"He was up on the bridge"

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
3

"He was up on the bridge"; taking pictures of the cab on the bridge
Topic Started: Nov 25 2008, 01:30 PM (2,366 Views)
Craig Ranke CIT	Nov 25 2008, 01:30 PM Post #1
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	A very important clue as to whether or not Lloyde is deliberately lying was spelled out in the presentation yet has been ignored in the subsequent discussion so far. After being invited into Lloyde's home to conduct our follow-up interview, while I was setting up the camera, Lloyde first told me about his neighbor who took pictures of his cab and the pole on 9/11. At this point our interview had not started and nothing was said about Lloyde's location or the north side evidence yet. Lloyde let it slip that his neighbor was "up on the bridge" when he took pictures of the cab and the pole! This is absolutely critical because it proves that he KNEW his location on the bridge minutes before our interview started where he would ultimately and steadfastly deny this very fact that he just admitted. Once the camera was on him and the interview started he must have remembered that he was supposed to shift his location to the north side. Frankly, this is proof enough that Lloyde wasn't simply confused as he continued to deny his location on the bridge DESPITE the photographic evidence I showed him AND that we later obtained from his neighbor further confirming what Lloyde actually already said when the encounter first began...... "He was up on the bridge." Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Nov 25 2008, 01:34 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Nov 25 2008, 01:43 PM Post #2
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	So have you uncovered enough evidence yet? Is it about time to start doing something with it?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


mycal	Nov 25 2008, 02:27 PM Post #3
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08	Craig Ranke CIT Nov 25 2008, 01:30 PM A very important clue as to whether or not Lloyde is deliberately lying was spelled out in the presentation yet has been ignored in the subsequent discussion so far. After being invited into Lloyde's home to conduct our follow-up interview, while I was setting up the camera, Lloyde first told me about his neighbor who took pictures of his cab and the pole on 9/11. At this point our interview had not started and nothing was said about Lloyde's location or the north side evidence yet. Lloyde let it slip that his neighbor was "up on the bridge" when he took pictures of the cab and the pole! This is absolutely critical because it proves that he KNEW his location on the bridge minutes before our interview started where he would ultimately and steadfastly deny this very fact that he just admitted. Once the camera was on him and the interview started he must have remembered that he was supposed to shift his location to the north side. Frankly, this is proof enough that Lloyde wasn't simply confused as he continued to deny his location on the bridge DESPITE the photographic evidence I showed him AND that we later obtained from his neighbor further confirming what Lloyde actually already said when the encounter first began...... "He was up on the bridge." Come on Craig you are smarter than this. If Lloyd was working for the gov, he would not still be entertaining you 7yrs later. He would never have talked to you in the first place. He has not destroyed the car, he has allowed you too look at it, at will, and you still have no proof that a pole did not hit his car. You use every error or memory loss statement that he makes to say he's lying. He is not a tape recorder. He is human. Human beings could not tell exactly what happened 30mins ago verbatim. Why is he expected to be consistent 7 yrs later? Have you ever been in a courtroom? Witnesses give many statements to the police at different times. The trial could be just 3mo later and they still have to have their previous testimony read back to them to refresh their memories. Lagasse has made mistakes and said different things at different times. You don't hold him to the same standards. Should he be convicted of making false statements or obstruction of justice? You have convicted this old man of murder and you have not shown one shred of proof. You have a personal feeling and that is all. If you have enough evidence to make the statement that he is guilty, then you have enough evidence to expose his lies to the rest of the world. Put up or shut up.
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Nov 25 2008, 02:31 PM Post #4
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	You are not addressing the evidence. You are merely making a bunch of generalized rambling statements fueled with emotion and devoid of logic. The fact is......the north side evidence proves Lloyde's story false without him uttering another word. But the fact that he admitted his neighbor was "up on the bridge" before we started our interview proves he was fully aware of his location during the entire interview.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Nov 25 2008, 02:48 PM Post #5
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	There is no comparison of Lagasse to Lloyde. Lagasse made a mistake and admitted it. That is the sign of an honest person. Besides, Lagasse's mistake does not implicate him in a lie. Furthermore Lagasse's placement of the plane on the north side is backed up by 12 other witnesses and they ALL prove Lloyde's story false. Absolutely nobody backs up Lloyde's story. Nobody saw the pole spear the windshield, nobody saw the cab spin out sideways on the road with a pole sticking out over the hood, nobody saw the pole in the cab, and nobody saw Lloyde remove the pole. That's because the plane was on the north side like all the witnesses unanimously report. Deal with it. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Nov 25 2008, 02:49 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Bitterman	Nov 25 2008, 03:29 PM Post #6
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	jim76 Nov 25 2008, 01:43 PM So have you uncovered enough evidence yet? Is it about time to start doing something with it? What are YOU doing with this evidence? Anyone has the ability to take this to the authorities.......what are you doing to help out man? Anything other than mocking the people doing more work and effort into it than most people on here? You should help out by taking this to anyone who will listen. Don't go online and smack the ones that make the effort....
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


jim76	Nov 25 2008, 05:50 PM Post #7
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Bitterman Nov 25 2008, 03:29 PM What are YOU doing with this evidence? Anyone has the ability to take this to the authorities.......what are you doing to help out man? Anything other than mocking the people doing more work and effort into it than most people on here? You should help out by taking this to anyone who will listen. Don't go online and smack the ones that make the effort.... I don't agree with Craig's theories, so I'm not going to do anything to help out. I only ask why nothing is being done, because his actions seem to shed light on his motives. Why is this not being resolved in a court of law?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Avenger	Nov 25 2008, 06:19 PM Post #8
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: I don't agree with Craig's theories, so I'm not going to do anything to help out. I only ask why nothing is being done, because his actions seem to shed light on his motives. Why is this not being resolved in a court of law? Nice diversion.
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


SPreston	Nov 25 2008, 06:21 PM Post #9
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	jim76 Nov 25 2008, 05:50 PM Bitterman Nov 25 2008, 03:29 PM What are YOU doing with this evidence? Anyone has the ability to take this to the authorities.......what are you doing to help out man? Anything other than mocking the people doing more work and effort into it than most people on here? You should help out by taking this to anyone who will listen. Don't go online and smack the ones that make the effort.... I don't agree with Craig's theories, so I'm not going to do anything to help out. I only ask why nothing is being done, because his actions seem to shed light on his motives. Why is this not being resolved in a court of law? Well first you have to get it past the corrupt politicians and corrupt lawyers and corrupt judges don't you? Do you have any idea how hard it is to fight a corrupt evil government? Take that POS who has been trashing OUR White House for the past 7 years 10 months. He should have been impeached and thrown in a dungeon 7 years ago for a multitude of offenses. But he is still there isn't he; ruining our nation? Many many people have been attempting to get justice for the innocent victims of 9-11 for years. But we have too many people just like you who think a corrupt government is A-OK as long as they can remain unindicted and not convicted. Why are you even here if you don't give a damn? Edited by SPreston, Nov 25 2008, 06:25 PM.



jim76	Nov 25 2008, 06:54 PM Post #10
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Avenger Nov 25 2008, 06:19 PM Nice diversion. What did I divert from?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


jim76	Nov 25 2008, 07:01 PM Post #11
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	SPreston Nov 25 2008, 06:21 PM Well first you have to get it past the corrupt politicians and corrupt lawyers and corrupt judges don't you? ugh. Your generalizations are beyond insulting. Are you honestly suggesting that it is difficult to find a lawyer or a judge that is not corrupt?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Nov 25 2008, 07:30 PM Post #12
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Stop derailing the thread. This is no simple crime that can be brought to court. We aren't delusional thinking we can sue George Bush. We are talking about a world wide psychological military black operation of mass murder. A war crime. We need grand juries, congressional hearings, and mass indictments. Stop reducing this issue and deflecting the discussion. This thread is about the fact that Lloyde made a direct statement about his location on the bridge minutes before our interview where he would proceed to deny this fact and stick to the proven false notion that he was far north of the bridge for hours afterward even when presented with photographic evidence proving he was south of the bridge. This proves that Lloyde was not merely remembering incorrectly. He had already SAID that his neighbor was "up on the bridge" when he took pictures of the cab and pole. Please address the topic direct or leave the thread. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Nov 25 2008, 07:32 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


mycal	Nov 26 2008, 01:04 PM Post #13
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08	Craig Ranke CIT Nov 25 2008, 07:30 PM Stop derailing the thread. This is no simple crime that can be brought to court. We aren't delusional thinking we can sue George Bush. We are talking about a world wide psychological military black operation of mass murder. A war crime. We need grand juries, congressional hearings, and mass indictments. Stop reducing this issue and deflecting the discussion. This thread is about the fact that Lloyde made a direct statement about his location on the bridge minutes before our interview where he would proceed to deny this fact and stick to the proven false notion that he was far north of the bridge for hours afterward even when presented with photographic evidence proving he was south of the bridge. This proves that Lloyde was not merely remembering incorrectly. He had already SAID that his neighbor was "up on the bridge" when he took pictures of the cab and pole. Please address the topic direct or leave the thread. So what you are saying is that there is nothing you can do with the evidence you have, because the world is against you?
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08


jim76	Nov 26 2008, 01:26 PM Post #14
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Craig, do you believe the evidence you have right now could hold up in a court of law?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Lin Kuei	Nov 26 2008, 01:53 PM Post #15
Posts: 1,313 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	mycal Nov 25 2008, 02:27 PM Put up or shut up. you're confined to the skeptic's section. Not because you disagree with CIT, but because of the above comment and your style of 'debating'. @jim76 - stop trying to derail the thread. Discuss the appropriate topic please. Edited by Lin Kuei, Nov 26 2008, 01:54 PM.
Posts: 1,313 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


Bernie big shorts	Nov 26 2008, 03:35 PM Post #16
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08	Craig Ranke CIT Nov 25 2008, 01:30 PM A very important clue as to whether or not Lloyde is deliberately lying was spelled out in the presentation yet has been ignored in the subsequent discussion so far. After being invited into Lloyde's home to conduct our follow-up interview, while I was setting up the camera, Lloyde first told me about his neighbor who took pictures of his cab and the pole on 9/11. At this point our interview had not started and nothing was said about Lloyde's location or the north side evidence yet. Lloyde let it slip that his neighbor was "up on the bridge" when he took pictures of the cab and the pole! This is absolutely critical because it proves that he KNEW his location on the bridge minutes before our interview started where he would ultimately and steadfastly deny this very fact that he just admitted. Once the camera was on him and the interview started he must have remembered that he was supposed to shift his location to the north side. Frankly, this is proof enough that Lloyde wasn't simply confused as he continued to deny his location on the bridge DESPITE the photographic evidence I showed him AND that we later obtained from his neighbor further confirming what Lloyde actually already said when the encounter first began...... "He was up on the bridge." Craig, You are reading too much into this. Firstly, you say that Lloyde's admission that his neighbour was on the bridge was made before the interview started. Before we get onto the specifics of this, i don't approve of recording conversations at this stage and using it in your film. Anyway this is my personal opinion back to the comment itself. Lloyde doesn't make it clear that his friend was on the bridge when he took pictures of the pole, he is on the bridge taking pictures of 'the event'. He says: Lloyde: One guy who took pictures, he lives right over here at 17th street. Craig: He took pictures of the event? Lloyde: He took pictures, he was up on the bridge, he approached me. We know Lloyde mistakingly believes that he was further down from the bridge so from the comments above it is hard to ascertain exactly what he meant. We don't know if Lloyde meant that his friend took pictures of the event (the burning pentagon) from the bridge and then approached Lloyde from there and took additional pictures of the cab, or he thought his neighbour was on the bridge when the plane hit and moved down to take pictures and approached him at his home with the pictures. It really is hard to tell. One thing is for sure is that it is pointless drawing any conclusions from this unclear description. I really feel sorry for Lloyde, i feel you are hounding him, i'm sure you mean well but i think you need to take a step back and think of the implications if you have got this whole flyover theory wrong. Doesn't it strike you as significant that there is only a handful of people buys it? I think you need to reconsider the whole thing. It's like the business with his wife saying 'yeah' to your flyover theory. There could be so many plausible explanations for her saying this rather than her agreeing with you, for example, she may not have been listening carefully and just reflexively saying 'yeah' to your conversation, she may have been saying 'yeah' to your theory to draw out the extent of your beliefs, she may have been saying 'yeah' in a sarcastic way like you do to the random bloke in the street who tells you he's King Arthur. She certainly doesn't sound like she agrees with your flyover theory at any rate. You've almost proven the point in this film about the unreliability of eyewitnesses, Lloyde is so convinced he's nearer to the pentagon than he is that he doubts the photographs. This is like an experiment done by a British scientist called Dr Robert Winston where he asks participants to look through photographs of their childhood and describe them, he plants a fake photograph of the subject on a hot air baloon and it produces some remarkable results, at first the participants can't recall the event but when he goes back to the photograph and asks them to think again they start to create a story round the event, some participants claimed to remember specific aspects of the day like eating an ice cream before hand and such like, it really is pretty extraordinary. Memory is a complicated process and it gets more complicated as we get older, as we see with Lloyd struggling to think of the name of the princess that died in the tunnel. I had other points to make but i've forgotten them.
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08


Avenger	Nov 26 2008, 06:51 PM Post #17
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Lloyde doesn't make it clear that his friend was on the bridge when he took pictures of the pole, he is on the bridge taking pictures of 'the event'. He says: Lloyde: One guy who took pictures, he lives right over here at 17th street. Craig: He took pictures of the event? Lloyde: He took pictures, he was up on the bridge, he approached me. My understanding is that this friend gave them a CD with the photos he took. Both were pictures of the cab. Your "plausible explanations" suck, by the way.
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Bitterman	Nov 26 2008, 10:43 PM Post #18
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Bernie big shorts Nov 26 2008, 03:35 PM I really feel sorry for Lloyde, i feel you are hounding him, i'm sure you mean well but i think you need to take a step back and think of the implications if you have got this whole flyover theory wrong. Doesn't it strike you as significant that there is only a handful of people buys it? I think you need to reconsider the whole thing. What a dick you are. What a bunch of bullshit. That was an honest remark? Bullshit. That was a lame jab. Asking for them to reconsider shows what you really are. You sick fuck.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Lin Kuei	Nov 27 2008, 10:21 AM Post #19
Posts: 1,313 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	Bitterman Nov 26 2008, 10:43 PM What a dick you are. You sick fuck. Bitterman - this is totally not on. Do not let these people get the better of you by provoking you to use personal attacks. You are far better than that. First (and only) warning. Thanks. [edit]Thanks for the PM Bernie you have posting privileges restored - but if you (or others) want to continue discussion on your last post, please do so in the Skeptic's Section. Edited by Lin Kuei, Nov 27 2008, 11:56 AM.
Posts: 1,313 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


Michal	Nov 27 2008, 06:18 PM Post #20
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	let us put it this way: 1. So now we know Lloyd was lying and he was conscious about his words (which probably means was not hypnotized) - good work CIT ... and this is all we shall comment on this thread. 2. There is enough evidence collected from the pentagon bit as well as from other sections to do something about it - we can say it now, and need to admit our skeptics they are right - we shall do something about it ... escalate it, as sufficient number of hard evidence is gathered. Otherwise it will get gradually hushed down. 3. Got to be realistic though. Once one "proof" from the official theory will get blown by us, all the rest will fall like a domino. Everyone from Bush administration will fight until very end, to keep them away from the truth and conviction. It is not going to be an easy. Edited by Michal, Nov 27 2008, 06:23 PM.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


JackD	Nov 27 2008, 06:23 PM Post #21
Posts: 263 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08	I know Craig wants to believe. The "up on the bridge" comment is just too vague. Which photographer is lloyd referring to? His neighbor across the street who took the photos LATER? was THIS guy also there at the Pentagon? Or is Lloyd referring to the ?? Pentagon photographer (Ingersoll?) who snapped the moment-after shots and was "up on the bridge" and approached Lloyd. Either way, I am not sure there's much that can be read into Lloyd's off the cuff remark. There's ALREADY a wealth of problems with LLoyd's entire situation -- how he got there in his cab, the timeline of the pole-swerve-stranger-explosion-standing around- walking home story, the physical damage, etc. (Back to that - who did Lloyd pick up that morning, he said a 'fare in Rosslyn' - who dispatched him, etc...) As for "court of law" , you cant take someone to court over an alleged lie, or alleged coverup. You have to show a harm. you could to find someone who was materially harmed, injured, killed, at the site, or file qui tam, and then, once you have standing, what is your charge? Murder? Deliberate injury? Property damage? Who do you charge? ---- here's one possiblity , just for fun --- charge the alleged hijackers of AA77, Khalid al Midhar, Nawaf al hazmi, Hani Hanjour, saaed al gahmdi etc with air piracy, murder and property destruction, in absentia. Go to the District Attorney of Arlington Co, or Fairfax, or wherever any of the victims lived. Empanel the grand jury to review the evidence, publicly available, which should be sufficient to bring murder charges. Note there have been no death certificates released. Great, you've got indictments of the hijackers. Now, if the case goes to trial, the defense counsel can you call you as a witness that it didnt go down like that.
Posts: 263 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08


Bitterman	Nov 27 2008, 08:05 PM Post #22
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Lin Kuei Nov 27 2008, 10:21 AM Bitterman Nov 26 2008, 10:43 PM What a dick you are. You sick fuck. Bitterman - this is totally not on. Do not let these people get the better of you by provoking you to use personal attacks. You are far better than that. First (and only) warning. Thanks. [edit]Thanks for the PM Bernie you have posting privileges restored - but if you (or others) want to continue discussion on your last post, please do so in the Skeptic's Section. Roger that.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Nov 28 2008, 01:48 PM Post #23
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	JackD Nov 27 2008, 06:23 PM I know Craig wants to believe. The "up on the bridge" comment is just too vague. Which photographer is lloyd referring to? His neighbor across the street who took the photos LATER? was THIS guy also there at the Pentagon? Or is Lloyd referring to the ?? Pentagon photographer (Ingersoll?) who snapped the moment-after shots and was "up on the bridge" and approached Lloyd. Either way, I am not sure there's much that can be read into Lloyd's off the cuff remark. JackD, He was absolutely referring to his neighbor. Please watch the presentation as everything is spelled out for you in the order that it happened. He specifically tells me that the guy "was up on the bridge" and "took pictures of the cab and pole". There is no mistaking what photographer he was talking about because he specifically told me the guy lives walking distance "on the other side of Glebe Rd." and we proceeded to go to the guy's house before getting on the road to go see the cab. If you remember he acted like he had never even seen the Ingersoll images when I would later show those to him at my friend's house. Loyde would continually refer to his neighbor's pictures as being independent proof of his location on 9/11 while simultaneously arguing that he was not on the bridge! He simply forgot that he had already let it slip that the guy was on the bridge (as did I) and he would have never said the words "up on the bridge" if at that time he truly believed he was located north of the Columbia Pike exit, nowhere near the bridge, as he absurdly tried to argue even AFTER seeing the neighbor's images again. After going to see the cab, after that fatal interview in my friend's living room, just before we drove to Route 27 so he could point out his alleged north side location, we went back to his neighbor's house late at night and got the images. This part wasn't recorded but when I showed him the images that his neighbor took, HE admitted they showed the cab just south of the bridge but STILL denied he was located there! The only thing that can possibly be "read" from Lloyde's "he was up on the bridge" comment is that Lloyde was fully aware of his true location before our interview even started. There is nothing vague about it whatsoever. This is the point. It is a very specific comment. Now as far as bringing criminal charges on Lloyde.....I don't see that as possible nor has it been our goal. Lloyde is not the perpetrator. Lloyde is not to blame for the event. He is a link to the perpetrators and his staged scene reveals a heinous psychological war crime of mass murder of global proportions. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Nov 28 2008, 01:51 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


pguillory	Nov 29 2008, 11:45 AM Post #24
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08	Lin Kuei Nov 26 2008, 01:53 PM mycal Nov 25 2008, 02:27 PM Put up or shut up. you're confined to the skeptic's section. Not because you disagree with CIT, but because of the above comment and your style of 'debating'. @jim76 - stop trying to derail the thread. Discuss the appropriate topic please. Every time someone calls CIT out on its lies, they are banned. You are not doing anything but talking to yourselves. You should put, 'for entertainment purposes only' in your title, if that is the case. If you have proved anything at all, you should be able expose it to everyone. Sitting here everyday calling people murderers and accomplices only caters to the people who think like you. The way to get open minded intelligent people to take you seriously, is to be able to back those statements up with evidence. There has never been any evidence presented by CIT that would hold up in a court of law as proof of gov complicity in the 9/11 attacks.
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08


Michal	Nov 29 2008, 12:28 PM Post #25
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	Craig Ranke CIT Nov 28 2008, 01:48 PM Now as far as bringing criminal charges on Lloyde.....I don't see that as possible nor has it been our goal. Lloyde is not the perpetrator. Lloyde is not to blame for the event. He is a link to the perpetrators and his staged scene reveals a heinous psychological war crime of mass murder of global proportions. No one says here about puting charges on Lloyd. I think we all ment undermining official theory in an ... official way
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3