TWA 800 Investigation (very long)

Status
Not open for further replies.

boxer

Veteran
Feb 28, 2003
979
45
SFO
Friends,

July 17, 2008, Thursday, will be the 12th anniversary of the destruction of
TWA 800, and an annual ceremony will be held there at the Long Island
Memorial. The FBI "cover-up" scandal is finally coming to a head, but there has
been little publicity. There is strong evidence that the B-747 was destroyed by
TWO surface launched missiles, and there were more than 200 eye-witnesses
who were gagged from testifying by the FBI, which unlawfully took control of
the investigation from the NTSB. Evidence was hidden, altered, or destroyed,
including missile particles taken from bodies and aircraft seat cushions in
the impact areas. Radar tapes were altered to remove the missile track
evidence, aircraft parts were altered or confiscated,and released tapes were
recalled and confiscated, as was other evidence, released initially to the Media.

Ray Lahr, a retired United pilot, ex-Navy pilot, and a USC engineer, served
on numerous aircraft accident investigations in his role as an ALPA Safety
and accident investigator, and for years, has been struggling with the
Government to release their data and the programs they invented to prove no missile
attack. The FBI grabbed the investigation from the NTSB, which is required by
law to hold the investigation, and committed the most amazing acts of fraud
to hide all evidence of the missiles. This is not "conspiracy theory"
insanity, believe me. A Federal judge agreed that the "accident investigation" was
a complete cover-up of the cause, and he ruled, in 2006, that the Government
must release critical evidence to Lahr. What they produced was missing
critical data and information.

Ray wrote that: ..."the FBI was certainly guilty of grabbing evidence and
running it down to its (DCA) laboratory where it disappeared." ... "Graeme
Sephton, an engineer in the Boston area, brought a lawsuit against the FBI to
produce the reports about the imbedded foreign objects that were removed from
the bodies. Graeme won his lawsuit and the Court directed the FBI to produce
the evidence. The FBI came back a little later and said that it had
searched and it couldn't it (be) found. Unfortunately, that seemed to satisfy the
court."

Excerpt from witness statement: Id. at 185 ¶ 3 Sanders Aff.: "[TWA Captain]
Terry Stacy began to feed me a series of documents that I analyzed bad to do
with the debris field…. When I showed him this trail, he, for the first
time, and this was at the end of November [1996]… He goes, 'my God there is a
reddish orange residue trail right there. I think it the very same seats row 17,
18 and 19, that the FBI back in early September took samples and it refused
to share the analysis on those samples." (Solid rocket fuel)

Ray has been fighting to get the witness names and CIA's calculation data
that showed there was an impossible "Zoom Climb", but they won't turn it over
through the Freedom of Information process. The "cover-up" was proved in
Federal Court, and subsequently the NTSB and CIA have been ordered to provide
"hidden" documents, witnesses and FBI names, and evidence that they claimed
were lost, or never existed. The Government Agencies are appealing this
Judicial Order to give-up the evidence in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a
Pasadena Court house on August 8th. At that hearing, Ray Lahr will accuse
the Government of "Fraud", and will produce the evidence before a 3-Judge panel
of Appeals; his brief (below) is already entered in the Court documents as
evidence. This is an exciting development in aviation safety and freedom, not
to mention the terrorism that existed all the way back to Oklahoma City,
including this shoot-down. It should concern all of us, and I would like to
publicize the hell out of this thing. Any one willing to help, please contact
me. The anniversary, Thursday, is an opportunity to bring it to the public's
attention.
Denis

Excerpts from this fascinating account:

Flight 800 climbed eastbound, through 13,000 feet, en route to
its assigned altitude of 15,000 feet. Its landing lights were on, a usual
procedure in crowded air terminal areas.
â—￾ About 30 miles directly ahead of Flight 800, McClaine and
Fuschetti, in Eastwind 507, were approaching it while descending to 16,000
feet. McClaine was following Flight 800's landing lights.
â—￾ About 10 miles to the north, Meyer and Bauer were making an
approach to the Hampton airport in a Blackhawk National Guard helicopter,
when they visually picked up the missile fire.
â—￾ From the south, US Air approached and was to cross overhead
of Flight 800 about 8,000 feet above it. Brumley, from his vantage of a
window seats on the right side and ahead of the wing of his aircraft (likely the
closest eyewitness), saw a missile rise up and arc over towards Flight 800.
â—￾ Almost directly overhead, the Navy P-3 crossed Flight 800's
path from north to south.
â—￾ Hundreds of other witnesses along the Long Island coast
followed missile fire rising from the surface.
At 8:31 p.m., about eleven minutes after Flight 800 departed, when the
airplane reached an altitude of 13,800 feet, 2.6 miles above sea level,
approximately 9 miles from the Long Island barrier reefs, 12 miles east of Center
Moriches, the two missiles intersected, almost dead on.
7
â—￾ One missile entered Flight 800 just below the left wing,
traversed the center of the aircraft through rows 17, 18, and 19, and exited
the right side of the fuselage,5 bringing debris with it.6
â—￾ Just after (or before) that missile sliced through the aircraft.
the second missile exploded outside the aircraft's lower left side,7
collapsing the nose gear doors inward, completely

Read the whole Lahr reply brief to the Government's appeal for reversal at:
_http://raylahr.entryhost.com/Briefs/LahrReply3Dec07.pdf_
(http://raylahr.entryhost.com/Briefs/LahrReply3Dec07.pdf)
(http://raylahr.entryhost.com/Briefs/LAHR-BRIEF.pdf)
The brief alleges and proves FRAUD on the part of the CIA, FBI, and NTSB.
You'll find it quite amazing and stimulating. We've got to get angry about
this abuse of power and aviation safety. One of the main reasons for the NTSB
was to keep politics from interfering with accident investigations.

Spread the word, please, and let's try to pack courtroom #1, at 9 AM in
Pasadena, Calif. on August 8th, where a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals will decide whether to uphold the lower Federal court, or
reverse. The Government has provided no evidence to defend its position that the
Court Order should be reversed, but the above BRIEF has been entered in the
record there, and the Judges will be questioning the attorneys. They each
have 20 minutes to present their sides, then the Judges will probe and ask
questions, which should be highly interesting. Support in the courtroom from the
public should prove very helpful, and it should be over by noon.

Denis

P.S. Professional lawyers report on the trial judge's findings:
_http://raylahr.entryhost.com/Chicago%20Lawyer.pdf_
(http://raylahr.entryhost.com/Chicago%20Lawyer.pdf)
 
Not sure I do. Not saying that it could not happen (seems easy enough with black market availability) but just that it does not make sense that it did.

I did not read the report and I have no interest in doing so (just as I did not read the government report) because there are far too many involved in this who have a vested interest in its outcome.

I do not buy the missile theory for a few reasons. First, given the climate today, having an airliner taken out buy a terrorist missile would be like manna from heaven to GW. He could pound on the war drums and nuke the entire ME based on info like that. The fact that they are silent to me is one of the strongest indications that a missile did not take out 800. Given the number of people who were involved with or had contact with the investigation, a secret like that would be difficult at best to keep quiet. This is not a natioanl security issue. Lots of innocent people died very close to American soil. I find it difficult to believe that someone would not have spoken up. IF as some people suggest it was a US Navy ship that launched in error, that too would have been revealed by at least one sailor with a guilty conscious. I just find it very difficult to believe that a secret like that could be kept quiet given the number of people involved. Had a terrorist group been responsible, don't you think they would have claimed responsibility0 +32-6for the act and given a video out to prove it? If I am going to take out a airliner with a stinger missile in order to scare the crap out of the flying public, don't you think I wold have a video camera on hand to document the joyous occasion? I know I sure as hell would.

Seems like people always need to find a reason why something happened. Most times, given a little research the answer can be found, every now and then one has to accept the fact that #### happens. If you do not like the short in the center tank theory, OH well. That's your prerogative. I have seen nor heard anything that gives credence to the missile theory. Too be quite honest though, I am very surprised that a airliners has not been taken out by one yet. Given all the crap sold on the black market, seems like it would be pretty easy to pick up a few stingers and go to town. It is probably a matter of time.
 
Not sure I do. Not saying that it could not happen (seems easy enough with black market availability) but just that it does not make sense that it did.


I do not buy the missile theory for a few reasons.
I have seen nor heard anything that gives credence to the missile theory.


Ok...one thing then...why were the radar tapes confiscated and classified by the FBI?

BTW...that plane was climbing out to around FL150....and the stinger missile would have been at the very edge of its envelope.
 
Like I said, I am not saying it did not happen or could not happen I an just saying I think it is unlikely it did happen. To many people involved to keep a secret like that. I believe someone with a conscious would have squealed like a oil pig at the fair grounds.

Does not your second paragraph contradict your first? Assuming the statement is true, the stinger could still have made a successful strike but they would have had to be quite lucky. I guess they only had to be lucky once though.

I still maintain that since no one claimed responsibility (terror is the goal and unless you declare it, no one will be terrorized) and no one has come clean (given all the snitches and whistle blowers I find it hard to believe) it jut does not add up.

I just did a quick search and the info I found was that the last transmission exchanged with TWA 800 were instructions to clime to 15,000 ft. I did not see any info to indicate at what altitude they were at but I would assume lower than 15k.
 
Like I said, I am not saying it did not happen or could not happen I an just saying I think it is unlikely it did happen. To many people involved to keep a secret like that. I believe someone with a conscious would have squealed like a oil pig at the fair grounds.

Does not your second paragraph contradict your first? Assuming the statement is true, the stinger could still have made a successful strike but they would have had to be quite lucky. I guess they only had to be lucky once though.

I still maintain that since no one claimed responsibility (terror is the goal and unless you declare it, no one will be terrorized) and no one has come clean (given all the snitches and whistle blowers I find it hard to believe) it jut does not add up.

I just did a quick search and the info I found was that the last transmission exchanged with TWA 800 were instructions to clime to 15,000 ft. I did not see any info to indicate at what altitude they were at but I would assume lower than 15k.

They were probably ascending through FL110 and handing off to 'center'.....and it comes rather quickly....

No my first sentence does not contradict as I do not think a stinger was the weapon of choice.

Like I said....the Stinger was at the edge of its operational envelope.You do realize the actual truth may never be known.And yes,keeping the lid on something like that may or may not be totally possible.

FBI special agent James Kallstrom declined comment on the reports that U.S. spy satellites picked up images of an object striking the plane at an altitude of 13,700 feet.

Flight 800 while travelling at an altitude of 13,700 feet and about 10 miles offshore at the time of the explosion, was outside the effective range of most shoulder-launched missiles, especially one fired from the shore rather than the water. The American Stinger missile, however, has a maximum performance range of 24,000 feet, though it is considered most effective inside 13,716 feet.

There was a strange residue found across a row of seats very indicative of solid rocket booster chemicals.A volunteer noticed this and sent it to an independent laboratory for analysis and was arrested and the sample confiscated by the FBI.

Info
 
I totally believe this was a US Navy screw up from the get go.... Test missle fired first.... realizing the damn thing was headed for the a/c, a second missle was launched to intercept the first..... It didn't work.... and I'll still always believe UA 93 was shot down by an F-16 over PA on 9/11. Call me crazy but why were plane components found a mile away from the original crash site of 93? A radio report by a woman who was in her farm backyard heard an explosion, saw the plane go down, and that was the last you heard of that on the radio that day. I'll never forget 9/11 or those that perished that day.
 
Sorry but it's going to be really hard to convince me that Unle Sam can keep a ship load of sailors quite when they know they helped splash a civilian airliner with mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children on board.

As for the United flight being shot down, more believable since you have a smaller pool of people who would know about a F-16 landing with one or 2 birds missing from the rails. I still don't buy it but much more plausible than the TWA scenario.

Dell,

What I read about the Stinger is that its good to 15k. If what you are saying about them climbing out of 11k is true, would that not have been well inside the ability of the stinger?

What do you think they used and who do you think used it?
 
I'm not here to convince you of anything, only tell you what I have heard, and with reliable resources, which unfortunately, I can't name names. When something of this nature occurs, the Govies have a 'Silence' clause apparently, that anyone involved with an action has to swear to and remain quiet for a specific amount of time. As for the Paris Flight, NOT all hands were on deck, so there are fewer to 'quiet', so to speak. A Gentleman I met from Interpol confirmed this was our screw up. As for UA93, I was in PIT that day, ended up there all week due to no flights..... my Manager was with me, an active member of the Air Guard there.... We had decided to get the Hell out of Dodge as no one knew what was going to happen next so as we were driving out of the city, he called the Base where he was stationed on his cell..... He spoke and listened, hung up, turned to me and said.... "At least we got one of them"! So much for the 'Code of Silence' but I guess when you are in active duty, your friends will keep in the loop..... and at that point that day, I would hope so.
 
Sorry but it's going to be really hard to convince me that Unle Sam can keep a ship load of sailors quite when they know they helped splash a civilian airliner with mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children on board.

As for the United flight being shot down, more believable since you have a smaller pool of people who would know about a F-16 landing with one or 2 birds missing from the rails. I still don't buy it but much more plausible than the TWA scenario.

Dell,

What I read about the Stinger is that its good to 15k. If what you are saying about them climbing out of 11k is true, would that not have been well inside the ability of the stinger?

What do you think they used and who do you think used it?

As for keeping quiet.....I can go either way there.My cousin was an Intel guy in the Navy.They tell you to keep your mouth shut and you do it....but knowing young men and women....I just don't know for sure.

I've read info that there were war games going on including Russian subs....somehow inadvertently a SAM with a dummy warhead was locked on and a boo-boo of the highest magnitude ensued.In this day and age it isn't that far fetched either.

I also read an interesting piece at the time that said that the slot 800 was flying was actually supposed to have been an El Al plane that was delayed....theres so much speculation regarding this incident that the fuel tank thing has to be BS.

The stinger surely could have dropped the plane....depends on what altitude the plane was,where the thing was launched and so on....catch up mode for the missile.

As to that Shanksville thing......ground reports from locals indicated some type aerial
explosion and I don't know if anyone remembers....but I think it was cockpit tape or on the phone recording where there was a muffled 'wump' much like a missile hit.
 
The old TWA people are certain of what really happened to Flight 800 and it ain't the published version of fuel vapors in the tank.

Does anyone know if the re-constructed wreckage remains in that New York warehouse?
 
I totally believe this was a US Navy screw up from the get go.... Test missle fired first.... realizing the damn thing was headed for the a/c, a second missle was launched to intercept the first..... It didn't work.... and I'll still always believe UA 93 was shot down by an F-16 over PA on 9/11. Call me crazy but why were plane components found a mile away from the original crash site of 93? A radio report by a woman who was in her farm backyard heard an explosion, saw the plane go down, and that was the last you heard of that on the radio that day. I'll never forget 9/11 or those that perished that day.

There are multiple holes in your conspiracy theory. First one is why would the Navy be conducting live fire tests off Long Island? They have dedicated ranges for that sort of thing. In the Atlantic it's off the coast of Maryland and Virginia. Second is the type of SAM the Navy uses, in this case the SM-2. It's what is commonly referred to as a semi-active. In layman’s terms the missile needs the target to be illuminated by a fire control radar. Turn off the fire control radar and the missile is blind.

Now here's a simple math problem. The SM-2 top speed is Mach 3. Say you launch one and then realize it's gone astray and decide to launch another. For arguments sake lets say this happens in ten seconds, rather generous if you ask me. Now is something traveling at Mach 3 going to catch something traveling at Mach 3 launched ten seconds earlier from behind? Not that it really matters since the easier thing to do would be to turn off the fire control radar.
 
As for keeping quiet.....I can go either way there.My cousin was an Intel guy in the Navy.They tell you to keep your mouth shut and you do it....but knowing young men and women....I just don't know for sure.

Having spent four years in the Navy I laughed my butt off when I read that. Sailors by their very nature love to talk. Are you going to try and tell me that not one on the USS Normandy or some other vessel could not help himself? Or that they are a bunch of robots with no conscience to bother them? This is not some black op in Soviet territorial waters during the Cold War. This is the death of two hundred and thirty people on a civilian airliner.
 
I've read info that there were war games going on including Russian subs....somehow inadvertently a SAM with a dummy warhead was locked on and a boo-boo of the highest magnitude ensued.In this day and age it isn't that far fetched either.

Source please, and whatreallyhappened is not a source.
 
Source please, and whatreallyhappened is not a source.

What really happened

What really happened

What really happened

FBI Witness 279 "saw large fireball in the sky ... called the United States Coast Guard ... The USCG responded stating the military was conducting pyrotechnic exercises and would this have been what they saw?"

FBI Witness 313 saw an explosion and her boyfriend "called the Coast Guard and was informed that the Air National Guard were testing bombs in the area."

FBI Witness 525b and her husband were in a boat offshore when she saw a glowing ball that rose and fell "before hitting the plane." They immediately contacted the US Coast Guard, and, according to the FBI report: "the Coast Guard reported that routine military exercises involving pyrotechnics were being performed and that a response was not necessary."

H: Have you ever heard of the submarine Tripanga?
I: It rings a bell
H: He was a master chief on the Tripanga, on the surface, underneath TWA 800, when he saw a missile hit it, and the 747 exploded overhead, and they did an emergency dive, crash dive, to avoid being hit by the debris. They were interviewed by the FBI. They had two- or three-star admirals meet them at the dock when they were recalled to port 20 hours later after filing their reports.
I: What was their position? Were they off Long Island?
H: They were on the surface, underneath TWA 800.
I: Right underneath?
H: Yup. And they have the debris falling around them on film from the periscope. Because they started the video camera to record what was going on. Did you ever hear any of that?
I: That I have never heard. (Discuss spelling of the name of the submarine. It is Trepang.) You know the Navy denied that it had any assets closer than the Normandy, which was supposed to be 180 miles away. Little by little, they had to admit that they had submarines that were closer, and the radar showed three targets that were close to the shore. They had very short tracks. When the plane came down, they disappeared. I infer that they were submarines that were on the surface and then dived.
H: He also saw the incoming helicopter, the National Guard helicopter. They were right on the scene.
I: Wow. Is he retired?
H: I believe he is. Yes.
I: Is he willing to go on record?
H: I don’t know that. I asked him if what he told me was classified information, and he told me it was not.
I: Do you mind telling me his name?
H: I do not. It is Randy, and the last name is Beers....He is out of work right now.
I: You don’t have a phone number for him do you?
H: I do not. I don’t know him that well.
I: Was he under wraps?
H: He didn’t indicate to me that he was. He said he gave a statement to the FBI. He said they checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they left port with. They inventoried the armament of the boat.
I: Did he say that they were part of an exercise that night?
H: Yes, he did. I asked him if there were other military vessels in the area. He said, “Yes, several.â€
I: I’ll try to track the guy down.
H: I can’t believe that I had a conversation with you just last night, and I ran into him half an hour ago.
I: God works in mysterious ways.

I obtained Beers’ phone number from information and found him willing to talk. In our taped interview, he was somewhat more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn’t want to do anything that might “mess up†his retirement, but nothing was said about the conversation being off the record. I told him that I was with Accuracy in Media and recommended that he visit our Web site, where he would find a lot of articles we had written about TWA 800. The following is a partial transcript of the taped interview. I did not begin taping at the very beginning of the conversation. The transcript begins where the taping started. This was Thurs., Nov. 15 at 10:00 a.m.

B: I told everything, you know, when the Navy came on board with everybody else on my submarine.
I: What was the name of the sub.
B: Trepang. (spells it)
I: You were off the coast of Long Island that night.
B: Uh huh.
I: And you said the Navy-- Go ahead. Tell me.
B: You know, I don’t want anything to mess up my retirement.
I. Yes. Well, I don’t see how telling the truth can mess up your retirement, Randy. That would be the scandal of the day if they were to- -
B: I told them all the truth, you know, when they came, Reed.
I: Yeh. And what did you tell them.
B: You know, that me and Mr. Leitner were on the bridge. Mr. Leitner was the officer of the deck. (Discuss spelling of Leitner, pronounced Late-ner.)
I: Go ahead.
B: So me and Mike Leitner were on the bridge and he was, you know, he would control the submarine. And the only reason I was up there was ’cause I was the second senior enlisted guy on the boat. I was ship’s corpsman and I went up there just ’cause, well first off ’cause it was a nice evening. ’Cause I never went out in the rain, you know, and I had a couple of Diet Pepsis, so me and Mike Leitner shared a couple of Pepsis and hanging out and one thing leads to another and it looks like somethin’ went up and somethin’ come down.
I: You saw it go up and you saw it come down.
B: Well, I seen something come up. I don’t know, you know, I don’t know what the hell it was, but that’s what it looked, you know, somethin’ went up.
I: How far away from the sub was it?
B: It was about a mile.
I: Which way? Out to sea or toward the shore?
B: I don’t have the navigation charts in front of me, and I can’t remember exactly. I mean, you know, but I know we was-
I. How far from the shore were you?
B: A few miles, not far.
I: Only a few miles.
B: Yeah, not far at all.
I: Were there a couple of other subs nearby?
B: We were operating with some, yeah.
I: The reason I say that is because the radar picked up three targets on the surface that had very short tracks. They all disappeared when the plane went down.
B: Yeah, that’s what we did.
I: I mentioned that to Jim Kallstrom, who, you know, headed the FBI investigation.
B: Yes.
I: And I said, you know the FBI won’t even tell us. This was after he retired, and I said the FBI won’t even tell us what those targets were, and he said, “Oh, I can tell you what they were.
B: Submarines.
I: He said they were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. That’s interesting because he never said-- Oh, he said, “I’ve said that in public,†but I had no record of him...
B: Oh ####. I don’t think anything we did off Long Island was classified.
I: Is that so? Wasn’t there a Navy maneuver out there that night?
B: Oh yeah.
I: Because there were a lot of Navy ships that seemed to be heading out for W-105.
B: Uh huh.
I: Is that right?
B: Yes.
I: Yeh. You had the P-3 overhead and we got radar that shows there was an airplane without a transponder that was caught on the radar, primary radar, that was sort of doing a racetrack, going in and out of W-105, coming out and going back in again.
B: Yeah.
I: So it looked like there was something interesting going on there. Were you guys supposed to be targets for the P-3 or-
B: You know, this is getting. I’m uncomfortable with saying what we was actually doing.
I: Okay, never mind. Skip that.
B: And if you want, if you sent me something in writing then I could respond better. ’Cause I’ve never met you.
I: Sure.
B: And you know--
I: I'll tell you what. You can go to our Web site. Are you on the computer?
B: Not right now.
I: No, but you have a computer.
B: Yes.
I: Let me refer you to our Web site. It’s aim.org. We’ve written a lot about TWA 800. There’s a couple of other Web sites that are very good that have a lot of primary documents on them. One is twa800.com.
B: Yeah, I’ve seen that one.
I: That’s Cmdr. Bill Donaldson’s site. Bill Donaldson worked closely with us. He just passed away a few months ago from a brain tumor, a hell of a guy. And he put a lot of his time and effort into this investigation. He was absolutely convinced that it was a missile that brought the thing down, and he collected a lot of information. He interviewed a lot of eyewitnesses that confirmed that. Let me tell you a little about what bugs us, and that is that the government-Did you ever see the CIA video that shows the simulation of what happened?
B: Oh, yeah.
I: That was based on the presumption that none of these eyewitnesses saw anything but the TWA 800. And that the fuel tank blew up and that explosion took the front end of the plane off and -
B: The rest of the plane continued on.
I: And the tail dropped back and it went up at a sharp angle, over 3000 feet before it came down again. Which all the aviation people I’ve talked to say is absolute nonsense. If you lose your front end you lose your- -
B: Yeah, that ain’t happening.
I: -your power you aren’t going to climb like a rocket. You’re going to fall like a rock, which is what the radar shows it did. (A long description of the CIA’s lie about what eyewitness Michael Wire saw is omitted.)
B: I don’t mean to cut you short. I’ve got to take my daughter to a doctor’s appointment in two minutes. I was about out the door.
I: Okay. We’ll talk again. Go to our Web site and you’ll see.
B: Okay. I’ll check it out today.
I: Okay
B: Thank you. Goodbye.
A Different Randy Beers

I called Randy again the next morning, Friday, Nov. 16. He asked me to call him back Monday morning, Nov. 19. I did, and I found myself talking to an entirely different person. The confident, courageous master chief had been transformed into a quivering moral coward. He said he had talked to his skipper over the weekend and that he had been reminded that he had signed certain papers when he retired from the Navy. Whoever it was that he had talked to had scared him to death. He feared that he was going to lose his retirement because of what he told me. He claimed he had spoken off the record, but I told him that was not so and that was very clear from the tape that I had recorded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top