to rest conspiracy theories that a government drone or missile hit the Pentagon rather than the hijacked United [sic] airplane. Judicial Watch originally filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to camera recordings from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Department of Defense admitted in a January 26, 2005 letter that it possessed a videotape responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. However, the Pentagon advised that the video is exempt from release because it is, “part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui.” Judicial Watch argues in its lawsuit that “there is no legal basis” for the DOD’s refusal to release the videotape. First, while the Freedom of Information Act does allow an exemption for ongoing law enforcement investigations, the Defense Department does not have law enforcement authority over Moussaoui. That belongs to the Department of Justice or the FBI. Second, the investigation of Moussaoui is complete. He pleaded guilty in April 2005 to conspiring with al-Qaida to fly planes into U.S. buildings. Jury selection in Moussaoui’s death penalty trial is nearly finished, and opening arguments are scheduled for March 6. “There is no legal or rational basis for the Department of Defense to withhold this video,” said JW President Tom Fitton. “There may be nothing of importance on this tape, but our experience has been that whenever the government takes extraordinary measures to keep the lid on documents, it is worth investigating.” A copy of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against the Defense Department and the original FOIA request is available for review on Judicial Watch’s Internet site, www.judicialwatch.org. Judicial Watch a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/5724.shtml">www.judicialwatch.org/5724.shtml</a> Lawsuit (pdf) <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/DOD-complaint.pdf" target="top">www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/DOD-complaint.pdf</a> FYI, note who the judge is here. It's the same one from the Scooter Libby case. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 3/3/06 11:26 am

by **NewKid** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:52 am

Probably not news to anyone here, but Paul Craig Roberts has some good comments in Counterpunch in an article on phony economic numbers: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>When I held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, I saw internal memos describing the grants CSIS could receive from the George H.W. Bush administration in exchange for removing me from the Simon chair. In America "truth" has long been for sale. We see it in expert witness testimony, in the corrupt reports from forensic labs that send innocent people to prison, and even in policy disputes among scientists themselves. In scholarship, ideas that are too challenging to prevailing opinion have a rough row to hoe and often cannot get a hearing. Even the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, an academic economist of some note and a former Secretary of the Treasury, was forced to resign because he offered a politically incorrect hypothesis about the relative scarcity of women in science. The few reporters and columnists who are brave or naive enough to speak out are constrained by editors who are constrained by owners and advertisers. For example, it is impermissible to examine the gaping holes in the 9/11 Commission Report. Publications and editors are intimidated by the charge of "conspiracy theory," just as criticism of Israel is muted for fear of being labeled "anti-semitic." All of these reasons and others make truth a scarce commodity. Censorship exists everywhere and is especially heavy in the US mainstream media.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03022006.html" target="top">www.counterpunch.org/roberts03022006.html</a>

by **gotnoscript** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:29 am

I have to put my two cents worth in because I don't think it's been mentioned. If the conspirators could confiscate all the videos of whatever hit the Pentagon, they could surely plant "witnesses" as well. This is a COINTELPRO tactic and, in my opinion, has been seriously overlooked by the proponents that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon based on eyewitness reports. That leaves only the "sands of facts".

by **NewKid** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:22 am

Certainly possible, Gotnoscript, certainly possible: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Consider the following list of self-described witnesses: Gary Bauer, Paul Begala, Bobby Eberle, Mike Gerson, Alfred Regnery, and Greta Van Susteren. Many of them need no introduction, but let's run through the list anyway: Gary Bauer: Talking head and former Republican presidential candidate who has been linked to the notorious Project for a New American Century. Paul Begala: Democratic Party operative and nominally liberal punching bag on CNN's "Crossfire." Bobby Eberle: President and CEO of GOPUSA, a portal of right-wing propaganda. Mike Gerson: Director of George W. Bush's speech writing staff. Alfred Regnery: President of Regnery Publishing, another portal of right-wing propaganda -- one that has seen fit to bestow upon the world the literary stylings of Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans, and numerous other accomplished liars. Greta Van Susteren: Nominally liberal legal analyst for Fox News. I don't know if the Tattoo theorists are aware of this, but all of the people on that list share at least one thing in common: they are all professional liars. It is their job, individually and collectively, to lie to the American people. On a daily basis. They are, by any objective appraisal, propagandists for the state. So if all of them are selling the same story, in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, it is probably best to assume that they might not be telling the truth. Let's take a look now at some of the other people that are hawking the same story: Dennis Clem, Penny Elgas, Albert Hemphill, Lincoln Leibner, Stephen McGraw, Mitch Mitchell, Patty Murray, Rick Renzi, James Robbins, Meseidy Rodriguez, Darb Ryan, Elizabeth Smiley, and Clyde Vaughn. And who are they? Allow me to handle the introductions: Dennis Clem is a Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Penny Elgas sits on the FDIC Advisory Committee on Banking Policy, alongside of Jean Baker, who just happens to be the Chief of Staff at the Office of President George H.W. Bush. Albert Hemphill is a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Captain (now Major) Lincoln Leibner is a communications officer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Stephen McGraw is a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney reborn as an Opus Dei priest. Colonel Mitch Mitchell serves as a CBS News war spinner military consultant. Patty Murray is a United States Senator (D-Washington). Rick Renzi is a United States Congressman (R-Arizona). James Robbins is a contributor to National Review, a national security analyst, and a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council (I, by the way, have decided that I should refer to myself as a Senior Fellow at the Center for an Informed America). I'm not sure exactly who Meseidy Rodriguez is, but his name appears in legal filings concerning Dick Cheney's top-secret energy policy meetings, which probably isn't a good sign. Vice Admiral Darb Ryan is the Chief of U.S. Naval Personnel. Elizabeth Smiley is an intelligence operations specialist with Civil Aviation Security at FAA headquarters -- which means that she is one of the people who inexplicably failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001, possibly because she was busy watching phantom jetliners crashing into the Pentagon. Brig. General Clyde A. Vaughn is the deputy director of military support to civil authorities -- which means that he is another one of the people who inexplicably failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001, possibly because he was also busy watching phantom jetliners crashing into the Pentagon. Anybody see anyone on that list that they would want to buy a used car from? No? How about Colonel Bruce Elliot or Major Joseph Candelario? Or Lt. Cols. Stuart Artman or Frank "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head" Probst? Still no? Then how about Elaine McCusker, a Co-Chairman of the Coalition for National Security Research? Or retired Naval Commanders Donald Bouchoux or Lesley Kelly? How about Shari Taylor, a finance manager at the Defense Intelligence Agency, or Philip Sheuerman, the Associate General Counsel for the U.S. Air Force? How about any of the names on this list: Bob Dubill, Mary Ann Owens, Richard Benedetto, Christopher Munsey, Vin Narayanan, Joel Sucherman, Mike Walter, Steve Anderson, Fred Gaskins and Mark Faram? Aside from claiming to have witnessed the attack on the Pentagon, what do these ten people have in common? snip Despite the dubious nature of Mr. Faram's account, he did at least provide us with some useful important information -- specifically, that USA Today and Navy Times are both part of the Gannett family of news outlets. Actually, if Faram weren't so modest, he would have noted that Gannett also publishes Air Force Times, Army Times, Marine Corp Times, Armed Forces Journal, Military Market, Military City, and Defense News. In other words, it's just your typical independent, civilian media organization. Having established that, let's now take a look at who our group of mystery witnesses are (or who they were at the time of the Pentagon attack): Bob Dubill was the executive editor for USA Today. Mary Ann Owens was a journalist for Gannett. Richard Benedetto was a reporter for USA Today. Christopher Munsey was a reporter for Navy Times. Vin Narayanan was a reporter for USA Today. Joel Sucherman was a multimedia editor for USA Today. Mike Walter was a reporter for USA Today. Steve Anderson was the director of communications for USA Today. Fred Gaskins was the national editor for USA Today. Mark Faram was a reporter for Navy Times. Is it just me, or does anyone else detect a pattern here? Now, it is my understanding that the Tattoo theorists claim, for the most part, not to be 'coincidence theorists.' So, I guess that the question that I have is this: exactly how many Gannett reporters and editors does it take to make a conspiracy? I could accept that maybe two or three of them might have been, purely by chance, in position to witness the attack on the Pentagon. Hell, being an open-minded kind of guy, I might even be willing to go as high as four or five. But ten?! Ten?! What are the odds that ten of the alleged Pentagon witnesses would be from the same news organization? Perhaps some readers are thinking that maybe there is a simple explanation for this statistical aberration -- like maybe the Gannett building is ideally located to provide a view of the attack, or maybe everyone was riding together on a Gannett ride-sharing bus. But neither of those appear to be the case, since only one of the ten Gannett journalists claims to have witnessed the attack from his office, while all the rest maintain that they just happened to be positioned in various strategic locations near the Pentagon. So unless USA Today staff was holding its annual company picnic on the Pentagon lawn that morning, it seems to me that there is something seriously wrong with this story. Amazingly enough, no fewer than five of those ten Gannett reporters and editors (Benedetto, Munsey, Narayanan, Sucherman and Walter) were able to specifically identify the plane that they saw as an American Airlines jet, and a sixth (Faram) managed to capture the only known photographic images of something vaguely resembling a twisted piece of wreckage from an American Airlines jet! I have to note here that it's a damn good thing that we had proactive and incredibly observant reporters like the USA Today staff swarming all over the scene of a pending national tragedy. I guess that when you're a seasoned professional, you just have a sixth sense about where to be and when to be there. That's probably why Eugenio Hernandez and Dave Winslow, two Associated Press reporters, were also on the scene to witness the attack. Hernandez, by the way, is a video journalist -- but not the kind of video journalist who shot any actual video footage. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html" target="top">www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html</a>

by **sunny** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:37 am

Yeesh! Were there any mechanics or waitresses on hand to witness the attack on the Pentagon?

by **Qutb** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:16 pm

I doubt USA Today is in on the 9/11 conspiracy... I don't think it's such a mystery that there were many military people in the vicinity of the Pentagon either.

by **dbeach** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:49 pm

babs olson died in pentagon crash teddy olson who helped INSTALL bush in 2000 says he received phone call from babs ..BUT there is no documented evidence of this alleged call..Her call pivots the OGCT of 9/11 and allows the story to flow ALL THE PLAYERS WERE IN PLACE on 9/11

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Re: Oh, No, Girlfrien' You Did'n....

Re: Oh, No, Girlfrien' You Did'n....

Re: Oh, No, Girlfrien' You Did'n....

I think this is important:

Re: I think this is important:

Re: Analysis of eyewitness statements

Re: I think this is important

Re: I think this is important

Re: I think this is important

Re: I think this is important

Re: Witnesses

Re: Witnesses

Re: Witnesses

Re: Witnesses

Re: Witnesses

Who is online