If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Oh, no, not this shiat again   (foxnews.com) divider line 205
    More: Unlikely, cable network, flights, documentary  
•       •       •

22903 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2013 at 1:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



205 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-19 02:24:47 AM
Raging Bull's son was on that plane.
 
2013-06-19 02:25:50 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: /but there were still "fumes" present


uh oh. You put the word fumes in quotes. That must make the initial claim that "fumes' were present an automatic lie.

welp....case closed. Thanks for that important info.
 
2013-06-19 02:26:15 AM
I was part of the original investigation team and I still maintain that it was remotely detonated and John Landis was involved.
 
2013-06-19 02:26:30 AM
img.fark.net

\wanted for questioning
 
2013-06-19 02:27:39 AM

OgreMagi: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

The stinger's effective range is rated at about 4,500 meters.  That's not it's absolute range.  It can go further, though accuracy is greatly reduced.  It's been used at 5,000 meters, possibly more.


And, the other thing to remember is that actual weapon/weapon platform ranges (and other capabilities) are usually classified, with some, lower, capability being approved for publication.

So that 4500 meter range listed on wikipedia and elsewhere is just what the Original Classification Authority has approved for release.


Note:  I've no idea if the FIM-92 (Stinger) has been completely declassified.  If it has, then the range numbers are likely to be much more accurate.
 
2013-06-19 02:28:20 AM

gunsmack: Director should look up the difference between ordinance and ordnance.


Was coming here to say the same.
 
2013-06-19 02:29:03 AM
Everyone with half a brain knows the crash was caused by militants . Grey Goose militants
 
2013-06-19 02:32:19 AM
It was thermite planted before the plane took off! Study it out, sheeple.
 
2013-06-19 02:33:43 AM

LoneWolf343: Fista-Phobia: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

The flying brick!

You laugh, but one day we will be fighting an enemy in a glass house...


Watch the canopy!
 
2013-06-19 02:33:49 AM

duffblue: Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight?


I have you farkied as a fumbduck, for good reason. Commercial aircraft never take on more fuel than they need. Its a weight / safety issue. Now, if that plan was a non-stop from NY to Hong Kong- damn skippy that heavy metal bird would have been topped off. NY to Paris ? yeah- not so much
 
2013-06-19 02:33:54 AM
I used to believe it was a missile. But in thinking about it now, I realize I was wrong. I put to much weight into eyewitnesses statements.

Remember that whole "missile was launched from the ocean off the coast of California" from a little while back? Lots of people thought that was a missile too, and that was just a contrail in the setting sun disguised by the curvature of the earth.  So eyewitnesses are pretty unreliable.

So it was very likely people mistook the breaking up plane as exploding when they heard the sound from the explosion which would have been some time later. To someone looking out at a great distance, things can appear to ascend when they are really not. So there can be an optical illusion that appears like two objects are coming together when they really aren't. (Like this) This picture is through a lens, but something so far away would have the same effect with your eyes... especially when you are just looking at points of light.

So while I look forward to hearing about new evidence, I'm going to remain skeptical.
 
2013-06-19 02:36:20 AM

mr lawson: sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.

ummm...
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.


Well most of the discussion on the tour was around the fuel tank, and everything I saw clearly showed the explosion came from inside there pushing forward into the luggage compartments, not the other way around. Since the planes central tank was virtually empty with a small puddle of fuel, and it had been sitting on the runway in high heat cooking the fuel into vapor for a few hours before take-off, they concluded that the fuel sensor rod with the corroded connection had arced and sparked the fuel vapors. This was the only known ignition source in the fuel tank and the explosion of the tank in my opinion looked far more like a tank full of vapor exploding and rupturing versus the concentrated damage you would expect from an explosive device. There was nothing of the sort in the luggage compartments or cabin. There was also definitely no missile holes in the fuselage either.

As part of a recall if I remember correctly the resolution to this potential problem was redesigning the fuel sensing rod and adding a small venting system to purge vapor from empty tanks. They figured it could have happened to any 747 prior to the recall under the perfect conditions.
 
2013-06-19 02:38:47 AM

alienated: duffblue: Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight?

I have you farkied as a fumbduck, for good reason. Commercial aircraft never take on more fuel than they need. Its a weight / safety issue. Now, if that plan was a non-stop from NY to Hong Kong- damn skippy that heavy metal bird would have been topped off. NY to Paris ? yeah- not so much


You are not supposed to make sense on fark or so I've been told ; )
 
2013-06-19 02:39:00 AM

sat1va: it had been sitting on the runway in high heat cooking the fuel into "vapor" for a few hours before take-off, they concluded that the fuel sensor rod with the corroded connection had arced and sparked the fuel "vapors".


Please note that I have added quotes around the words Vapor and Vapors. your argument is now invalid.
 
2013-06-19 02:41:13 AM
However it happened, it would suck to be in the back half of the plane at 600 mph+ minus the cockpit.
 
2013-06-19 02:43:11 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-19 02:45:20 AM
Thanks Obama!
 
2013-06-19 02:46:52 AM
I KNOW THE TRUTH, YOU ASSHOLES!

i4.ytimg.com
 
2013-06-19 02:47:46 AM
img.fark.net
/hot
 
2013-06-19 02:49:35 AM

LordJiro: mr lawson: sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.

ummm...
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.

Define "part".


The tour guide was "part" of the investigation and he was actually a lawyer with the NTSB (also had an engineering degree). He said just about everyone at the NTSB was involved in the collection of the components from the ocean and the reassembly, including himself despite being in the role of a lawyer with the board. He seemed genuinely still a little farked up by the whole thing, describing the recovery as painfully large in scope straining all their resources. The fact that 6 out of hundreds of "investigators" disagree with the conclusion doesn't surprise me. Heck, one of my former engineering supervisors who is otherwise pretty damn smart thinks evolution is the stupidest thing that anyone could ever believe, the world is 10,000 years old, Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon, and Jesus rode a T-rex.
 
2013-06-19 02:49:51 AM

duffblue: Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight? Not to sound like a wacko but that seems weird. What is the range on the 747 with that tank empty?


Should be enough to make the trip to Paris with the requisite reserves.
 
2013-06-19 02:55:01 AM

duffblue: MaudlinMutantMollusk: WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.

IIRC, the midship tank where the short occurred was empty, according to the official explanation

/but there were still "fumes" present

Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight? Not to sound like a wacko but that seems weird. What is the range on the 747 with that tank empty?


On a global scale, New York and Paris are fairly close. There just happens to be a large ocean in the middle. A flight from San Diego to Maine would be a similar distance. In fact, fully fuelled 747 could fly New York to Paris and back again, with fuel to spare.
 
2013-06-19 02:56:04 AM
Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?
 
2013-06-19 02:58:12 AM

the_chief: Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?


France?  Oh, wait.  I forgot about WW2.

How about Canada?
 
2013-06-19 03:01:32 AM

GregoryD: I used to believe it was a missile. But in thinking about it now, I realize I was wrong. I put to much weight into eyewitnesses statements.

Remember that whole "missile was launched from the ocean off the coast of California" from a little while back? Lots of people thought that was a missile too, and that was just a contrail in the setting sun disguised by the curvature of the earth.  So eyewitnesses are pretty unreliable.

So it was very likely people mistook the breaking up plane as exploding when they heard the sound from the explosion which would have been some time later. To someone looking out at a great distance, things can appear to ascend when they are really not. So there can be an optical illusion that appears like two objects are coming together when they really aren't. (Like this) This picture is through a lens, but something so far away would have the same effect with your eyes... especially when you are just looking at points of light.

So while I look forward to hearing about new evidence, I'm going to remain skeptical.


That's essentially the description we got, except they figured the witnesses saw the initial explosion, which caused the aircraft to incline into a high attitude causing severe stress on the wings. Witnesses at this point would have seen the plane inclining with smoke and flame trailing behind, then as the wings began ripping off from  the attitude and weakened structures the wing tanks ignited creating a fireball as aircraft breaks in half. A witness trying to make sense of it could easily remember seeing fire and a streak of smoke approaching the plane which then exploded and could only assume it was a missile. People see what they think they see during unexpected events and often have shiatty recollections of it. I've read hundreds of witness statements related to car crashes and people remember things in every which way, with events out of sequence, remembering a white car as a black one, etc.
 
2013-06-19 03:03:05 AM

OgreMagi: the_chief: Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?

France?  Oh, wait.  I forgot about WW2.

How about Canada?


Canada actually deserves it for their crimes against humanity.

static6.businessinsider.com
 
2013-06-19 03:04:04 AM
"They indicated they would elaborate more in a Wednesday media briefing."


I would expect to see/hear everything if you are going to bring something like this up. I want to see all the evidence that at least shows the previous conclusion is wrong. This is not the stuff you play conspiracy theory with and then just show some chickenwire burning.
 
2013-06-19 03:07:16 AM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: the_chief: Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?

France?  Oh, wait.  I forgot about WW2.

How about Canada?

Canada actually deserves it for their crimes against humanity.

[static6.businessinsider.com image 400x300]


I could kill for a Molson right now. That said- really- try a La Fin du Monde, but Maudite is much better

tinfoil-hat maggie: You are not supposed to make sense on fark or so I've been told ; )


I know, but im old school, yo .
 
2013-06-19 03:13:37 AM

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Via Infinito: Ricardo Klement: So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

It was obviously a bird of prey that can fire when cloaked.

Al Qaeda is breaking the treaty of Algeron!?

Those bastards.


Someone should DEFINITELY put flowers on that poor mouse's grave.

/Yes I know they aren't spelled the same.  Hush.
 
2013-06-19 03:14:22 AM

Via Infinito: Ricardo Klement: So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

It was obviously a bird of prey that can fire when cloaked.


No blood for transparent aluminum!
 
2013-06-19 03:16:10 AM

the_chief: Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?


After the last few sh*tholes, I say we give the troops a break: Invade the Bahamas.
 
2013-06-19 03:18:35 AM

Mad_Flyer: MaudlinMutantMollusk: WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.

IIRC, the midship tank where the short occurred was empty, according to the official explanation

/but there were still "fumes" present

Kerozene burn, kerozene fumes and vaporized kerozene explode. Be a bit careful on how you store heating fuel tank. For this particular case... dun't know nothing, but will need popcorn... and cancel that trip to Roswell until my next anal bleaching, dun't want to look bad to them alienz...


Explosiv wie Kerosin mit viel Oktan und frei von Blei einen Kraftstoff wie Benzin.
 
2013-06-19 03:24:54 AM

alienated: hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: the_chief: Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?

France?  Oh, wait.  I forgot about WW2.

How about Canada?

Canada actually deserves it for their crimes against humanity.

[static6.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

I could kill for a Molson right now. That said- really- try a La Fin du Monde, but Maudite is much better

tinfoil-hat maggie: You are not supposed to make sense on fark or so I've been told ; )

I know, but im old school, yo .


Nothing wrong with that ; )
 
2013-06-19 03:26:04 AM
If this scandal is true, the powers that be decided that the sheeple will be more comfortable with aircraft that can spontaneously explode versus an aircraft was accidentally shot down by the military, or intentionally shot down by terrorists.

Given the past 12 years, I would applaud a government that would cover up a terrorist attack as an "accident" seeing how those "sheeple" become batshat insane over a deliberate attack. When you point out how insignificant the odds are of dieing in an attack, they fly off the handle saying your competence in statistics is treason.

They can handle 300 people dieing in an "accident" that can be fixed by some unseen amount of money on some unseen amount of improvement, but if it was "terrorism"! We're talking about a $trillion invasion.

Covering up terrorist attacks as "accidents" should be the de facto way of handling them. It nullifies the terrorist's means of cooresion.
 
2013-06-19 03:29:18 AM
ciberido All I can say is call me I love you: )
/Wut?
 
2013-06-19 03:31:52 AM

impaler: If this scandal is true, the powers that be decided that the sheeple will be more comfortable with aircraft that can spontaneously explode versus an aircraft was accidentally shot down by the military, or intentionally shot down by terrorists.

Given the past 12 years, I would applaud a government that would cover up a terrorist attack as an "accident" seeing how those "sheeple" become batshat insane over a deliberate attack. When you point out how insignificant the odds are of dieing in an attack, they fly off the handle saying your competence in statistics is treason.

They can handle 300 people dieing in an "accident" that can be fixed by some unseen amount of money on some unseen amount of improvement, but if it was "terrorism"! We're talking about a $trillion invasion.

Covering up terrorist attacks as "accidents" should be the de facto way of handling them. It nullifies the terrorist's means of cooresion.


I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2013-06-19 03:32:57 AM

impaler: If this scandal is true, the powers that be decided that the sheeple will be more comfortable with aircraft that can spontaneously explode versus an aircraft was accidentally shot down by the military, or intentionally shot down by terrorists.

Given the past 12 years, I would applaud a government that would cover up a terrorist attack as an "accident" seeing how those "sheeple" become batshat insane over a deliberate attack. When you point out how insignificant the odds are of dieing in an attack, they fly off the handle saying your competence in statistics is treason.

They can handle 300 people dieing in an "accident" that can be fixed by some unseen amount of money on some unseen amount of improvement, but if it was "terrorism"! We're talking about a $trillion invasion.

Covering up terrorist attacks as "accidents" should be the de facto way of handling them. It nullifies the terrorist's means of cooresion.


Pretty sure I read this book about 4 years ago and it sucked then.
 
2013-06-19 03:53:50 AM
Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone shiat again.
 
2013-06-19 03:55:15 AM

dywed88: On a global scale, New York and Paris are fairly close. There just happens to be a large ocean in the middle. A flight from San Diego to Maine would be a similar distance. In fact, fully fuelled 747 could fly New York to Paris and back again, with fuel to spare.


SD to Bangor is about 1,000nmi less than NY to Paris.  A fully fueled 747-100 like TWA 800 would not complete a NY-Paris-NY round trip without refueling.  It might be able to glide into Gander, but would probably end up in the Atlantic just shy of the coast of Newfoundland.
 
2013-06-19 03:57:47 AM

impaler: Covering up terrorist attacks as "accidents" should be the de facto way of handling them. It nullifies the terrorist's means of cooresion.


No. I wont bother with the typos, but thats the wrong way to handle it.
Accidents happen, all day, every day.
Terroristic attacks do not. Sure- they happen almost every damn day, but they at least show some kind of planning beyond  hold my beer and watch this or hold my torah , or hold my quran.
Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point. That said- I use a rucksack all the time filled with coloured stainless steel tubes that could be mistaken for bombs. Like I would carry more explosives than water !
Just make everyone aware and go about your lives. When you start banning folks from travelling from North Cal back to SoCal with a bottle of honey, sealed at the house it was made at- then the terrorists have won.
 
2013-06-19 04:01:18 AM

alienated: No. I wont bother with the typos, but thats the wrong way to handle it.


Your typos?
 
2013-06-19 04:08:10 AM
Wouldnt surprise me the way foriegn turrism was delt with in the '90s
 
2013-06-19 04:08:59 AM

alienated: impaler: Covering up terrorist attacks as "accidents" should be the de facto way of handling them. It nullifies the terrorist's means of cooresion.

No. I wont bother with the typos, but thats the wrong way to handle it.
Accidents happen, all day, every day.
Terroristic attacks do not. Sure- they happen almost every damn day, but they at least show some kind of planning beyond  hold my beer and watch this or hold my torah , or hold my quran.
Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point. That said- I use a rucksack all the time filled with coloured stainless steel tubes that could be mistaken for bombs. Like I would carry more explosives than water !
Just make everyone aware and go about your lives. When you start banning folks from travelling from North Cal back to SoCal with a bottle of honey, sealed at the house it was made at- then the terrorists have won.


Hey but I read abook it was all about that plane that exploded and it was akk a government coverup and the mai guty was gonna get info from some people but he set the meeting up for 9a am in the worldtradecenter bar on 9/11/

I forget what that crapfeast was called but it was bad and there's unfortunately to much like it out there.
 
2013-06-19 04:12:34 AM

alienated: Accidents happen, all day, every day.
Terroristic attacks do not. Sure- they happen almost every damn day, but they at least show some kind of planning beyond hold my beer and watch this or hold my torah , or hold my quran.
Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point. That said- I use a rucksack all the time filled with coloured stainless steel tubes that could be mistaken for bombs. Like I would carry more explosives than water !


I'm not sure if you're serious, but the people that would be able to handle the terrorist attack would be aware of the "It's just an accident, trust me" cover up. (Google "NSA surveillance" if you don't believe me). And your "pay attention" examples are far more likely to happen by chance (or regular criminal activity) than from terrorism. So you kind of made my point for me, unless you want to hold "petty theft" up to the same level as "let's launch a $trillion invasion for this act." In which case I have to say you're quite the patriot.
 
2013-06-19 04:17:30 AM
Thanks Clinton!
 
2013-06-19 04:20:06 AM

impaler: alienated: Accidents happen, all day, every day.
Terroristic attacks do not. Sure- they happen almost every damn day, but they at least show some kind of planning beyond hold my beer and watch this or hold my torah , or hold my quran.
Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point. That said- I use a rucksack all the time filled with coloured stainless steel tubes that could be mistaken for bombs. Like I would carry more explosives than water !

I'm not sure if you're serious, but the people that would be able to handle the terrorist attack would be aware of the "It's just an accident, trust me" cover up. (Google "NSA surveillance" if you don't believe me). And your "pay attention" examples are far more likely to happen by chance (or regular criminal activity) than from terrorism. So you kind of made my point for me, unless you want to hold "petty theft" up to the same level as "let's launch a $trillion invasion for this act." In which case I have to say you're quite the patriot.


Wait if the NSA could handle a coverup why are we discussing it?
 
2013-06-19 04:21:43 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Wait if the NSA could handle a coverup why are we discussing it?


I didn't say they could handle it. I said they would be aware of it.
 
2013-06-19 04:21:58 AM
I may have missed you're point there , dude.
 
2013-06-19 04:24:23 AM

impaler: tinfoil-hat maggie: Wait if the NSA could handle a coverup why are we discussing it?

I didn't say they could handle it. I said they would be aware of it.


So you're a truffer ; ) or is that truther?
/hell I can't remember
//Just playing ; )
 
2013-06-19 04:26:40 AM

alienated: Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point.


Why are televisions such a terror threat? If they were real terrorists, and they wanted the job done, they could have used a real TV van just as easily. Same with a real UPS truck. And would you really be suspicious of a landscaping truck with no lawnmower? Is it inconceivable that they could be at the mall for lunch? I know your kidding/trolling whatever but dude, step up the game a little.
 
Displayed 50 of 205 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report