Contact: Robert Balsamo e-mail: pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org
UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain United Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder information,consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict observed events in several significant ways:
The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.
All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.
Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.
Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.
Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.
In May, 2007, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that United Airlines Flight 93 created the impact crater as reported, in Somerset County, PA on the morning of September 11, 2001. According to the US Govt, United Airlines Flight 93 approached Somerset County from the North-Northwest at a high altitude on the morning of September 11, 2001. However, many witnesses contradict altitude as well as approach path. Also according to reports, and as the impact crater suggests, United Airlines Flight 93 impacted terrain at an almost vertical 90 degree angle, while the Flight Data Recorder shows a 35 degree angle with up-sloping terrain, further reducing impact angle.
The information provided by the US Government does not support reports of United Airlines Flight 93 approach, impact angles, and lack of jet fuel at Somerset Country, PA.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of United Flight 93 and the events observed. As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter. For more information and in depth analysis please visit pilotsfor911truth.org.
There's a mountain of evidence confirming that flight 93 did indeed crash into that Pennsylvania field as reported.
It's perfectly normal in any situation like this to have conflicting eye-witness reports, strange anomalies, and weird inconsistencies. I think the ones pointed out here are either minor, or are simply the result of rumor and reporting mistakes.
If anyone is so concerned with these little details, let THEM pay for their own investigation. Knock yourselves out.
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 482 comments)
on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 12:27:36 PM
There is a mountain of evidence that an aircraft went down at Shankesville, but that evidence does NOT support Flight 93:
(1) The impact hole is too small. (2) The volume of debris is too small. (3) There was only a limited mount of jet fuel residue in the ground. (4) The atmospheric smoke of the impact was limited. (5) The "recovered" remains, allegedly from Fl93, are anomalous and are suggestive of evidence tampering. (6) The human remains (600 lbs) does not campare with the passenger weights (4 tons). (7) No aircraft parts identification has ever been provided. (8) There is no verifiable evidence chain of custody on the debris, human remains or FDR. (9) Neither the NTSB or the FAA handled the evidence, only the FBI.
(10) The FDR data does not match the witness statements of the site evidence.
We can go into each of these in detail if you like, but the American public are entitled to full and frank answers and a comprehensive independent inquiry, not some cockamamy fictionalised "story". The US leadership almost certainly manufactured the story of "let's roll" and have a track record of systematic lies. Why the hell should they be believed about Fl 93?
by
ken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 42 comments)
on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 10:18:24 PM
Based on what?What are you comparing this to?How many aircraft crash investigations have you done that givesyou the qualifications to make this statement?
Ken: (2) The volume of debris is too small.
Again based on what data?Did you weigh out the debris?When you say the volume was too small are you taking into account that an airplane is mostly empty space?
Ken:(3) There was only a limited mount of jet fuel residue in the ground.
Again, based on what?Did you conduct a laboratory analysis of the soil to determine the concentrations?Did you probe the soil to determine the extent of the fuel that was in the ground?Where is the data that you are basing this claim on?
Ken:(4) The atmospheric smoke of the impact was limited.
Define “limited.”What data can you produce that proves that there is an anomaly here?
Ken: (5) The "recovered" remains, allegedly from Fl93, are anomalous and are suggestive of evidence tampering.
Are you a forensic specialist?Have you seen and reviewed ALL of the information on the recovered remains?If not, then how can you make this assessment?
Ken:6) The human remains (600 lbs) does not campare with the passenger weights (4 tons).
Did you expect to find intact bodies or even large body parts?If so, why and by what do you compare this to?
Ken: (7) No aircraft parts identification has ever been provided.
Have you asked?Do you have a legitimate reason for that information to be given to you?
Ken: (8) There is no verifiable evidence chain of custody on the debris, human remains or FDR.
Again, have you reviewed all of the data?Do you think that you have a legitimate reason to be given access to all the data?
Ken: (9) Neither the NTSB or the FAA handled the evidence, only the FBI.
Isn’t that their job?
Ken: (10) The FDR data does not match the witness statements of the site evidence.
More unfounded B.S.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 349 comments)
on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 9:21:40 AM
Based on what? -- the hole is 75' wide and the aircraft is 125' feet wide. (see also here).
What are you comparing this to? -- an official photo showing a nearby car of max length 15' and an impact hole equal to 5 car lengths.
How many aircraft crash investigations have you done that gives you the qualifications to make this statement? -- how many crash investigations have you ever attended? I've got eyes, I can see. Why don't you use yours? -- or would that lead to a dangerous outbreak of thinking?
Ken: (2) The volume of debris is too small.
Again based on what data? -- the only photos released by the authorities showing small debris.
Did you weigh out the debris? -- Do you do special training to think up ridiculous questions like this? Did you walk around with the investigators at Shankesville? Did you interview every witness personally? Do you wear a helicopter hat?
When you say the volume was too small are you taking into account that an airplane is mostly empty space? -- LOL. I left out the hot air. Why don't you?
Multiple witnesses at the Shanksville site reported on the lack of debris.
The FBI claims that it recovered 95 percent of the plane and sent it on to United Airlines. That would be about 60 tons of plane debris. I defy anyone to produce evidence that 60 tons of plane debris was taken from Shankesville or forwarded to UA. Lies!
Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller reported that they had found "unspecified human remains and enough minuscule pieces of plane debris to fill one-third of a dumpster." That's right, 1/3 of a dumpster! This dumpster!
Ken:(3) There was only a limited mount of jet fuel residue in the ground.
Again, based on what? -- according to FDR data there was 17.01 tons, 5,500 gals of fuel left at time of impact.
Did you conduct a laboratory analysis of the soil to determine the concentrations? -- no, but the EPA did.
Did you probe the soil to determine the extent of the fuel that was in the ground? -- Did you? (Are you still wearing that silly helicopter hat?) The EPA did probe the soil.
Where is the data that you are basing this claim on? -- the EPA has it.
"We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," witness Jim Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth." - Pittsburgh Channel (09/11/01)
Ken:(4) The atmospheric smoke of the impact was limited.
Define “limited.” -- as in not commensurate with the known fuel load or the smoke of other aircraft crashes.
What data can you produce that proves that there is an anomaly here? -- photos of crashes of even smaller sized aircraft (here and here) and a photo of the Shanksville smoke.
Ken: (5) The "recovered" remains, allegedly from Fl93, are anomalous and are suggestive of evidence tampering.
Are you a forensic specialist? -- Do you know of any published reports by aircraft crash forensic analysts in relation to Fl 93? (Hint: there aren't any because the FBI refused to allow either the FAA or NTSB carry out investigations required of them by law and which they had undertaken as standard procedure for ALL previous aircraft crashes occuring in the US over many decades.)
Have you seen and reviewed ALL of the information on the recovered remains? -- No, and neither have you, so any claims you make about Fl 93 debris are worthless by your own argument. United Airlines was given the recovered aircraft debris a mere two weeks after 911. The FBI did NOT carry out any forensic evaluation of the crash nor permit anyone else to do so. That's a profoundly unprofessional course of action given that one caller from Fl 93 late in the flight said a bomb had possibly blown up in the plane.
If not, then how can you make this assessment? -- A terrorist passport found in the streets of New York that "survived" the WTC attacks and a Koran and materials recovered from Mohammed Atta's car all apear to be staged evidence, as does the unmarked red bandana recovered at Shanksville. When 200 airline seats are totally destroyed you don't expect to find unmarked red bandanas and bibles!
Ken: (6) The human remains (600 lbs) does not campare with the passenger weights (4 tons). Did you expect to find intact bodies or even large body parts? -- no, but I don't expect the laws of physics to be overturned.
If so, why and by what do you compare this to? -- Modern, high temperature crematoria take 2 hours to burn bodies yet we are expected to believe that 4 tons of human remains disappeared ("vaporised") in an instant leaving only 150- 600lbs of tissue shreds. The temperatures were simply not high enough to dispose of that volume of human remains in such a small time frame. If the bodies burned above ground they would have left a recognizable offensive smell (burnt tissue like at a BBQ) that would have been noticed just like at other aircraft crash sites. Carbon based objects such as humans, luggage and seating require oxygen to burn. If they were burned above ground they would have produced larger amounts of smoke than was seen. Had they passed into the ground they would not have burned because there was no oxygen; they might have been shredded, but not consumed by fire. So if the seats burned above ground then 200 seat frames would be there somewhere. They're not. Instead, we have this.
Ken: (7) No aircraft parts identification has ever been provided.
Have you asked? -- I should not have to. The details would be provided by any standard NTSB or FAA inquiry that would normally occur as required by law. Their reports-- including detailed expert analysis of plane parts -- would normally be published or available under FOI. The US government has steadfastly refused to respond to practically all FOI requests in regard to 911 issues so your question is a fatuous one. Do you have a legitimate reason for that information to be given to you? -- Do you have a legitimate reason for concealing that information from the public? Is there any reason why you would hide from people the reasons why their loved ones died on 911? The US is a democracy answerable to the people. It is not for the government of the day to tell the American public what they can and can't know. If it is standard practice for detailed aircraft crash analyses to be carries out and the results made public then there are no good reasons, security or otherwise, why that practice was not followed in regard to Fl 93.
Officially, the largest piece found of Fl 93 was a seven-foot-long piece of the fuselage skin, including four windows. Given that the wings are 125' wide with a 40' high tail then that's a load of baloney right there!
Ken: (8) There is no verifiable evidence chain of custody on the debris, human remains or FDR.
Again, have you reviewed all of the data? -- Obviously, no, and neither have you. Do you think that you have a legitimate reason to be given access to all the data? -- See answer above. We don't live in a Stalinist state, yet. The public are entitled to know both on legal and moral grounds the evidence for what happened to Fl 93.
Ken: (9) Neither the NTSB or the FAA handled the evidence, only the FBI.
Isn’t that their job? -- yes it is, but they have no legal authority to prohibit, hinder or obstruct legally mandated inquiries by the FAA and the NTSB that should have taken place. They were forbidden from doing so. The FBI also had clear obligations in regard to the handling of evidence which they failed to fulfill. The usual investigative procedures in regard to flight crashes and the handling of evidence were not followed in regard to 911.
Ken: (10) The FDR data does not match the witness statements or the site evidence.
More unfounded B.S. -- Yes, you certainly work along those lines. The FDR data records an upside down impact at an angle of 45 degrees. The Shanksville images are all consistent with a vertical impact.You can google the witness statements yourself.
Roark Howard, you are one those self-preoccupied nuisances who invade websites and charge around demanding of others that they explain themselves over issues that can be answered with the simplest efforts at Google. You ask superficial, even silly, questions stuffed with the conceit that somehow the world owes you an explanation. You assume that it is critics of the official theory who must provide an explanation. But neither in logic, law, science or morality is this the case. In the law, as in science, it is those who assert a claim who have to prove it. So it is the official theory that requires evidentiary justification. The American people are fully entitled to know what happened to Fl 93. Standard investigations by the NTSB and FAA were forbidden by the Bush adminstration and most of the relevant evidence has been concealed. There are significant evidence discrepancies that need to be answered. It is possible to politely disagree, even respect, those supporters of the official theory who bring evidence to their arguments and who argue sincerely. You don't fit into that category. It is not for some superficial critic like you to tell the American people what they can and can't know about the events of 911.
by
ken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 42 comments)
on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 10:47:17 PM
Excellent article. Wonder when the truth will come out as to what actually hit the Pentagon! Another question - why didn't the Warren Commission's report cover the implosion of WTC 7 building? Amazing to watch the re-runs of 9/11 - and see the pre-set explosions systematically imploding the buildings. Explains why the Bush Co. was so diligent about handing out a million dollars to anyone who had a friend/relative/cat/dog lost in the planned destruction.
by
lucydavis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments)
on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM
Of course, the fact that debris was found up to 8 miles from the crash site (as reported by the mainstream media) in itself casts serious doubt on the official story.
by
Nordic (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 4:15:45 AM
You better check your map, Indian lake is only 1.5 miles from the crash site. that is close enough for light debris to have been blown by the prevailing winds.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 349 comments)
on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 9:25:40 AM
In any turbofan there is a massive tempered steel hollow shaft that holds all the rotor discs and the indestructible titanium fan blades. The outer cowling of an engine may be shredded and gone, but in ANY aircraft crash the core is still found,bent and bruised but it survives. There were no engine parts found at the twin towers or at the Penn. site. An engine was found at the pentagon that closely resembles those used in a cruise missle. Wheel rims also always survive. They are built to take constant punishment. Black boxes are designed to survive a crash,these also are conveniently missing.
Turbine blades function in the white hot combustion chamber of a turbofan, it is not possible that they melted in a jet fuel fire, not even carburated and under compression do they melt, they wont even "sag". So where are the blades ? Enquiring minds want to know.
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 353 comments)
on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 7:29:55 PM
Your point is a major one. There is NO reason for the American public to accept just any old story. TITANIUM DOES NOT MELT IN AIRCRAFT CRASHES! But your good point extends to all the other flight remains. Where is the 4 tons of bodies? Only 600 lbs of human remains and crematoria take 2 hours(!) to burn human bodies. in Aug 2006 a Russian plane, almost identical in size to Fl93, crashed in Siberia." They recovered 140 bodies and huge amounts a debris. But nothing like that at Shankesville.
We want an independent inquiry! When do we want it? NOW!
by
ken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 42 comments)
on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 11:03:06 PM
They might have shattered, but they couldn't vanish.
The engines are 10' long 7' wide and weigh 4.5 tons. Even if they turbine blades break away from the main housing they will not shatter into tiny pieces (especially given the soft soil they crashed into). There would still be 9 tons of engine pieces in close proximity and most of the engine pieces would be recognizable even if the engine shattered (which is unlikely). And let's not forget the 200 seats and the entire fuselage and massive wings and tail. Where the hell is all this in here? How about here? Here? No?
This is what it looked like when it hit the ground according to the flight data recorder (FDR) -- the official government explanation. So where is the tail markings at the impact site? Or doesn't that matter to you?
Here is what they would have you believe. Silly, isn't it?
The FBI claims that it recovered 95 percent of the plane and sent it on to United Airlines. That would be about 60 tons of plane debris. I defy anyone to produce evidence that 60 tons of plane debris was taken from Shankesville or forwarded to UA. Lies!
The debris in the dumpster that you referenced below probably weighed five or six tons in on of itself.Furthermore, that consisted of material collected during a final sweep of the area.
Why are you so convinved that they did not remove 60 tons of material?Have you seen it yourself?Basing your opinion off of a few photographs is hardly conclusive.
Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller reported that they had found "unspecified human remains and enough minuscule pieces of plane debris to fill one-third of a dumpster." That's right, 1/3 of a dumpster! This dumpster!
You seem to be under the impression that that statement indicates that they just threw the human remains in the dumpster.Please re-read it
"unspecified human remains and enough minuscule pieces of plane debris to fill one-third of a dumpster"
Granted, it’s not the most well constructed sentence, but I do not see anything there that says that they put both the remains and the debris in the dumpster.The statement says that they found enough pieces of the plane to fill one third of a dumpster.
Seriously, do you honestly think that t hey threw the human remains in there as well?Is your view of reality that warped that you think that that would happen without someone making a stink about it?What a poor opinion you have of your fellow man.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 349 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 8:41:45 AM
Ken:(4) The atmospheric smoke of the impact was limited.
Define “limited.”
-- as in not commensurate with the known fuel load or the smoke of other aircraft crashes.
Based on what?A single photograph?Please detail how you determined just how much smoke there should have been?Do you have additional photographs with time stamps to support your claim?
If you are saying that here should have been copious amounts of thick black smoke (like what was produced when the jet fuel burned in the WTC towers) then ou have to produce sufficient evidence to prove that there was not.I would like to see a time stamped series of photographs from the impact on to support this claim.
What data can you produce that proves that there is an anomaly here?
-- photos of crashes of even smaller sized aircraft (here and here) and a photo of the Shanksville smoke.
The key difference here is that those photos you are comparing to were taken well after the impact, when the fires had time to develop.The single shanksville photograph that you offer is not from a comparable time frame.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 349 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 8:44:58 AM
Multiple witnesses at the Shanksville site reported on the lack of debris.
Multiple witnesses in California also reported a lack of large debris after the crash of PSA flight 1771 in 1987.What is notable about this crash is that like Flight 93, it was a high energy impact into terrain.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 349 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 9:02:07 AM
I intend to respond to these few posts and after that I intend to ignore you. A review of your postings at this website and the feedback from others makes it quite clear that you argue badly, draw the wrong inferences, misquote people, use evidence selectively, wrongly insist that it is the responsibility of 911 critics to "prove" their case (when it is the government that refuses to divulge its evidence to the public or carry out appropriate inquiries) and you attribute bad faith to those who disagree with you. Taken as a whole, I have no respect for your contribution to this debate. I only write in order that less-informed members of the public may not be confused by your illogical and misleading arguments.
Why are you so convinced that they did not remove 60 tons of material? -- because the FBI claimed so (check the web link).
Have you seen it yourself? -- Would you please stop posting infantile questions that are somehow meant to mean something. Have you seen any of the debris material personally? Clearly not. By your own reasoning you are not in a position to comment about FL 93.
Basing your opinion off of a few photographs is hardly conclusive -- Who said I did anything of the kind? The plane itself weighs over 70 tons (without fuel or passengers). The photos I linked to were the only photos released by the US government. There is NO photographic or documentary evidence AT ALL for 60 tons of plane debris at the site. NO witnesses saw anything like 60 tons of wings, tail, fuselage, seats, luggage, spars, wheels, wheel mountings etc. Do you get the picture?
What's more, when the buried material was dug up there was no evidence then that 60 tons of aircraft was retrieved from the site.
Let me state this again for you in case it escapes you -- a 757-200 is HUGE! It has masses and masses of aluminium, fibreglass, steel, fabric. Now, for any of that to "burn up" the burning has to take place above ground (because you need oxygen). That would mean two things:
(1) There would be considerable metallic debris left above ground at the site after seats and plastic and paint had all burned (there were only some small fragments), and
(2) There would be a continuous cloud of smoke emitting for some time while the burning took place (no witnesses saw any such continuous or voluminous burning and there are no photographs of any extensive smoke cloud other than for the initial impact).
Since there was no large fire above ground then 70 tons of plane had to be pulverised into the ground (ie underground where NO fires could take place because of a lack of oxygen). The plane might be shredded but there would be 60-70 tons of debris there. There is no photographic, documentary or witness evidence ever released pointing to the recovery of 60 tons of plane debris. What's more, from the witness statements at the impact site, there is no reason to believe that almost an entire plane vanished underground.
Supporters of the theory can't have it both ways. Either the plane was substantially burned above the ground, or was unburned and buried in which case 60 tons would be recoverable. Evidence for neither outcome has ever been seen by the public and almost certainly does not exist.
You seem to be under the impression that that statement indicates that they just threw the human remains in the dumpster. Please re-read it -- "unspecified human remains and enough minuscule pieces of plane debris to fill one-third of a dumpster" --
Look, if you don't know what sentences mean then please go and do a course in grammer. The meaning is quite clear. The Coroner supervising at the site found some human remains. He also found "enough minuscule pieces of plane debris to fill one-third of a dumpster". Neither the Coroner's statement, nor my arguments, claimed at any stage that "they just threw the human remains in the dumpster". I really can't help you if you can't read the clear meaning of sentences.
"The debris in the dumpster that you referenced below probably weighed five or six tons in on of itself. Furthermore, that consisted of material collected during a final sweep of the area." -- that's not what the Coroner claimed. If you read the newspaper article from which his statement is taken you will find the clear meaning from him that there was very little debris at the impact site.
Go and have a look at the pictures I have linked to.
Regarding the smoke from the impact site, there is only one photo taken immediately after the impact. There were many witnesses who arrived shortly after. None of them reported on continuing large-scale burning of any kind or any large or increasing smoke clouds over the crash site that one normally finds when a plane catches fire and burns.
"The key difference here is that those photos you are comparing to were taken well after the impact, when the fires had time to develop. The single shanksville photograph that you offer is not from a comparable time frame." -- jet fuel burns fiercely and quickly with a thick, black smoke. It doesn't take a great deal of time to "develop". What's more, there was 5,500 gallons of it at the time of impact. There is nothing to indicate any large scale or extended fire at the impact site. The atmospheric smoke of the impact was limited.
"Multiple witnesses in California also reported a lack of large debris after the crash of PSA flight 1771 in 1987. What is notable about this crash is that like Flight 93, it was a high energy impact into terrain." -- if you are going to make allegations about a plane crash somewhere else then you need to provide web links and clear evidence (as I did, above, with a link to a Siberian plane almost identical to a 757-200, that crashed at high speed and produced ALL 140 bodies and most of the plane parts).
It is simply not good enough to make unsupported claims that "high energy impact" crashes can result in the wholesale disappearance of debris. When this nonsense claim has its idiotic assumptions unmasked it really says that the plane (including metal parts) either (a) burned up, or (b) "vaporised". Both claims are scientific garbage. Even with jet fuel, metal cannot burn (it's not a carbon-based plane seat or a human being) nor can it vaporise (turn to gas) -- the temperatures are way too low. The whole idea is scientific baloney that gets trotted out regularly by people who want to believe that high speed crashes suddenly change the laws of physics. They don't. Yes, the plane can be "shredded" more, but the debris is still all there, all 60 tons of it, it's just in fragments.
Go back and read through some of the web links a bit more closely. OK, we're done.
by
ken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 42 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 10:06:28 AM
