 |
I just thought I would post this over here as
well. I just posted this on the Pilots for Truth Forum because I felt
these issues needed to be addressed.
I wrote this because the poor little 'pod' was getting picked on
and thought it needed some help at the Pilots for Truth Forum. And
remember, this was addressed to those in Pilots For Truth forum, not to
you guys over here.
Sincerely,
F/O
It is here in case you want to see it.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pil.....topic=3397
http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16616
Looking for the Logic of it all - Appendage on Flight 175
Hello everyone,
My name is Glen Stanish. I am a Pilot and Co-Founder of the Pilots
For Truth Forum, and Co-Founded this website along with Johndoex. I
received my commercial in 87. I am rated on the B-737, DO-328, Ba3100,
and qualified on the MD-80. I have been been flying for about 25 years,
for the airlines since 91.
I was checking out some of the new areas of the forums and found a
thread which was kind of upsetting to me. It is the one titled "BYE, BYE UAL175 "POD" THEORY!, Proof POD doesn't exist!!!"
It wasn't the photos which disturbed me the most. It was how quickly so
many people dismissed not just the pod, but all the issues dealing with
Flight 175. And the logic of it all is what I am seeking. I thought I
might be missing something, so I tried to get aboard the logic train of
those who responded in the thread, and it got me thinking. I am fairly
certain everyone here agrees that the World Trade Center was brought
down by controlled demolition, or bombs if you prefer that term. Which
brings me to my first stop on the logic train and a few questions as
well. If they brought down the World Trade Center with bombs which had
to have been pre-planted, then why the planes? Why even use planes? And
for the life of me I cannot get into the minds of those replying in
this thread, so I was forced to ask myself some more questions. Do
these people think that that plane was Flight 175? And if so, do they
believe that Hijackers were at the controls? You see this doesn't make
sense to me at all. Do they believe the people were gassed and the
planes taken over by remote control and flown into the WTC? Or do they
perhaps believe there were "no planes" on 911? A carefully crafted
media hoax?
I know better than to believe you guys here buy into the "no planes"
routine. So I scratched that off my list. Which left more questions. Do
they believe that this was Flight 175? Or perhaps a Military Drone? I
guess it could be either, as the only thing I was able to perceive is a
disdain for the 'pod.' So I followed a train of logic. I know they
brought down the buildings by explosives, and it is apparent they did
it from the Top down. And not coincidently, right about the area where
the planes struck, is where the WTC started to crumble first. On each
tower. Which brings us back to the first question. Why did they use the
planes? I am confident most people here already assume that the planes
had nothing to do with the demise of the World Trade Center. But I
could be wrong on this. Maybe some here believe that the jet fuel fires
created by the planes actually had something to do with the towers
demise. But I doubt this as well.
Now after reading many posts here I can see most people do not believe
that Hijackers hijacked any of the four planes on 911. I have yet to
find a post which subscribe to the Hijacker theory as being a sound
piece of evidence. But lets say for argument sake that there was
Hijackers, and that they pulled off what we would consider the
impossible, simultaneously hijacking 4 aircraft at roughly the same
time. Do the people who have so much disdain for the pod believe that
the hijackers piloted the aircraft into the World Trade Center? Maybe I
missed it, but haven't found a single post to suggest that any here
believe such a thing. But lets say that the Hijackers were at the
controls. Could they have piloted the aircraft into the World Trade
Center in the exact place where bombs had been placed to take down the
towers? And if so, who planted the bombs? You see, the logic train here
just doesn't work and something has to give. But following the previous
train of logic, are we to expect that the 19 hijackers gave themselves
up and killed themselves for what is basically an American government
plot? And that though they had no piloting abilities, were able to not
just simply hit the World Trade Center, but hit it in the exact place
where the explosives would so soon take it down? As well as be willing
to expend their lives for an American inside job? It sounds absurd when
written down like this, does it not? So I then checked the forums to
see if I could find anyone who believes that the Hijackers were working
together with the U.S. Government in this plot, and I came up dry. For
the most part all I saw is that most of you believe they were patsies
in some manner or another.
I guess this leads us back to question #1. Why did they use the
planes? We all know that the buildings started to fall from the top
down. Was it because of the raging Jet Fuel fires? Or from Explosives?
Or even a combination of the two? Again, I couldn't find anyone here on
the forums, not even one single person who believes the Trade Centers
came down because of raging jet fuel fires. Rather everyone here
subscribes to the 'Explosives' theory, as do I. Which again brings us
back to that pesky question. Why did they use planes? Apparently they
used aircraft for a cover story and plausible deniability for why the
Towers fell. Looking backwards we can see they had a 'cover story' all
ready to go, and it is the 'Jet Fuel' theory. That the Jet Fuel caused
such raging fires that it weakened the steel columns, and the Buildings
could no longer bear their load, and hence the collapse. That of course
combined with damage done to the buildings by the planes impacts
themselves. And we all know this to be true in hindsight, as thats the
explanation were we all given, even before "experts" could weigh in on
the matter.
So we have an answer now on why they used the planes. They used
them for a cover story and a plausible reason to give the public on why
the towers fell. But this leaves us with the other questions still
unanswered. Who piloted the planes? Was it the Hijackers? Or perhaps
you believe the people were all gassed and the planes flown remotely.
As a pilot and knowing how tricky these larger commercial aircraft are
to handle and steer, I think we can safely rule out they were flown by
the Hijackers. I also think it is safe to assume that these aircraft
weren't piloted by the actual pilots themselves. Which leaves us with
only two possibilities on these questions. That the people were gassed
and the planes taken over remotely, thus basically a drone aircraft, or
that a simple Military Drone was the actual plane which slammed into
the world Trade Center. Thats all that left on the table at this point.
It is either one or the other. And it cannot be both. Thus either way,
in essence, we are stuck with, as the only possibility being these
planes were drones. But what kind of Drones were they? Lets examine the
two possibilities.
1. The People were gassed, along with the Pilots and Flight crew.
And once dead, the planes were remotely flown into each tower. The
problem with this scenario is that all of the people wouldn't fall
unconscious at the same time. And a remote possibility that one of the
passengers, having a medical condition might have their own air supply,
and thus be able to use the airphones and alert authorities. An alert
Stewardess might see whats happening and drop the air supply down, thus
ruining the whole operation. Far too risky. And option #2 over rules
this out as a possibility as well.
Now we must ask ourselves, if we are, by logic, down to a single scenario, this question:
Is there any evidence to suggest this was a Military Drone, or
anything which might lead us to the conclusion that this was not Flight
175? Or that perhaps Flight 11 was a Military Drone? Well, lets examine
the evidence and see.
Just before Flight 11 smashed into the North Tower, there is a
bright explosive event. The important thing here is it happens BEFORE
impact.
Picture 1A
This can only be one of 3 things.
1. Explosives going off in the WTC before impact
2. Explosives going off because the 'Hijackers' are pressing the button too soon
3. A missile or incendiary device being ejected from the Plane. (This is what Paul Joseph Watson believes it is)
Before I continue, I want to point out that this is prime evidence
or proof of a 911 conspiracy. We could stop right here, if it is proof
we are looking for. It does not matter which of the three you choose.
They all spell conspiracy. But let's see if there is more evidence on
Flight 175 which might suggest it is a Military Drone, as we have far
more footage to examine than with Flight 11.
And since you all have an apparent disdain for the 'pod' then lets leave that till last.
Picture 1B
What is that white plug that is flying nose to nose with this
aircraft? And just what causes that flash? Take a look yourselves, the
flash is at least 8-10 feet away from the plane, and is so bright it
illuminates the entire side of the aircraft. Notice how the bright
orange flash is not present until that white plug disappears. The best
counter argument to date on what this is, is that it is a 'static
discharge.' As a Pilot myself, all I can say is 'Static Discharge' is nonsense. Now read this quote I got from the front page of letsroll911.org.
Phil Jayhan called a lot of Congressman's offices, and spoke to many
people. Here is a quote which says it all in a nice short sentence or
so.
| Quote: |
When I called Congressman Wellers office, I was put through to
Sandra, who took my call. I got her to log onto 'LetsRoll911.org' and
open the Cameraplanet footage; She didn't have any time to even read my
website, nor did I tell her what was coming. And without any prompting
nor guidance, she, all on her own, exclaimed; "My God, that looks like
a Wire Guided Missile, that just can't be..." |
As a Pilot, I am not sure what it is, as I cannot touch it or examine
it apart from this video. But I am with Sandy, Wellers secretary on
this one. It sure as hell looks like a missile to me and would be my
first guess as well. Perhaps you don't like this evidence, even though
it looks conclusive to me. Perhaps this is too explosive for you?? Ok,
lets see if there is anything else wrong with this aircraft.
Picture 1C
Picture 1D
A 2nd piece of equipment has been added to this plane. Right next
to the Port Wing. As a Pilot of Commercial Heavies, I can say this.
This is supposed to be a scheduled part FAA 121 commercial heavy
aircraft. And in no way would a piece of equipment such as this ever be
added to a commercial airliner. Nor would it ever be missed in "walk
around" or "preflight inspection." And it doesn't matter whether you
believe it is a bomb, a container, a remote control pod, or whatever.
Just the fact it is there proves beyond any doubt that this was not
Flight 175. Still not convinced? Lets look at some more evidence then.
Aaorn C. Traub (Left photo) ( http://hereisnewyork.org/galle.....tegoryID=3 ): CNN Photo on Right
Picture 1E
Now people have tried to debunk this photo as well. It isn't
surprising to me, as they try and debunk everything that shows 911 is a
conspiracy, whether it is with Flight 175, Flight 11, or Bombs in the
Towers. The best explanation I have heard regarding what this is, is
that it is the VHF and UHF antenna which are attached at about those
same areas. Now as a Pilot of Commercial Heavies, I can say right off
the bat that that is a far "stretch." With the airplane banking as it
is, the blade antenna would not even show up in this photo, and with
the resolution, probably wouldn't show up even if the plane were level.
And these are far too large to be Blade Antenna. They are about 10 feet
long, and can be measured to be this long by comparing them to the size
of the Engines, which are about 10 foot in diameter. If you will pardon
my French, Blade Antenna, no way! I see the underside of all the planes
I pilot, and have seen these Antenna many times. They are only about
12-14 inches, give or take. They are small and tiny. These are a
minimum of 10 feet long and probably longer. And I agree these show
that something is being sprayed out of the aircraft at a very high
velocity. So much so that the wind sheer is hardly even allowing these
to bend. And these aircraft do not drop fuel in this manner anyways. If
a fuel drop is necessary, the fuel is released at the wings end, and it
gurgles out, slowly. It is not even a remote possibility that a 767-200
can release fuel from these sections of the aircraft frame.
Aaorn C. Traub ( http://hereisnewyork.org/galle.....tegoryID=3 ):
Picture 1F
Mark Burnback, a FOX News Employee, was an eyewitness of the 2nd Plane
at the 2nd Tower, and while still fresh in his mind, only moments after
impact said he saw no passenger windows on this aircraft. Listen for
yourself.
This was aired on the Fox Network Live only moments after the 2nd Impact:
http://www.letsroll911.net/burnback.mp3
Audio 1G
And to date, not a single picture has ever emerged showing this
plane to have any passenger windows. Not a single one. Odd isn't it,
the plane which we have so much footage of, not a single picture shows
windows on this plane?? Now take a look at this footage below, which
shows what appears to be a white laser light painting the side of the
world trade center. The best counter explanation I have heard for this
says it is a piece of paper. I think this explanation is hooey. But if
your not convinced, then consider this must be the most resilient piece
of paper to ever have been made, because right after the plane hits
underneath it, it jumps onto the fireball, and then onto the face of a
building a few miles away.
Top Copy - Camerplanet Footage, Bottom Copy, Same Material Ran on MSNBC on 911
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/laser.html
http://www.letsroll911.net/ima......msnbc.wmv
Video 1H
Now lets move along to the pod. And make some commentary here
before delving into this area. People make the argument that we need to
drop this, or that, and just settle on what we all can agree on. The
Controlled Demolition of the Towers. And they say this for
'credibility' sake. Which leads me to some questions for all of you to
thoughtfully consider. Do you really honestly believe that if you drop
everything, all evidence of anything but the controlled demolition,
that the FBI will magically appear out of nowhere and run with the
obvious? Don't you think if we can figure out this was a controlled
Demo deal, that the FBI more than likely beat us to the punch? Or are
you of the mindset that if we just dropped the pod, then the FBI will
jump on the controlled demolition bandwagon? That the FBI was in hot
pursuit of the truth that explosives brought down the World Trade
Center, but then this stupid pod came along and paralyzed them into
inaction? Is this really what you think? This would not stop the FBI
from prosecuting the case. Any more than they would drop the OJ Simpson
case if someone said it was aliens who did it. They would drop what is
irrelevant and go with what they knew was a crime.
I guess I cannot see the logic train for those who wish to so easily
dismiss this key piece of evidence. I actually think it is proof and
about as good as it gets. I do not think this is a theory. Even though
all we have to work with is pictures, as the physical proof is long
gone. But the pictures do show an obvious appendage on this Scheduled
Part FAA 121 commercial airliner, as the pictures below will show. And
just because some anonymous person, who is now banned, can do a trick
and try to persuade people that this is all a creation of light and
shadows with a model no larger than his hand, doesn't mean squat to me.
We don't even know if that person added something either onto the plane
or photoshopped it for this effect. We don't know his name. We don't
know where the light was. And he failed to show what it looks like from
the same angle from pictures below it. We do know he came here with an
agenda. No pod. And it was a clever trick however he did it. But I am
surprised how easily so many here were fooled by this. As I have shown
all of you from the above pictures, even if there is no pod, it can
still be proven that this was not Flight 175 with all the other
anomalies on it. There are just too many of them to dismiss. It was not
Flight 175.
But there was an appendage on this aircraft which does not belong
there. Actually there are two. But I am now going to speak about the
'pod.' Not the appendage which clearly is on the Port Wing. But a few
things they both have in common is this:
1. They should not be there. They have been added onto this aircrafts bottom.
2. They both Cast their own shadows
3. They both have their own reflections, just like the engines
4. It is impossible that these could have ever been missed by the
ground crews, and the Pilot, who is required to do a "walk around" or
"preflight inspection."
5. They both show that this Plane never took off from Boston Logan International Airport
6. They both prove beyond any reasonable doubt that this was a U.S. Military Drone, and not Flight 175
7. They show up in nearly 98% of all the video footage and pictures.
Now I want to first of all address a common complaint which isn't
even a fair shot at debunking any of this material. And that is that
the pod would block the Gear Well Doors. Not so. first take a good look
at the bottom of this 767-200.
Picture 1H
And notice how though not shown, that the landing gear folds up
into the wing root of the aircraft, which is the flat underside of the
planes fuselage centerline.
Now in the photograph below, the gear well doors do indeed appear
to be blocked. But then, the port engine also appears to be about 8
feet too long and forward of its real positioning. This could be the
result of either video artifacting, or a result of the jet fuel being
sprayed from this planes fuselage. When you get gas in your car, and
the fumes come up from the tank nozzle, everything is blurry and
convoluted. That is more than likely what is occurring here. But it
could be video artifacting as well.
Picture 1I
Now notice in this picture that we know did not come from a video camera, that the 'pod' is forward of the gear well doors.
Picture 1K
The reason the above picture is so grainy is that William Lewis took it
from the actual New York Magazine with his camera. In this picture
below, which I am sure is the same shot, only clearer, and from a 35MM,
it can be seen clearly that the pod is forward of the gear well doors.
Picture 1L
So, with that out of the way and addressed, now take a look at the appendage on Flight 175.
Picture 1M
Clear as a bell! A very large appendage on the planes fuselage. It
is not a Wing Faring either. Wing Faring's are symmetrical and even and
balanced. This is quite obviously asymmetrical, off centered, and only
on 1/2 the Wing Root. Thus it is not a Wing Faring. It casts its own
shadow and has its own reflection, just as the engines do. Shadows do
not cast shadows, and reflections do not cast reflections. It is a 3D
object. A Spanish University did an analysis which showed this to be a
3D object, which we don't need experts for as it is obvious by looking
at it.
http://www.amics21.com/911/enigma.html
Also, check this quote from amics21, url here: http://www.amics21.com/911/fli.....ttals.html
| Quote: |
P.S. Spanish Intelligence?
Obviously the investigative report by La Vanguardia journalists has
been having its effect. The people (one man and his fax machine?) at
OilEmpire.us have been having a good old time slagging off sites such
as this one and WebFairy, Physics911.org, Let'sRoll911.org,
911Review.org, etc., for passing off fuzzy adulterated pictures. We're
now called "Pod people". Looks like we're down on this black list as
purportedly being in cahoots with "Spanish intelligence services".
Wrong country Mark, "Sali al-Ioli and Luigi bin Liner [formerly of MI6]
working the Kasbah for You".
In any case, the investigative reports by La Vanguardia journalists
were published in June and July of 2003, when Spain was part of the
Coalition of the Bribed, I doubt that "Spanish intelligence services"
would work against their own government. |
It in clearly on the front cover of the New York Times, below. this ran on the September 12th, 2001 front cover
Picture 1N
Evan Fairbanks Photo:
Picture 1J
Picture 1O
CNN
Carmen Taylor
By the way, Carmen Taylor's photo has won several photojournalism
awards: "Arkansan's Image Put Perspective On Attacks", The Times
Record, Fort Smith (Sept. 8, 2002).
Picture 1P
It is in virtually all of the CNN footage, a bit fuzzy in about 3
out of 100 frames or so, but only in those 3 frames, and it was after
all supposed to be concealed, so we shouldn't be surprised if there are
some photos where it is hard to see. It is in the Evan Fairbanks
footage. The other CNN footage as well. Now the only other argument I
have heard is that "Wouldn't an extra piece of Equipment" like this
throw off the planes balance? This is a ridiculous argument made by
people who simply do not know the dynamics of flying. I have seen
entire, fully intact engines, placed in their own pod alongside another
working engine when an airline needs to replace an engine that went
down, say, in the Fiji Islands. The pictures below say the whole story.
Yes, it is easy to place extra equipment on the bottom of a plane. It
can easily be offset by changing the thrust of each engine to account
for imbalance.
Picture 1Q
Picture 1R
Picture 1S
Picture 1T
Picture 1U
Picture 1V
Now a while back Sureshot asked about the pod. And Johndoex
deferred it to me, and am sorry now that I didn't take the time earlier
and address this important piece of 911 evidence. I have looked into
this extensively. And it is there. There is an appendage on this
aircrafts fuselage. No ifs, ands or buts about it. As Colonel George
Nelson once said; | Quote: | | "Anyone
who says otherwise, or says that there is no pod, or it is a wing
fairing, is spreading disinformation, either intentionally or
otherwise...." |
There are two appendages on this aircrafts bottom. One on the fuselage,
and one next to the Port Wing. It is spraying out something from it's
fuselage and my best guess is that since these aircraft aren't water
tankers, that it is Jet Fuel being atomized to mask everything wrong
with this plane from the ground cameras. Call it a fuel blur between
the plane and the ground. I can come to no better theory than that the
plane is also firing a missile, rocket or incendiary device of some
kind to act as a match for the fuel. And it sure looks like a laser
painting the side of the building to me., as I pointed out earlier, it
sure isn't paper.
It is easy to dismiss the pod, especially if you haven't looked into
it. Nobody wants to be called 'pod people' after all. But they are
going to make fun of us no matter what we finally end up believing and
adhering to, so it might as well be the whole entire truth as best as
we can see it and prove it. If you don't want to be made fun of, then
911 simply isn't for you. So if believing the visual photo's and videos
show appendages on the bottom of Flight 175, and by so believing they
want to call me a pod person, then so be it. I am good with that.
Because it is undeniable that there are all sorts of issues with this
plane, the pod being only one of several of them. And when I saw the
pod getting treated as it was on this forum, I wanted to step in as the
Co-Founder and try to enlighten some people to the obvious. Many of you
might simply have been poisoned by Killtown and his incessant trashing
of the Pod. And let me shed some light on what might be his motivation
in doing so, and am surprised none of you have ever thought of this.
All these issues are the death knell to Killtown and the Webfairies
reign of Error. For crying out loud, can't you see that? If there is a
pod, then there is obviously a plane! If it fires out a missile or
rocket, then obviously there is a plane. If it has another piece of
equipment on the Port wing, there is obviously a plane. Thats why they
hate this so much and never miss an opportunity to trash this evidence.
Because it, all by itself, completely and totally debunks their long
reign of error. I would bet that that clever picture with the pod on
the model plane was more than likely made by them. They will do
anything to disprove this, not because they love truth, but because it
shows that they have yet one more red herring. From Holograms to CGI.
And these people haven't ever accepted proper rebuke for all of their
holographic nonsense and disinformation they spread around the internet
with so much hatred and contempt for any who disbelieved them. They
then move from one totally discredited theory, to a more reasonable,
but equally discredited theory, that these planes were CGI, which is
nothing more than a bunch of carefully crafted cow cookies, to put it
nicely. And anyone who spreads this nonsense is spreading
disinformation, whether it be Jimmy Walters, or Morgan Reynolds. They
reject the simple proofs, and exchange them with carefully crafted
lies. I would call this obfuscation if not an all out assault on the
simple truths.
I often wonder what their true motives are, as they are the loudest and
most vociferous force on the net against this evidence. But won't go
there for now.
To close, I offer you some more logic. Everyone who believes that the
World Trade Center was brought down by Controlled Demolitions, actually
is a proponent of these aircraft being Military Drones, whether or not
they even realize it. Because none of us believe there were hijackers.
We know they weren't piloted by the Pilots themselves who allegedly
took off in these aircraft. And the WTC started it's collapse right
where these planes hit. And none of us believe the bogus jet fuel
melodrama hooey. So what does this leave us with guys? Thats right!
Drones! They had to be Drones. Logic dictates they were Drones. The
photographic and video evidence says "Drones.."
The Drones hit the towers where they were programmed to hit them. And
then they provided a literal smokescreen to hide the initiation of the
collapse as well as to give reason why they collapsed. I am sorry if
this upset anyone here, but I just couldn't sit tight while yet another
forum trashes absolutely great evidence and proof. And as a Co-Founder
of this forum and website, felt an obligation to speak up on these
issues and clear the air. I would prefer this evidence to not be
relegated to Alternate Theories, as it truly isn't a theory with as
much overwhelming proof that there is available through pictures and
video. This is every bit as good as the controlled demolitions of the
Towers, and to be honest, easier to prove. Although both are easy to
prove.
Very Truly Yours,
Glen Stanish
Co-Founder of Pilots for Truth
Google Video of 911: In Plane Site - Please Watch this Video, It's Great and my Favorite 911 video!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8585976043115686394
****************************************
Footnotes:
Picture 1A -- From the Naudet Brothers Footage
Picture 1B -- Taken from Nova, Why The Towers Fell Documentary
Picture 1C -- Picture Phil
Jayhan & Deb Simon bought at Ground Zero, more than likely a copy
of Rob Howards, New york Mag Photo (Captions)
Picture 1D -- Picture Phil Jayhan & Deb Simon bought at Ground Zero, more than likely a copy of Rob Howards, New york Mag Photo
Picture 1E -- Aaorn C. Traub (http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?categoryID=3): (Left photo, CNN, Right Photo)
Picture 1F -- Aaorn C. Traub (http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?categoryID=3):
Audio 1G -- Fox News Live, Septmeber 11th, 2001
Video 1H --Top Copy - Camerplanet Footage, Bottom Copy, Same Material Ran on MSNBC
Picture 1I -- Animated Picture of 767-200 taken from http://m2reviews.cnsi.net
Picture 1J -- Taken from Evan Fairbanks Footage, later sold and ran on ABC News
Picture 1K --Taken by Rob Howard, New York Magazine
Picture 1L -- Picture Phil Jayhan & Deb Simon bought at Ground Zero, more than likely a copy of Rob Howards, New york Mag Photo
Picture 1M -- Front Cover of Newsday Magazine, September 12th, 2001
Picture 1N -- Taken from Evan Fairbanks Footage, later sold and ran on ABC News (Captions)
Picture 1O -- Taken from Evan Fairbanks Footage, later sold and ran on ABC News
Picture 1P -- Carmen Taylor's photo
Picture 1Q -- E8 707 with a Jstars Pod on bottom
Picture 1R -- Taken from Ohio Agriculture page http://www.ohioagriculture.gov
Picture 1S -- Air Force Plane with Pod attached on bottom
Picture 1T -- Iranian Air Force Plane with Extra Fuel Pod attached to wing
Picture 1U -- Foreign Air Force plane with Jstars pod attached
Picture 1V -- Bottom shot of U.S. Air Force E8 modified 707 with Jstarts pod attached
|
The Leo Wanta Story
Hiroshima & Nagasaki
|
 I am currently residing in the North Pole, Alaska, making a new 911 video which more than likely will be named, "The 911 Broadcast." | |
|
Email This Web Page
|
|
|
     
|
