May 30, 2006

Controversy and 911

I watched this film the other day on the recommendation of Scott. The basic idea is that 911 was planned by, and carried out by, the American government. The guy makes some compelling arguments but for me the most interesting thing was to see all the people who were in the building at the time talking about all the smaller explosions inside the WTC from the lower floors and how the destruction looked, sounded like and acted like a controlled demolition. It does certainly make you feel like it was planned from the inside at the highest levels.

It's worth pointing out that I have read testimony from people who were at the pentagon on the day who said that it smelt like airplane fuel… I guess it's up to you and who you believe.

The film is over an hour long but it is well worth watching it. You can download it from google videos; just click the download button on the right side of the page. see link below: link.


- 33 comments by 3 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. I've seen it before. The argument over the WTC has always struck me as the weakest. The pentagon was a slightly more "interesting" situation, the video of that was finally released after 5 years not too long ago, but not of high enough quality to determine anything (the whole plane/missile argument).

    In regards to the windows popping out that you mention, it's to do with the floor above compressing the air in the floor below, the air has nowhere to go and so blows the windows out.

    If you were trying to convince the public that terrorists had attacked surely 2 planes flying into the WTC would be sufficient.

    30 May 2006, 23:13

  2. I wasn't really talking about the windows in the WTC (I wasn't very convinced by that – the blasts would be at the core of the building), more that a lot of people were saying that they heard explosions for lower floors, that buildings just don't fall down like that when they set on fire that far up, that planes crash into buildings fairly often and nothing like this happens, that one of the people who was surveying the building first said that there was no way the heat from a fire could weaken that steal but then changed his mind but most of all that the fire fighter who was there got up to the floor where the fire was on and said that he could put it out fairly easily.

    It all seemed a bit suspect to me, although, as you say, the windows were the least convincing part.

    30 May 2006, 23:39

  3. The explanations of the failure mechanics of the WTC I've heard explain it pretty well… it's too late, and I'm not thinking about anything non–exam related at the moment, but basically these conspiracy theorists generally ignore all the compelling evidence for a few anomalous bits of unqualified junk.

    31 May 2006, 00:03

  4. People also said they saw a man on the grassy knowl. Eye witness testominies are notoriously unrelliable, sound witness' even less. Most buildings would fail in the way that the WTC did but then most buildings were not constructed in the same mannor. Why would the WTC not collapse inwards? Why would it explode outwards? It is thought that the impact, along with poor maintance, ment that the beams were not properly fire protected. When you heat steel it loses it's structural intergrity, even well below it's melting point. Furthermore, as it heats up it expands, causing internal stresses in the beams. This leads to the buckling of the beams supporting the floors, and the eventual collapse.

    The main question still remains, why bomb it when it only increases your chances of being caught? Surely 2 planes flying into a building would be a sufficient to "simulate" a terrorist attack?

    31 May 2006, 00:12

  5. Typo: Most buildings wouldn't fail in the way that the WTC did but then most buildings were not constructed in the same mannor.

    31 May 2006, 00:20

  6. " these conspiracy theorists generally ignore all the compelling evidence for a few anomalous bits of unqualified junk."..

    hmm, well to be honest, there's nothing wrong with asking a few questions. Here's my dramatised version of the conspiracy theorist's questions:

    Q:"This is the first time ANY modern skyscraper in the world collapsed to the ground due to fire. So how did it happen?"

    A:"Well, quite simple really. Heat softened the steel…err..a bit.. then one floor fell onto another, which collapsed that one, which collapsed the next one and so on. This is the first time in history this has happened from fire, so we came up with a nifty name, 'Pancaking'."

    Q:"But surely this would mean the buildings wouldn't fall at free–fall speed straight down, which is clearly the case."

    A:"Well… you see …err.. what happened was.. Quick! Look over there! It's someone threatening our national security" runs away

    Q"What the hell… that's just Yusef Islam, formally known as Cat Stevens… wtf, why is he being arrested at that airport?... wait a minute, where'd you go? What about the massive explosions on the lower floors? What about the Pentagon and Pensylvania planes that 'vapourised', leaving no trace? What about NORAD failing to act because it had an identical training simulation on at the same time on the west coast? What about Dick Cheney taking executive comand of the right to deploy F-16s to intercept aircraft just for that morning? What about George Bush's brother's contract for running security in the world trade centre expiring on september 11th 2001? What about the impossible phone calls made from the planes before they crashed (disregarding popular myth, it's impossible to make a mobile phone call at 20,000ft)? What about the flight recorders that were "lost"? What about the 'put' options (money on stock falling) placed on Boeing and American Airlines that were 5–8 times more than usual on september 10th?..."

    Too many questions unanswered. The problem is indeed they're anomalous.. What happened does not square witht he official explanation. Notice I'm not hypothesising about who did it or why, they're only questions, and the people in charge shouldn't be afraid of answering them.

    31 May 2006, 00:52

  7. Q:This is the first time ANY modern skyscraper in the world collapsed to the ground due to fire. So how did it happen?

    It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425C and loses about half of its strength at 650C. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low–wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one–fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
    The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield–level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non–uniform temperatures in the fire.
    The World Trade Centre was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature).

    For a more complete picture click the sources; Source 1, Source 2

    I believe it mentions that the Empire state building was also hit by a plane. It was, but not that mentioned by Lose Change, it stated it was hit by a B–52 when in fact it was hit by a B–25. A B–25 has a wingspan of 67ft compared to 156ft of a Boeing 767 (the planes that hit the WTC), a B–25 has a cruise speed of 230 mph compared to 550 mph of a 767, a B–25 has loaded (weight of plane + cargo) weight of 33,510lb compared to 312,000lb of a 767. So, not only are they structurally different buildings they were also hit by completely different planes.

    B-25 Specifications, Boeing 767 Specifications

    Q:"But surely this would mean the buildings wouldn't fall at free–fall speed straight down, which is clearly the case."

    As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.

    31 May 2006, 12:08

  8. It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free–fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

    The building did not fall at free fall speeds. They fell close to free fall speeds because the floors provided very little resistance to the above collapsed floors due to it's design. Furthurmore, look at pictures of the collapse, it can be seen that the external sections of the tower that fell fall faster than the tower itself.

    Source

    Q:What about the massive explosions on the lower floors?

    What about the man on the grassy knoll? I believe the only person to say, unprompted, that they heard an explosion lower down was a janitor. IIRC on the video someone asks "did you hear the second explosion?" (suggesting there was one) to which the reply is yes. In quite a traumatic and chaotic situation it is easy to confabulate events that didn't happen, especially when a suggestive question is asked. If we assume that there was an "explosion" on a lower floor then maybe the air conditioning generator was a bit over worked with the 90,000 litres of fuel burning up ahead and packed up. Other multiple "bombs" which were not specified to a location are probably due to the sound of the floors collapsing on the floor below, if you believe youre under attack from terrorists the first thing you'd assume is that they were bombs.

    Saying it looked like a controlled demolition is no proof, whatsoever, that it was. Controlled demolition isn't a simple process either. The question still remains, why bother with controlled demolition, which would only increase your chances of being caught? Flying 2 planes into a building is a visual enough "simulation" of a terrorist attack.

    Q:What about the Pentagon and Pensylvania planes that 'vapourised', leaving no trace?

    Video of plane vaporising upon impact

    Q:What about NORAD failing to act because it had an identical training simulation on at the same time on the west coast? What about Dick Cheney taking executive comand of the right to deploy F-16s to intercept aircraft just for that morning?

    I don't know much about these two incidents.

    Q:What about George Bush's brother's contract for running security in the world trade centre expiring on september 11th 2001?

    I believe the contract was ongoing, lasting forever or when the "buildings fell down", seeing as the towers "fell" on Sept 11 the contract for security was effectively terminated 9/11. As far as I am aware there was no pre arranged agreement to terminate the contract of security on 9/11.

    Q:What about the impossible phone calls made from the planes before they crashed (disregarding popular myth, it's impossible to make a mobile phone call at 20,000ft)?

    It is impossible to make phone calls at 20,000ft (or like a one in a thousand chance or something) but the planes descended to around 6,000ft before crashing, at such altitude phone calls are possible.

    Q:What about the flight recorders that were "lost"?

    Slightly suspicious.

    Q:What about the 'put' options (money on stock falling) placed on Boeing and American Airlines that were 5–8 times more than usual on September 10th?

    Completely circumstantial, it proves nothing.

    31 May 2006, 12:09

  9. Sorry for the tripple post but the character limited shouted at me.

    Notice I'm not hypothesising about who did it or why, they're only questions, and the people in charge shouldn't be afraid of answering them.

    Indeed, questions should be asked, the problem is many of them are answered, yet the answers are ignored.

    31 May 2006, 12:10

  10. My god, you're so "establishment"..

    Only kidding.. but seriously, good answers, I'm glad someone has given me them. I must say, I certainly haven't had such good answers before.
    Just a few points though, the plane 'vapourising' in the video didn't look as if it had two mofo engines on the side, and further more it didn't have two mofo engines vapourising without leaving any hole/damage on the object it was hitting… but, as you said before, the whole Pentagon thing is a bit more dodgy than the WTC.

    I accept your point about steel softening and the method of collapse, but tentatively, since I no nothing of the physics..but it seems pretty reasonable. The only anomally left is the firefighter who said over the radio that there were a couple of fires still burning, but he could easily put them out with 2 lines. Also, the people stranded, waving for help in the hole,where the plane entered one of the towers… didn't seems like a ragin inferno to me.

    However, perhaps the damage was already done, and the steel was softened enough..

    Giving the official story the benefit of the doubt, it still provided the "event on the order of Pearl Harbour" that was necessary to deploy the neo–con "New American Century" project of imperialism and resource war. And this is where we find ourselves today. Terrorism won, they got the fight they were looking for, they just needed a few Saudi nut–jobs to give them their excuse..

    31 May 2006, 13:19

  11. John

    Here is a nice link presenting evidence of the plane that crashed into the pentagon.

    link

    31 May 2006, 14:20

  12. James Taylor

    I've watched a few videos on this now and spent a bit of time reading various opinions on the various conspiracies. To be honest I do believe that there is something that the US Government just aren't telling us.. I used to subscribe to the notion that the entire thing was setup, but I heard one counter argument to it which made me rethink things a little which simply said that "Do you not think that of all the people that would have to have been involved to make this happen, that somewhere along the way not one person involved wasn't moral enough to realise what was happening and leak it to the national press?" – I guess that does make sense…

    But yeah – in my opinion there is definately more to 9/11 (all aspects of it) than I think that 'they' are letting on..

    31 May 2006, 14:41

  13. Popular Mechanics did a good series on this question:

    link

    31 May 2006, 14:42

  14. laura

    tsk.course it was a bloody conspiracy! obvious innit.

    31 May 2006, 17:49

  15. That was a very interesting watch.

    31 May 2006, 19:51

  16. Christopher Rossdale

    This is always an interesting one – and whilst it's a compelling read/watch/set of arguments, I really don't rate it that much – largely for the reasons given above. That said, I don't doubt that some important people knew that something big was brewing, and let it happen. The 911 report, general common sense and a look at the political capital that was quickly made (my favourite was Patricia Hewett's 'to prove that we're not weak, we're going to have another round of trade talks' – far more opportunistic than Byers's aide's comments that they should bury bad news). But a conspiracy….nah, too much at stake, too much to go wrong, no need. There are always terrorist groups planning attacks – why spend all that effort when you can just let it happen.

    31 May 2006, 20:43

  17. chris, you almost disapoint me. On my birthday you spent ages saying how it was a deffinate set up and the government did it all…

    for my part I'm not that sure about it – I know our neo–liberal brothers to the west can seem a little zelous at time but I'm not sure they would go that far, after all, we're the good guys, right? Still, I could easily fall out with the new right for their closeness to "new" "labour"... they better not make me become a democrat supporter.

    31 May 2006, 22:00

  18. Christopher Rossdale

    The more I think about it, the more logical it seems that they would wait and let it happen rather than orchestrate it.

    01 Jun 2006, 02:01

  19. James

    Conspiracy theories are impossible to disprove because anyone who disagrees is simply part of the conspiracy. And you can always find someone "in power" who would benefit from the conspiracy – in the case of Kennedy's assassination that might be the Russians, Cubans, Military–Industrial complex, LBJ supporters, Mafia and anyone else I forgot. In the case of the most ludicrous conspiracy theory ever – the moon landing – obviously NASA and all other Government contractors, as well as the US Government in general as it was in the midst of the cold war. The flip side of course is that many would also benefit from spreading the conspiracy – the tabloid media, 'investigative reporters' and underpaid academics who want to claim a scoop, and opponents of the government in every guise, be they extremists, bored students, or simply opposition politicians.

    On both sides all are guilty of what Jamie Whyte calls the 'motive fallacy' – just because it might benefit someone to make an argument does not prove or disprove anything. To take an obviously ridiculous example: I say that I directed the film Schindler's List, not Steven Spielberg. It suited Spielberg to claim that he did it, since he would stand to gain a lot of money and acclaim thereby, but that doesn't mean we should be sceptical, we can look at the evidence (his name on the credits, first hand testimony from those involved in the production, the lack of supporting evidence that it was in fact me who did it). We see this more often in moral arguments – "that's what Hitler said!" Perhaps so, but Hitler also thought that Berlin was in Germany, and that simple fact doesn't make it any less true that Berlin is in Germany.

    Then again, there is a related point that has already been referred to by others on this post, namely that any of these 'conspiracies' would involve the most enormous cover–up, and yet the only people willing to tell 'the truth' are a bunch of cranks like the ex–astro physicists living in trailer parks who witter on about cosmic radiation preventing the moon landings – despite the fact that the thousands of highly trained Russian scientists who would have been set up for life if they'd disproved the landings managed to miss it all.

    The reason a lot of these conspiracies gain currency is that people throw in a bit of science which, to the lay person, sounds very convincing. For example, "buildings don't collapse like the WTC, no other building hit by a plane has done, the pentagon footage looks like a missile" etc etc. Dan and others have already done a good job of presenting the opposing evidence. I will just add what I was told by two structural engineers quite independently of each other – that the WTC, unlike an English building, had no central concrete core, but was built with steel trusses which could not withstand the heat generated by the fire; that the fire protection on the relevant floors was blown away by the force of the impact; and that it wasn't designed with modern (much larger) aircraft collisions in mind. Bin Laden – an engineer by trade – was reported as saying he was surprised by the way it collapsed – no doubt in Saudi people still build with the central core as they do here.

    As for the Pentagon, we can reasonably assume that Rumsfeld would have been in on the conspiracy. Yet he showed up to work on the morning of 9/11 and was in the building. He survived as he was on the opposite side from the impact. He must have had real confidence in the execution of the attack (what was it supposed to be – Pentagon steered plane? Tomahawk missile?).

    01 Jun 2006, 11:27

  20. James

    I would add that the a 9/11 conspiracy would be a very silly way of doing what would have been a massively complex operation. First, you wouldn't ascribe it to someone hiding in Afghanistan; that was the last place America wanted to go to war (landlocked, no oil, far from any bases, few conventional targets, scrappy guerilla war waging away). Surely they'd have pinned it squarely on Iraq (battle plan already in place and lots of oil on offer), and orchestrated 9/11 to suit (paint a jet in Iraqi colours for a start). According to those who have spilled the beans on the Bush Administration, they were livid afterwards when it appeared to be the work of Bin Laden, because 'Afghanistan doesn't have enough targets'.

    After they knocked over the Taliban and got bored looking for Bin Laden, they had unrequited anger, were absurdly paranoid about Saddam's potential threat, wanted a show of strength, fancied securing the oil, and had vague notions of 'democratising' the Middle East. And, in the case of those like Cheny, had something to gain personally by way of Halliburton. So they decided on knocking over Saddam. Blair wanted to go along, because he believed that, in the end, Britain's security depended on America (which it might with conventional threats – of which none are on the horizon – but does not, IMO, with regard to terrorism; you can't make a B–52 strike on Finsbury in the hope of knocking out the mosque). He managed to convince the US to go the UN route, for which they had to find a hook, which was WMD. The Americans blazed on ahead anyway when the UN vote failed and the rest, of course, is history. The great shame is that no–one seemed prepared to admit that as far as the "war on terror" was concerned, Saddam was actually an ally – he ruthlessly crushed religious extremism because his sole aim was remaining in power, and he knew religious zealots were a threat. That's why the US had supported him until August 1990. As to the chances of him passing WMD if he had any (which he did once, and might have again had sanctions been lifted, though that's a long way from the 45 minute claim!) to some sort of terror group, the answer is the same as with Castro supporting the assassination of Kennedy – why be so stupid, when your sole aim is power, and you know the Americans are just itching to depose you given any opportunity. So why give them the excuse? (now you see how motives cut both ways with conspiracy theories).

    Sorry for wandering a bit off topic, I just wanted to set out why I am not a supporter of the Bush regime, so that no–one lumps me with the motive fallacy!!

    01 Jun 2006, 11:28

  21. James

    Oh and one last thing – why aren't we being told everything? Because the authorities don't want to appear incompetent in not catching the perpetrators before it happened. That would be a bit harsh (who imagined there was such a threat on the way, and who would have believed it if they'd arrested 19 individuals and made claims about mass suicide attacks on important landmarks), as it is a bit harsh on MI5 for not concluding one of the 7/7 bombers was a threat a year before he became one.

    01 Jun 2006, 11:32

  22. John

    as a quick aside – "It suited Spielberg to claim that he did it, since he would stand to gain a lot of money" well according to imdb.com:

    "At [Spielberg's] insistence, all royalties and residuals from this film that would normally have gone to director Steven Spielberg instead are given to the Shoah Foundation, which records and preserves written and videotaped testimonies from survivors of genocide worldwide, including the Holocaust."

    01 Jun 2006, 22:24

  23. James

    Thanks for the pedantry. Of course, I could still argue that Spielberg's image went up as a result of the film, meaning he could ask for a bigger budget and a bigger fee for his next one. Instead can someone edit the post and put in Jaws or Duel (both much better films anyway) instead.

    02 Jun 2006, 13:17

  24. John

    link

    04 Jun 2006, 23:05

  25. James

    Good link, although nothing will convince diehard conspiracy theorists. And of course not all of them (if any of them) will actually read it. Just the same as the BBC did a very good debunking of all of the major planks of the Kennedy conspiracy, but I wonder how many people bothered watching it. They could always rent the ridiculous Oliver Stone film instead and hear what they want to be told.

    06 Jun 2006, 14:43

  26. I just found this page last night, he goes through in a systematic way and refutes pretty much all of what is said. Yes it's very agressive in its assertions (or facts) – but that could just be because because he feels strongly about the issue.

    One my my favorite bits was the gold amounts which they claimed was under the WTC; it set off my bull–poo alarm. Claiming that there was $160 billion… not only would that have such a crazy amount of weight to it – I make it about 200,599 long tons which is a lot, far more than could be moved even by a sustained effort from large trucks – it is also more than 50% of the worlds gold (as of 2001)

    anyway; website (the words in coloured blocks are his) link

    06 Jun 2006, 21:04

  27. From the Loose Change "viewer's guide":

    You must be thinking of the old Pentagon, which was made of balsa wood and marshmallows.

    brilliant..

    The link posted by John above also has a good quote:

    Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia.

    …I'd like to think my view never got beyond skepticism, but all the links/info posted here has clarified the official version for me. All the theories in Loose Change 'make sense' on the first viewing (to the leyman anyhoo), so you would have to pardon me on that…unfortunately I'm always partial to good production values and a good soundtrack..

    06 Jun 2006, 21:50

  28. you're right Scott, the music was quite good… you can actually download it from the site I think.

    I just like my conspiracy theories I guess… anyone ever thought that it might have been done by the giant lizard people? you know… the ones that killed princess di…

    06 Jun 2006, 22:03

  29. John

    I guess
    … anyone ever thought that it might have been done by the giant lizard people? you know… the ones that killed princess di…

    Now that you mention it…

    06 Jun 2006, 22:28

  30. John

    I guess anyone ever thought that it might have been done by the giant lizard people? you know, the ones that killed princess di.

    Now that you mention it…

    06 Jun 2006, 22:29

  31. Hamid Sirhan

    Another interesting film to watch is V for Vendetta… some interesting geopolitical analogies.

    07 Jun 2006, 20:39

  32. In regards to the windows popping out that you mention, it's to do with the floor above compressing the air in the floor below, the air has nowhere to go and so blows the windows out.

    However, the video clearly shows the minor explosions occuring only with a few of the windows … not the entire floor, as I imagined would be the case for air above being compressed at fast speeds being forced out of the building. That would be my instinct, but what do the engineers think?

    In general, I think the documentary presents a rather plausible case.

    Which brings up the line from V For Vendetta, "if the govt murdered over a hundred thousand of its own citizens, would you really want to know?".

    08 Jun 2006, 17:55

  33. James

    Read the link at 24 above. This is an example of what I mentioned in the fourth para of post 19 – a little bit of science thrown in to make the conspiracy sound plausible. We have the same with the Kennedy assassination and – par excellence – the moon landing. Things like 'it was impossible for anyone to shoot three rounds with that old Italian bolt–action rifle as Oswald is supposed to have done' – no it isn't, he was an ex–Marine and the accurate measurement of the timing of the shots shows it was entirely possible. Or you have Oliver Stone's lie about the 'magic bullet' – the climax of his film more or less. All premised on the other person sitting directly in front of Kennedy, which he wasn't.

    09 Jun 2006, 09:58


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

Our Society

This is the blog of the International Current Affairs Society at Warwick. Any member can contribute, and anybody at all can comment on the entries.

Please see the ‘About Us’ link to find out more information about what we do.

May 2006

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
|  Today  | Jun
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31            

Search this blog

Blog archive

Loading…

Most recent comments

  • Perhaps the monitors were paid more because they would need to be relatively strong and smart. If yo… by on this entry
  • these 'firms' would hire a 16th man, who would typically be paid more then the others It would inte… by on this entry
  • Many one–way systems in this country have been designed with only motorists in mind. In countries su… by on this entry
  • I think the funniest thing about this was boris johson's responce. When asked what he thought he sai… by Scott on this entry
  • all part of getting rid of the small farmers independence. example, USA 1930's. on my travels, i not… by cal on this entry

Tags

Tracker

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIX