Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.astronomy > #273069

Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( FNVWE has to subtract 14 )

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Rocky, in <news:86GdnfJfG6m8GEnInZ2dnUU7-eudnZ2d@giganews.com>
did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> 
> wrote in message
> 
> H<SMACKAKOOK!>

Evangelical crusaders for sub-moronism are to shut their fat
slobbering maws until they can explain in scientific terms with
peer-reviewed evidence exactly how their kooky conspiracy theory
is able to violate several laws of physics, Sub-Moron.

Kook. LOL

> H<SMACKAKOOK!>

Now, get to addressing the 14 ways your kook conspiracy theory
violates the laws of physics:

======================================================
1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of
collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep
below the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to
drill to today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact
that at that depth, the temperature is so high things like metal
*melt*. That's *why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636
miles of the Al Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole
*ever* dug in human history)... the equipment fails. That's why
the Kola Superdeep Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep.

2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the video *you* provided wasn't an
EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd
been a nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond
time frame of the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP)
would have caused the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount
of shielding would have been sufficient to prevent that. That
there is video of the immediate aftermath proves there was no
nuke, especially one sized your claimed 150 kt, which would have
destroyed all electronics for dozens of miles radius.

3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that
there's no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke.
If it had been from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have
shown high levels of radioactivity for decades. It was most
likely the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement
weapon sights that was the source. You didn't specify what type
of radiation was experienced, and I doubt you're smart or
educated enough to even know what types of radiation there are.

4) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be
sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by
people in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you
k'lamed, from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the
order of 2 MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame
the bombs were buried.

5) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron
source. It naturally decays over time, and its decay byproducts,
the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it decays,
include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon
poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger
being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start
any sort of nuclear chain reaction.

6) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as*
*it* *was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling
vertical support column and *NO* EMP:
======================
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo>
You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column
buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No
amount of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP.
======================

7) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going
to survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would
be approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the
temperature would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K?

8) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through
a hole without any of the compressive blast going out into
surrounding rock.

9) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic
taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 satellite
uplink disruptions in the video *you* provided) were detonated at
the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects were
experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft.

10) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel sent down to
service those nukes (because now that you know the neutron-source
triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a periodic
basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire base at
37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the technology
to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with "4
blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area
the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced
to admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched
for 33 years and maintained their viability) are supposed to
survive in 960 to 1840 degree heat?

11) You admitted (ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com)
that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers
(all 1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked
off to the Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your
admission with your kook blather that significant percentages of
the buildings "vaporized" (your word) and "floated toward Europe"
(your words)?

12) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic
signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the
WTC site on 11 Sep 2001?

13) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris
kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep
underground, Ko0K?

14) Explain how these 19 nukes could tunnel holes from their
underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep, to directly
under the WTC complex... in 12 seconds... through solid
bedrock... prior to detonating directly below the WTC towers
(which, of course, fucks up your timing between the detonations
and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion
started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on
The Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.).
======================================================

There's now 14 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws
of physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one,
point by point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who
can't grasp simple physics.

Kook. LOL

-- 

Rocky, your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid
admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and
more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly
demolishes your kook theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of
illogic.

For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the video
*you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you
they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a
simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the
nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33
years.

B) Your timing on the video *you* *provided* between the video
disturbance due to satellite uplink interference (what you deemed
to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower falling being 12 seconds (it
was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your
supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93
*miles* below the surface (depending upon soil composition and
thus speed of compressive blast transmission... and since we're
talking solid bedrock here, it'd be at the upper end of that
scale). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill
that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to
yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least
try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a
shallow hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore,
now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, covered it up, walked
away for 33 years".

C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require
periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which
naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay
byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon
poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to
service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means
your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow
hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an
impossibly deep hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years",
to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC,
complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the
explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were
maintained" (your words).

D) Your broken brain is now saying there were 19 nukes instead of
your original 3, because you know there were 19 instances of
satellite uplink interference in the video *you* *provided*, in
which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink
interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP,
they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there
were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely
ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the
city into darkness due to EMP, and completely ignoring the fact
that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble or
its vicinity.

E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were
buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius,
which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to
demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so
your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could
somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just
below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their
cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain
said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock*
in *12* *seconds*. LOL

F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs
your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up
to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they
didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd
be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue),
that leads right back to your calculation of the time between
your claimed "EMP" on the video *you* *provided* and the time the
buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So you've
proven by skirting the perimeter of sanity full-circle that
you're insane. LOL

IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality. And the harder you try, the more you run around in
little tard-circles, banging your head and doing your very best
Rainman imitation. I can twist your brain into a pretzel with my
knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even
worked up a sweat yet.
=============================

Kook. LOL

Back to alt.astronomy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-15 07:46 +0200
  Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 18:26 -0500
    Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 18:55 -0500
      Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-16 09:50 -0400
        Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-16 09:21 -0500
    Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-16 04:22 +0200
      Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 21:39 -0500
        Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 19:47 -0700
        Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-16 07:12 +0200
          Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-16 00:34 -0500
            Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-16 21:17 +0200
              Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( more 4 FNVWE ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-16 18:35 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( more 4 FNVWE ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-17 04:19 +0200
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( more 4 FNVWE ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-16 22:04 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( more 4 FNVWE ) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-16 23:24 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( more 4 FNVWE ) Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-16 20:41 -0700
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( more 4 FNVWE ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 20:56 -0700
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( more 4 FNVWE ) Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-16 20:56 -0700
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( more 4 FNVWE ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 03:43 -0700
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( to Sarah ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-16 23:28 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( to Sarah ) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-17 09:26 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( to Sarah #2 ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 09:20 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( to Sarah #2 ) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-17 10:28 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( to Sarah #2 ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 09:37 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( to Sarah #2 ) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-17 17:41 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( to Sarah #2 ) Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-17 08:04 -0700
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( Checkmated checkmate ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 10:26 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( Checkmated checkmate ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 16:43 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( to Sarah #2 ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 16:43 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( to Sarah #2 ) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-17 19:46 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( more 4 FNVWE ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-17 08:09 +0200
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE Perimeter Walls ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 06:48 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE Perimeter Walls ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-17 17:05 +0200
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE credentials ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 10:23 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE credentials ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-17 19:27 +0200
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE is a complete idiot ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 12:45 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE is a complete idiot ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-18 05:00 +0200
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-18 11:17 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-18 17:10 +0000
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-18 14:27 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-18 18:37 +0000
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  jim + seismographs ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-19 10:34 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( jim + seismographs ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-19 16:35 +0100
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  jim + seismographs ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-19 18:14 +0200
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  jim + seismographs ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-19 17:53 +0000
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  jim + seismographs ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-19 17:33 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( jim + seismographs ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-20 00:07 +0100
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( jim + seismographs ) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-21 14:15 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( jim + seismographs ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-21 19:55 +0100
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( jim + seismographs ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:05 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( jim + seismographs ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:17 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( jim + seismographs ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 21:31 +0000
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( jim + seismographs ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-21 23:51 +0100
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  jim + seismographs ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-19 23:07 +0000
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-18 15:07 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  TVfolery ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-18 18:07 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  TVfolery ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-18 23:28 +0000
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  TVfolery ) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-19 08:25 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  TVfolery ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-19 17:55 +0000
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  TVfolery ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 18:05 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  TVfoolery ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-19 09:21 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  TVfoolery ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-19 17:57 +0000
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-19 08:07 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 08:25 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-19 09:46 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-19 09:15 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-19 16:37 +0100
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-19 17:59 +0000
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 14:11 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 18:05 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-19 19:51 -0400
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 04:06 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-19 04:16 +0200
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-19 08:32 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE has to subtract 14 ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-19 17:35 +0200
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE avoided the Perimeter Walls ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 14:36 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE avoided the Perimeter Walls ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 20:58 +0000
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE avoided the Perimeter Walls ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 16:17 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE avoided the Perimeter Walls ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 23:00 +0000
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  (  FNVWE avoided the Perimeter Walls ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 16:40 -0500
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( FNVWE avoided the Perimeter Walls ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-18 07:22 +0200
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... ( FNVWE avoided the Perimeter Walls ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-18 07:05 +0200
                Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong...  ( more 4 FNVWE ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 04:17 -0500
          Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... (laughing at FNVWE) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-16 09:14 -0500
            Re: Here, Rocky... prove yourself wrong... (laughing at FNVWE) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-16 21:17 +0200

csiph-web