International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

bknight 6th March 2020 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13011878)
Some of us think of that as a service we provide, free of charge, to that someone else. If they're arguing pointlessly here, they don't have time to irritate anyone who matters.

Dave

Additionally, while yankee's believes are probably NOT going to change by debunking his/her beliefs I believe it a critical necessity to show those that may be on the fence or undecided that beliefs have no basis in science to be believed by others. :)

Jack by the hedge 6th March 2020 09:30 AM

Plus it's funny.

turingtest 6th March 2020 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 13012022)
Plus it's funny.

This too- you can think of ISF as your station for "Conspiracy Theorists Say The Darndest Things."

Jack by the hedge 6th March 2020 10:12 AM

Exactly. It's kind of a guilty pleasure. When someone comes back and back to stubbornly defend a preposterous position it has something of the appeal of a verbal Chuck Jones cartoon.

Of course one doesn't have any nagging worries about the mental health of Wile E Coyote, whereas some conspiracy theorists hereabouts over the years (present company excepted, make no doubt) do make one wonder if arguing with them is unkind.

Leftus 6th March 2020 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13011878)
Some of us think of that as a service we provide, free of charge, to that someone else. If they're arguing pointlessly here, they don't have time to irritate anyone who matters.

Dave

Also if left unchallenged, then some lurker might be left with just one side of the story and think that maybe Yankee is on to something. He isn't. Much like religious debates, the goal is not to sway Yankee but the audience.

Yankee isn't going to be reasoned out of his unreasonable conclusions. He starts with the belief that it wasn't a plane and then has to invent more and more outlandish scenarios. While it's theoretically possible to do some CGI, we have people who were there, on the ground, in the buildings who did not experience it thousands of miles away through a TV camera. So that reality has to be disposed of as well.

One reason I go with my Rodan theory is that it's a better fit than missiles. And only a bit more unrealistic. Maybe not, the methods that Yankee is trying to sell aren't any more of a fantasy than Rodan. There are holes in the missile theory. There are none in the Rodan theory. The question of Rodan's existence is a feature, not a bug.

Axxman300 6th March 2020 11:38 AM

Another reason is to draw the CTist out long enough to expose their thought process and bias. We learn what they think they know vs what they actually know.

Plus Yankee has been kicked out of most of the 911-Truth message boards so the fact this is one of the few places he can spew his satire is sweet irony.

smartcooky 6th March 2020 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zelda19678 (Post 13011874)
I'm Ms Lurk-a-lot and don't post much- but is it just me who thinks that if no one replied to Yankee-he'd realise he's not getting the attention he so obviously craves, and go bother someone else? Or am I just being too simplistic? I bow down to everyones patience though. I don't have any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13011878)
Some of us think of that as a service we provide, free of charge, to that someone else. If they're arguing pointlessly here, they don't have time to irritate anyone who matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 13012160)
Another reason is to draw the CTist out long enough to expose their thought process and bias. We learn what they think they know vs what they actually know.

Plus Yankee has been kicked out of most of the 911-Truth message boards so the fact this is one of the few places he can spew his satire is sweet irony.

Not to mention that allowing him to spout his spurious claptrap unchallenged would mean that lurkers and Googlers who find this thread and others like it, might consider that we have no answers. By arguing against his BS, we help to prevent others at risk of falling down the rabbit hole, from doing so.

At one time, I was a dyed-in-the-wool, confirmed and certified, second-gunman-on-the-grassy-knoll JFK assassination conspiracy theorist. It was, among other things, a discussion board like this one that helped me to turn away from JFK conspiracy nutjobbery.


ETA: semi-ninja'd by Leftus

ETA: and bknight

smartcooky 6th March 2020 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zelda19678 (Post 13011890)
Ah, thanks- I get it now. Although I must say, I learn a lot from the replies so look very clever when someone starts spouting CT nonsense at me.

Cheers :-)


Well there you go, see? Mission accomplished

yankee451 6th March 2020 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wowbagger (Post 13009253)
Look, the document you presented to me earlier only listed one thing that could go wrong if they don't use planes. There were, in fact, MANY things that could go wrong with such a plan. I listed several possibilities, myself. (The rehearsal staff alerting everyone of what they did, the timing of the release of "live" fake footage being very tight, things going wrong with planting evidence, etc.)

Here's a question of mine, that you haven't really answered:

If the report doesn't cover all of those concerns, and possibly others, how are we supposed to trust it?

You can't merely handwave all of those issues by saying "people will do what they're told" and "they're not as independent as you think". Those aren't smart risks for an evil overlord to take. And, they don't really address the quality of that document, anyway.

And, to answer THIS question, in particular, you can't just claim "evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles". That doesn't answer MY question.

Mine is a question about the reliability of the document you presented.

Can you give us a compelling answer for that?

I didn't write the article. The evidence in the impact holes makes your complaints moot.

Leftus 6th March 2020 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13012253)
I didn't write the article. The evidence in the impact holes makes your complaints moot.

Please quit ducking the evidence those impact holes were created by Rodan. Thanks.

Jack by the hedge 6th March 2020 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13012253)
I didn't write the article. The evidence in the impact holes makes your complaints moot.

Exactly. Everything that makes your hypothesis hilariously absurd may be ignored because your ideosynchratic assessment of a grainy photo says the damage wasn't caused by a plane. Q.E.D. If it requires you to believe six impossible things before breakfast, so be it. Your photoanalytical skills are unmatched (except when you're wrong).

Leftus 6th March 2020 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13012186)
Not to mention that allowing him to spout his spurious claptrap unchallenged would mean that lurkers and Googlers who find this thread and others like it, might consider that we have no answers. By arguing against his BS, we help to prevent others at risk of falling down the rabbit hole, from doing so.

At one time, I was a dyed-in-the-wool, confirmed and certified, second-gunman-on-the-grassy-knoll JFK assassination conspiracy theorist. It was, among other things, a discussion board like this one that helped me to turn away from JFK conspiracy nutjobbery.

Also, it helps to expose how flawed the assertion is because there is never a meaningful response beyond the initial assertion. And the utter reliance on ignorance. Says it can't be an airliner and has to be a missile. Does he have any specialized knowledge on airliners or missile? Nope.

Mycroft 6th March 2020 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13012253)
I didn't write the article. The evidence in the impact holes makes your complaints moot.

I've been following along, and I disagree. The impact holes are in the shape of an airplane with wings, which stand to reason because that's what made them. You have offered no convincing evidence otherwise.

abaddon 6th March 2020 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 13012476)
I've been following along, and I disagree. The impact holes are in the shape of an airplane with wings, which stand to reason because that's what made them. You have offered no convincing evidence otherwise.

Convincing evidence? Try no evidence at all.

Robin 6th March 2020 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13012253)
The evidence in the impact holes makes your complaints moot.

Which are consistent with the impact by an airliner and nothing else that anyone has been able to plausibly suggest.

Craig4 7th March 2020 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 13008801)
Could this moth carry coconuts? If so, how many?

Depends, is it an African or European moth?

Steve 7th March 2020 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 13012515)
Which are consistent with the impact by an airliner and nothing else that anyone has been able to plausibly suggest.

There are consistent arguments above in favor of Rodan.


(Oh, plausible. OK)

bruto 7th March 2020 08:48 AM

I'm kind of coming over to the idea of a moonstruck luna moth.

Sabretooth 7th March 2020 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13008044)
Fuel added weight, but not density.

Are you suggesting that, should I throw a balloon filled with Jet-A at your head at 500 MPH, that you won't feel a thing?

Sabretooth 7th March 2020 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13008018)
No it didn't. The smoke was no issue for editing the impact videos, which were not broadcast live. They had plenty of time to edit their CGI plane to include "smoke shadows" and reflected light. Besides, as explained a couple thousand posts ago, the damage evidence alone proves all the footage of the "plane" impacts are fraudulent.

Wait, did you just say they filmed everything prior to 9/11/2001, then broadcast it that morning? From ~30 different angles? With no witnesses? With damage that is consistent from planes impacting at ~500 MPH? Using film technology that didn't (and still doesn't) exist?

The only thing you have achieved to this point is that you've documented a textbook case for cognitive dissonance.

BTW - you still haven't addressed my questions regarding the film in post #2523.

Jack by the hedge 7th March 2020 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 13012866)
Wait, did you just say they filmed everything prior to 9/11/2001, then broadcast it that morning? From ~30 different angles? With no witnesses? With damage that is consistent from planes impacting at ~500 MPH? Using film technology that didn't (and still doesn't) exist?

Oh, no, that would be absurd. Only a few of the video angles had to be ready on 9/11. The non-live-broadcast ones could be faked later and gradually put online. Much more leisurely.

Of course they did have to prepare many versions of the live shots as there was no way to predict there would be a NW wind that day and they would need to make the CGI plane appear shadowed by the CGI smoke trail. And yes, they did have to somehow ensure there were no witnesses to these spectacular events happening in one of the world's busiest cities and somehow find and suppress all real photos and videos taken by locals and tourists alike. And make plane-shaped holes with ultraprecision missiles which have never existed and leave no trace. But that's just detail. All of these things put together are clearly not so utterly impossible as yankee451 being wrong about his assessment of a grainy photo. That would just be crazy.

smartcooky 7th March 2020 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 13012931)
Oh, no, that would be absurd. Only a few of the video angles had to be ready on 9/11. The non-live-broadcast ones could be faked later and gradually put online. Much more leisurely.

Of course they did have to prepare many versions of the live shots as there was no way to predict there would be a NW wind that day and they would need to make the CGI plane appear shadowed by the CGI smoke trail. And yes, they did have to somehow ensure there were no witnesses to these spectacular events happening in one of the world's busiest cities (during morning rush hour) and somehow find and suppress all real photos and videos taken by locals and tourists alike. And make plane-shaped holes with ultraprecision missiles which have never existed and leave no trace. But that's just detail. All of these things put together are clearly not so utterly impossible as yankee451 being wrong about his assessment of a grainy photo. That would just be crazy.


FTFY

smartcooky 7th March 2020 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 13012476)
I've been following along, and I disagree. The impact holes are in the shape of an airplane with wings, which stand to reason because that's what made them. You have offered no convincing evidence otherwise.


100%.... I'll just drop this here again as a reminder for yankee451 and for any lurkers who happen to come along...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ye6lsop9n...rlay.gif?raw=1

abaddon 7th March 2020 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13013108)
100%.... I'll just drop this here again as a reminder for yankee451 and for any lurkers who happen to come along...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ye6lsop9n...rlay.gif?raw=1

I'm just looking at that and thinking what the hell is in yankee's head?

According to him, two cruise missiles came in from right and left at oblique angles to create the wing impacts.

If true, all aerodynamic control would be lost the moment the first wingtip of a cruise missile (left or right wing) contacted the building. Thus there would be no way to determine exactly where the detonation would happen.

Just take the supposed missile from the left side. The moment it's left wingtip contacts the building, it is uncontrolled. Yet Yankee would have us believe it to a hard 90 degree turn and detonated in exactly the right place to replicate the illusion of the 767 left engine.

This is beyond absurd.

Regnad Kcin 7th March 2020 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13008121)
You don't seem to understand that even the official propaganda organs from MIT threw in the towel when it came to calculating the collision between the wings and the wall columns.
https://911crashtest.org/chapter-4/

I shot down the water jet canard a couple thousand comments ago.

With a missile?

curious cat 7th March 2020 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 13012849)
Are you suggesting that, should I throw a balloon filled with Jet-A at your head at 500 MPH, that you won't feel a thing?

Actually - guaranteed! :D

Cosmic Yak 8th March 2020 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 13013177)
I'm just looking at that and thinking what the hell is in yankee's head?

According to him, two cruise missiles came in from right and left at oblique angles to create the wing impacts.

If true, all aerodynamic control would be lost the moment the first wingtip of a cruise missile (left or right wing) contacted the building. Thus there would be no way to determine exactly where the detonation would happen.

Just take the supposed missile from the left side. The moment it's left wingtip contacts the building, it is uncontrolled. Yet Yankee would have us believe it to a hard 90 degree turn and detonated in exactly the right place to replicate the illusion of the 767 left engine.

This is beyond absurd.

Not to mention, assuming this is the same missile supposed to have caused the damage yankee451 alleges can be seen in the infamous blurry photo, that it miraculously passed through a hole too small for it, without either damaging itself or the columns, and then resumed its designated path.
A truly special theory, that one.

Cosmic Yak 8th March 2020 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 13009973)
I'd say the warhead alone without wings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 13010030)
Well, Yankee has pinballed between JDAM, JASSM, cruise missile and spooky unknown tech. Best you address that question to him.

Because nobody else has a ******** clue what he is on about.

I assume, then, that the wings would have broken off on entry.
yankee451 has posited dozens of missiles. It is surprising, therefore, that he has been unable to present a single fragment of these wings, either on film or in reality, to show us.
Oh, wait. It actually isn't that surprising, is it? :D

Robin 8th March 2020 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 13013487)
I assume, then, that the wings would have broken off on entry.

yankee451 has posited dozens of missiles. It is surprising, therefore, that he has been unable to present a single fragment of these wings, either on film or in reality, to show us.

Oh, wait. It actually isn't that surprising, is it? :D

The wings and the rest of airframe would have shattered as they came into contact with the side of the building which means that the right wing would be the last part of it to survive.

The warhead would have penetrated the column (or bounced off depending on how exactly it hit the columns).

If it hit at an angle of 15 degrees and penetrated then I assume it would continue on into the building at the same heading.

Yankee451 has it turn parallel to the building and continue going through the flanges of the other columns. I am not sure how it is supposed to do that.

Robin 8th March 2020 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13008121)
I shot down the water jet canard...

Could this be the water jet canard?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...qsHPngSRBM0uhY

smartcooky 8th March 2020 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 13013955)
Could this be the water jet canard mallard?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...qsHPngSRBM0uhY

FTFY

beachnut 9th March 2020 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13008121)
You don't seem to understand...

Projection - look it up

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13008121)
... even the official propaganda organs ...

Paranoia - look it up

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13008121)
MIT threw in the towel when it came to calculating the collision between the wings and the wall columns. ...

You don't do math and physics, you are not equipped to make this determination, and anything technical on 9/11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13008121)
... I shot down the water jet canard ...

Where is the proof? You make up a fantasy of missiles and ignore the murder of thousand of your fellow citizens by spreading lies.

Why do you hate the thousands who were murdered by UBL's buddies on 9/11? Hate, ignorance or spite. What great failure could motivate someone to spread the dumbest fantasy of missiles mocking the murder of thousands of their fellow Americans?

Robin 9th March 2020 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13013966)
FTFY

No need for fixing, 'canard' means 'duck'

Elagabalus 9th March 2020 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 13014604)
No need for fixing, 'canard' means 'duck'


Well, I thought your post was funny!

bknight 9th March 2020 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 13014604)
No need for fixing, 'canard' means 'duck'

In what language? locale?

abaddon 9th March 2020 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 13014626)
In what language? locale?

It's the french word for duck.

Elagabalus 9th March 2020 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 13014627)
It's the french word for duck.


It's also:

Quote:

2.a small winglike projection attached to an aircraft forward of the main wing to provide extra stability or control, sometimes replacing the tail.

Now I don't think the 767-200 has any but perhaps Rodan or Mothra?

All kinds of fun today, people!

yankee451 9th March 2020 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 13013764)
The wings and the rest of airframe would have shattered as they came into contact with the side of the building which means that the right wing would be the last part of it to survive.

The warhead would have penetrated the column (or bounced off depending on how exactly it hit the columns).

If it hit at an angle of 15 degrees and penetrated then I assume it would continue on into the building at the same heading.

Yankee451 has it turn parallel to the building and continue going through the flanges of the other columns. I am not sure how it is supposed to do that.

Your paraphrasing skills are lacking, as is your understanding of how the jet wing changed direction and missed the cladding that covered the steel column.

abaddon 9th March 2020 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13014771)
Your paraphrasing skills are lacking, as is your understanding of how the jet wing changed direction and missed the cladding that covered the steel column.

Nope. Your mad proposal REQUIRES that the supposed missiles performed exactly those mad maneuvers.

Frankly, your claims of magic missiles are idiotic.

Robin 9th March 2020 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13014771)
Your paraphrasing skills are lacking,

What paraphrasing? You are suggesting the damage was somehow caused by a cruise missile, yes? You are suggesting that the cruise missile hit at an angle of approximately 15 degrees to the building, yes?

We can see the damage and can see that if a warhead struck at 15 degrees (as you suggested earlier) then it would have to somehow turn parallel to the building to cause the rest of that damage.
Quote:

as is your understanding of how the jet wing changed direction and missed the cladding that covered the steel column.
It didn't miss the cladding, it hit it, hence the big hole in the front of it, where the wing hit. Hence the only surviving part is at the back, the furthest from where the wing impacted.

How do you account for the fact that the front of the cladding has been punched out?

beachnut 9th March 2020 04:24 PM

failed to prove videos are fake, gish gallop of off topic woo continues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13014771)
Your paraphrasing skills are lacking ...

Are you sure, do you have evidence? Based on the idiotic missile fantasy, I doubt your skill to make this assessment. When will you realize you failed to prove videos were fake? Never.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13014771)
... your understanding of how the jet wing changed direction and missed the cladding that covered the steel column.

Oops, you proved you have no clue how the wing was constructed, and why some of the wing has less mass as it moves to the fiberglass/composite tip. But go ahead, mock the murder of thousands of your fellow Americans with lies dumber than dirt, and failing to prove the videos are fake. (fellow Americans, are you an American, because the disinformation you are spreading is more like a russian troll misleading Americans)

When you talk about "skills", "understanding" as you claim missiles caused the damage and no one was killed on 9/11, is undefined fantasy woo.

smartcooky 9th March 2020 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 13010030)
Well, Yankee has pinballed between JDAM, JASSM, cruise missile and spooky unknown tech. Best you address that question to him.

Because nobody else has a ******** clue what he is on about.

Well if he has claimed at any point that the damage was done by a JDAM, then HE is the one who doesn't have a clue what he is on about.

JDAM is not a missile... its not even a bomb; its an ordinance guidance system with inertial navigation, a GPS system, a bolt on tail section with control surfaces and an aerodynamic strake kit.

JDAM is designed to turn unguided bombs into guided bombs i.e. turn "dumb" bombs into "smart" bombs.

Cosmic Yak 10th March 2020 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13014771)
Your paraphrasing skills are lacking, as is your understanding of how the jet wing changed direction and missed the cladding that covered the steel column.

Run, run, little rabbit.

abaddon 10th March 2020 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13015081)
Well if he has claimed at any point that the damage was done by a JDAM, then HE is the one who doesn't have a clue what he is on about.

JDAM is not a missile... its not even a bomb; its an ordinance guidance system with inertial navigation, a GPS system, a bolt on tail section with control surfaces and an aerodynamic strake kit.

JDAM is designed to turn unguided bombs into guided bombs i.e. turn "dumb" bombs into "smart" bombs.

Sure, but yankee is proposing that all of them can perform physically impossible feats of acrobatics.

Or some of them.

Or one of them.

Or who the hell knows where this insane idea ends up?

I don't. I have no clear conception of yankee's proposal beyond a claim of impossible projectiles performing impossible maneuvers based on an impossible conspiracy.

There is no making sense of it.

Leftus 10th March 2020 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13013108)
100%.... I'll just drop this here again as a reminder for yankee451 and for any lurkers who happen to come along...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ye6lsop9n...rlay.gif?raw=1

Point of order! That is not Rodan.

TJM 10th March 2020 06:39 PM

Not to cast aspersions on your very plausible Rodan theory, but has anyone considered Pazuzu, a nemesis of UltraMan? Seems like he could be counted among the suspects. Added bonus - he shoots energy beams that dustifies ****, a no-planer favorite.

Just spitballing, I suppose.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Steve 10th March 2020 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 13016016)
Not to cast aspersions on your very plausible Rodan theory, but has anyone considered Pazuzu, a nemesis of UltraMan? Seems like he could be counted among the suspects. Added bonus - he shoots energy beams that dustifies ****, a no-planer favorite.

Just spitballing, I suppose.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Wrong shape!

bknight 11th March 2020 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13016036)
Wrong shape!


Pazuzu was also a nemesis in Final Fantasy Mystic Quest. But that is another story. :)

Leftus 11th March 2020 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 13016016)
Not to cast aspersions on your very plausible Rodan theory, but has anyone considered Pazuzu, a nemesis of UltraMan? Seems like he could be counted among the suspects. Added bonus - he shoots energy beams that dustifies ****, a no-planer favorite.

Just spitballing, I suppose.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Best 4 minutes of my day, right there. But I don't think he could cover the ground between NYC, DC and PA in the time given. Not ruling him out, as that video was pure awesome.

The Common Potato 12th March 2020 05:46 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Attachment 41641

Quack! :boxedin:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.