9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George,

Steering a plane by hand is not, that, difficult.

The concept on how it works can be taught to a 9 year old. If the building is drifting up on the window, the plane is going to undershoot it. If it is drifting to the left, then the plane is going to pass to the right. If it is straight ahead and getting larger, the plane is going to hit it dead on. It's EASY. Point the plane so the building is in front of you, and it's done deal. The accuracy and reliability of the hijackers are not rocket science here. We are talking about a 208 ft wide building many stories high here. It is a BIG target.

The hijackers were licensed pilots. Licensed pilots can land a plane with the nose wheel touching the centre line with a width the size of a man's shoulder. A proficient pilot can glide a plane and touch down at a specific point almost zero lateral error and on target. Pull up some cockpit videos of airplanes landing on youtube if you don't believe me.

The process of trying to hack into the in-flight computer takes much more work than simply just doing it by hand. You don't need laser-point accuracy to hit a building. Why go into so much depth to do so otherwise?

And besides, a Boeing 767 navigation suite has lateral and vertical navigation as it is. There is no point hacking into the system to ensure mission success. Did you know that manual inputs on the aircraft would disconnect the autopilot anyways? A little bit of software coding into the flight management system isn't going to change that. It is also incredibly absurd to mess with the computer while it's on in flight.

There is also the extra length that the hijackers would have to smuggle a few extra tools, including a screwdriver, as part of their carry-on. But the point is: they don't need to.

If I were in their shoes, I would have jumped in the cockpit, dialed in a waypoint for new york on the flight management computer to navigate there, disconnect the autopilot when I see new york, steer (probably at a lower speed), and accelerate. Not that I would do that, but that's keeping it simple. I don't have to bust any panels, I don't have to mess with an already working navigation suite, and I don't have to smuggle on extra equipment.

The flight profile for 175 was steep and wobbly. I doubt AA flight 11 was much different. This shows signs that it was hand flown.
Rico,

What you say may be right on . . .but, if so, why would any experienced pilot EVER say they don't think an inexperienced pilot could have hit or at least have significant problem hitting the towers? Also, there would be no hacking . . . the hacking has already been done by the programmers. . . .the hijackers find an import port and download . . . everything else is automatic no conscious interference by the hijackers . . . they may have been instructed not to interfere with the controls once the code took over . . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
What you say may be right on . . .but, if so, why would any experienced pilot EVER say they don't think an inexperienced pilot could have hit or at least have significant problem hitting the towers? Also, there would be no hacking . . . the hacking has already been done by the programmers. . . .the hijackers find an import port and download . . . everything else is automatic no conscious interference by the hijackers . . . they may have been instructed not to interfere with the controls once the code took over . . .

Give me a quote please and maybe we can work on that.

An inexperienced pilot without a clue on what aileron, rudder, and elevators are might have trouble hitting it. But these hijackers were not inexperienced. They had less experience than the typical Airline Transport Pilot, but that doesn't mean they were inexperienced. In any case, I believe the more official stories had it that the hijackers were messing around a lot with flight simulators before they carried out the act.

I think the other part of the theory here from the conspiracy end of things is the controllability of the aircraft at speeds past it's Vmo, and that's really the only gray area in the discussion. Obviously, if the wings tear off, the plane is going to crash before it even hits the building--but that's the big IF. If the aircraft are already lined up on their target many miles out, and then accelerated either by engine power or in a steep descent, there isn't much controlling that is needed on behalf of the hijacking pilots. The aircraft wasn't breaking the sound barrier or anything, so it's not like it's going to be tossed out of it's flight path violently or anything like that.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
All the actual computers on a 767 are not on the flight deck. They are elsewhere and there is no "port" on the flight deck that you can hack into.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
All the actual computers on a 767 are not on the flight deck. They are elsewhere and there is no "port" on the flight deck that you can hack into.
So they would have to know where to find it . . . the question would be can it be accessed during flight . . . ? If not it would have to be loaded pre-flight along with a communication device . . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
TWCobra, correct me if I'm wrong, but these computers would be in the belly of the airplane in front of the baggage compartment right?



Doesn't look too accessible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Met Watch

Moderator
Rico,

What you say may be right on . . .but, if so, why would any experienced pilot EVER say they don't think an inexperienced pilot could have hit or at least have significant problem hitting the towers? Also, there would be no hacking . . . the hacking has already been done by the programmers. . . .the hijackers find an import port and download . . . everything else is automatic no conscious interference by the hijackers . . . they may have been instructed not to interfere with the controls once the code took over . . .

If you're taking the word of 4 pilots, one who displays a fake flight envelope in order to make a very weak case for why an "inexperienced" pilot could not perform the flight maneuvers that day, then that says something. Really, you're going to trust a pilot who will fake a graphic of a flight envelope so that it helps him make his case?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Rico,

What you say may be right on . . .but, if so, why would any experienced pilot EVER say they don't think an inexperienced pilot could have hit or at least have significant problem hitting the towers?


Ego and patch protection.

But more probably they are simply not considering the limited nature of the actuivity required - they are thinking of how easy it is to do ALL of hte things a pilot has to do. I was "taught" how to fly a light aicraft IFR
in 5 minutes - plus another 5 minutes to trim it for "hands off" flight.

As an imperfect analogy I recently taught both my sons to drive - going down the road at 50km/hr and around bends - dead simple. Starting off in a manual - not so simple - came back to it after months of driving around in order to improve clutch skills.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
RICO, correct. The auto flight computers and the FMCs are there, amongst many others. George the other flaw in your logic is that the hijackers hand flew the aircraft. The hijacker on Flight 93 did not know how to silence the auto pilot disconnect horn so it continually went off until they crashed.

i won't feign knowledge of how software on an auto pilot or FMC is updated, except to say that an aircraft is certified with those computers as is. They cannot be changed without recertification... something that requires a full flight test program. The early 767s I flew had a FMC with a X286 processor. They were never updated due to the recertification requirement.

I think the idea therefore that they can be found in flight and quickly reprogrammed is fanciful.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
TWCobra, correct me if I'm wrong, but these computers would be in the belly of the airplane in front of the baggage compartment right?



Doesn't look too accessible.
What are you saying? Someone cannot reach them during flight??
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Ego and patch protection.

But more probably they are simply not considering the limited nature of the actuivity required - they are thinking of how easy it is to do ALL of hte things a pilot has to do. I was "taught" how to fly a light aicraft IFR
in 5 minutes - plus another 5 minutes to trim it for "hands off" flight.

As an imperfect analogy I recently taught both my sons to drive - going down the road at 50km/hr and around bends - dead simple. Starting off in a manual - not so simple - came back to it after months of driving around in order to improve clutch skills.
So they cannot separate the complex from the mundane . . . ?
 

Rico

Senior Member.
What are you saying? Someone cannot reach them during flight??

Precisely.

Edit: Actually I'll hold my comment on this one until the man few posts above can confirm. I don't think there is access to the avionics bay from anywhere "upstairs" where the flight crew and the rest of the passengers are located for this particular jet, but I could be wrong.

In all seriousness though, if you were a hijacker, would you really want to be busy poking your nose in some hole of an airplane in flight with a bunch of angry passengers trying to modify the aircraft in some shape or form just to make it fly a little straighter?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
So they cannot separate the complex from the mundane . . . ?

I am sure they can - but I suspect they do not unless the limitations of the question are explained to them in some detail.

People are always reading stuff into questions that is not actually asked, or missing the point the asker is seeking to clarify because of their own assumptions or bias - it is common human behaviour.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If you're taking the word of 4 pilots, one who displays a fake flight envelope in order to make a very weak case for why an "inexperienced" pilot could not perform the flight maneuvers that day, then that says something. Really, you're going to trust a pilot who will fake a graphic of a flight envelope so that it helps him make his case?
So because he photoshopped a sound barrier shock wave on a 767 to make a point, he is not to be trusted ??. . . maybe he should have explained his exaggeration, but I don't think you pilots were fooled . . . I thought it was likely a fake when I saw it . . . he however, was not by himself, others joined in . . . so, yes I feel I need to either validate them or ignore them . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
RICO, correct. The auto flight computers and the FMCs are there, amongst many others. George the other flaw in your logic is that the hijackers hand flew the aircraft. The hijacker on Flight 93 did not know how to silence the auto pilot disconnect horn so it continually went off until they crashed.

i won't feign knowledge of how software on an auto pilot or FMC is updated, except to say that an aircraft is certified with those computers as is. They cannot be changed without recertification... something that requires a full flight test program. The early 767s I flew had a FMC with a X286 processor. They were never updated due to the recertification requirement.

I think the idea therefore that they can be found in flight and quickly reprogrammed is fanciful.
Rico,

1) I don't understand your "hand flew the aircraft" . . . I don't think my theory requires that or discounts that either?

2) Just because the airlines were not allowed to update the processor and possibly the software without recertification doesn't mean it isn't possible . . .
 

Grieves

Senior Member
A towering skyscraper is one thing, but the arguments that hitting the pentagon in the way that it was hit would be 'easy as pie' seem somewhat ludicrous to me.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A towering skyscraper is one thing, but the arguments that hitting the pentagon in the way that it was hit would be 'easy as pie' seem somewhat ludicrous to me.

You are assuming they wanted to hit it in exactly that way. Seem far more likely that they just wanted to hit it, and that's how it ended up.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Rico,

1) I don't understand your "hand flew the aircraft" . . . I don't think my theory requires that or discounts that either?

2) Just because the airlines were not allowed to update the processor and possibly the software without recertification doesn't mean it isn't possible . . .

Good grief George - everything is possible, but at some point you have to start taking likelihood and evidence into account.

It's "possible" that God himself took over each plane and flew it into the towers as a warning against homosexuality. It's just not very likely.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Good grief George - everything is possible, but at some point you have to start taking likelihood and evidence into account.

It's "possible" that God himself took over each plane and flew it into the towers as a warning against homosexuality. It's just not very likely.
Mick, why don't you come up with a theory why those experienced pilots think the way they do . . . I am just trying to make sense of how things could have gone down if the pilots are correct and your experts and you are wrong . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, why don't you come up with a theory why those experienced pilots think the way they do . . . I am just trying to make sense of how things could have gone down if the pilots are correct and your experts and you are wrong . . .

It does not matter why they think they do. On any given topic you will always have a wide range or opinions, and some of the opinions will be fringe opinions. Now you can gather the few fringe opinions, and say they are significant. But they are not. They are just the low percentage of people who hold contrary opinions.

I think you will find that the vast majority of professional pilots agree with the OS. But there are always some who do not.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It does not matter why they think they do. On any given topic you will always have a wide range or opinions, and some of the opinions will be fringe opinions. Now you can gather the few fringe opinions, and say they are significant. But they are not. They are just the low percentage of people who hold contrary opinions.

I think you will find that the vast majority of professional pilots agree with the OS. But there are always some who do not.
So your position is . . . the truth or reality is based upon the number of people who hold a position when compared to the number of people who don't? An overwhelming majority determines what you believe . . . OK . . . show me the percentage of people (experienced pilots) that believe the official story without reservation????
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So your position is . . . the truth or reality is based upon the number of people who hold a position when compared to the number of people who don't?

Absolutely not.

I'm saying that a small number of people believing something does not give that thing significance without evidence. Hence finding four pilots who think the planes would have been too difficult to control is utterly meaningless - unless they can actually back it up. I'm saying you can always find someone who is an outlier.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
George, whether or not the computers are accessible in flight, I can't remember if they were on a 767 as I last flew it almost 9 years ago, the auto flight system is an integrated one, which means it works with the FMS computers and takes inputs from many other computers and sensors such as the Air data computers, the Rad Alts etc etc. I doubt they can be updated in situ, which means replacing up to 5 bulky computers while somebody hand flies the aircraft. Each of these computers is the size of a bread box.
 

RolandD

Active Member
Mick, why don't you come up with a theory why those experienced pilots think the way they do . . . I am just trying to make sense of how things could have gone down if the pilots are correct and your experts and you are wrong . . .

Is it that hard to believe, that out of the hundreds of thousands of pilots, that a very small few of them might be full of shit? Who knows why? It may make them feel important to make false accusations. They may be making money from talks and appearances. They may not be smart enough to realize they are wrong. Or they may just be delusional. Why would the word of such a small, albeit vocal, percentage of pilots outweigh the hundreds of thousands of pilots that exist and haven't claimed it to be impossible?
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Take John Lear for instance.

While I fully respect him as a human being, and especially as a pilot, he is also a guy who claims he can see buses, cars, and white sandy beaches on the planet Venus. Yeah, it does make me a little skeptical about what he says, and his theories about what happened on 9/11 also makes him an outlier.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Absolutely not.

I'm saying that a small number of people believing something does not give that thing significance without evidence. Hence finding four pilots who think the planes would have been too difficult to control is utterly meaningless - unless they can actually back it up. I'm saying you can always find someone who is an outlier.
I guess I come from a different culture . . . expert testimony is evidence in every court of law I have ever been involved in . . .
 

RolandD

Active Member
I guess I come from a different culture . . . expert testimony is evidence in every court of law I have ever been involved in . . .

But, George, both sides usually have an expert witness supporting their side, they can't both be right. If this were a court case, the opposition would have a dozen expert witnesses testifying why Lear, or whoever, was wrong.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Take John Lear for instance.

While I fully respect him as a human being, and especially as a pilot, he is also a guy who claims he can see buses, cars, and white sandy beaches on the planet Venus. Yeah, it does make me a little skeptical about what he says, and his theories about what happened on 9/11 also makes him an outlier.
You noticed John was not one of the 767 pilots in the videos . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But, George, both sides usually have an expert witness supporting their side, they can't both be right. If this were a court case, the opposition would have a dozen expert witnesses testifying why Lear, or whoever, was wrong.
So . . . seems that is what we have here . . . the problem is we don't have an impartial jury or judge . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Is it that hard to believe, that out of the hundreds of thousands of pilots, that a very small few of them might be full of shit? Who knows why? It may make them feel important to make false accusations. They may be making money from talks and appearances. They may not be smart enough to realize they are wrong. Or they may just be delusional. Why would the word of such a small, albeit vocal, percentage of pilots outweigh the hundreds of thousands of pilots that exist and haven't claimed it to be impossible?
I have not heard any except a few here challenge them either . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, whether or not the computers are accessible in flight, I can't remember if they were on a 767 as I last flew it almost 9 years ago, the auto flight system is an integrated one, which means it works with the FMS computers and takes inputs from many other computers and sensors such as the Air data computers, the Rad Alts etc etc. I doubt they can be updated in situ, which means replacing up to 5 bulky computers while somebody hand flies the aircraft. Each of these computers is the size of a bread box.
I think with a good computer systems analyst, some hardware people, along with a hacker or two, the schematics and the Boing code in a few months they could figure out how to do it with the hijackers. . . the real problem is . . . can I get to the nodes I need to while in flight . . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
You noticed John was not one of the 767 pilots in the videos . . .

That wasn't the point. The point is that his own testimonials are questionable in-spite of his credentials.

If an MD came up to you and said he can cure cancer by simply pointing a finger at someone, are you going to believe him based on his credentials alone? I sure as heck would ask plenty of questions. And believe me, there are plenty of people like that out there, and yeah, even pilots too. Pilots too can be wrong, you know, even if they have thousands of hours on their shoulders. I've seen air accidents where experienced pilots make novice mistakes. No one's perfect, but just saying, instead of relying on what someone has on their resume, a careful look into actual evidence goes a long way in uncovering what's real and what's not.

And George, you should perhaps assess your own theory sometime in the plausibility department, because ultimately that is going to come back to you if it hasn't already. You are actually fortunate enough to have debated this issue with about five pilots on this thread who have more or less described the difficulty of your theory. Unless you carry a pilots license, you should perhaps consider the points of view presented here instead of being so trusting of the fringe. Not to say you should dismiss anything (and respecting a good debate you should NEVER dismiss anything), but you seem to take the strong 'belief' on one side based on credentials (so called 'experienced' pilots) while ignoring the other. Are none of us 'experienced' pilots either?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That wasn't the point. The point is that his own testimonials are questionable in-spite of his credentials.

If an MD came up to you and said he can cure cancer by simply pointing a finger at someone, are you going to believe him based on his credentials alone? I sure as heck would ask plenty of questions. And believe me, there are plenty of people like that out there, and yeah, even pilots too. Pilots too can be wrong, you know, even if they have thousands of hours on their shoulders. I've seen air accidents where experienced pilots make novice mistakes. No one's perfect, but just saying, instead of relying on what someone has on their resume, a careful look into actual evidence goes a long way in uncovering what's real and what's not.

And George, you should perhaps assess your own theory sometime in the plausibility department, because ultimately that is going to come back to you if it hasn't already. You are actually fortunate enough to have debated this issue with about five pilots on this thread who have more or less described the difficulty of your theory. Unless you carry a pilots license, you should perhaps consider the points of view presented here instead of being so trusting of the fringe. Not to say you should dismiss anything (and respecting a good debate you should NEVER dismiss anything), but you seem to take the strong 'belief' on one side based on credentials (so called 'experienced' pilots) while ignoring the other. Are none of us 'experienced' pilots either?

Rico,

I am listening to your communal information as experienced pilots and I find your testimony no more convincing than the experienced pilots in the videos. As far as John Lear is concerned . . . that was a joke, yet I find most public people have some fringe beliefs so John has been very public and has discredited his self because of it . . .

As a non-pilot I can be snowed by either group . . . so which one to place my confidence in . . . what are the motives. . . what are the motives? The Truthers are committed to ID any inconsistency they feel exist in the 911 official story . . . MetaBunk as a group is dedicated to debunking any conspiracy out there in the public arena . . . seems two extremes of the same continuum to me . . . I find the truth is often somewhere in the middle . . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Rico,

I am listening to your communal information as experienced pilots and I find your testimony no more convincing than the experienced pilots in the videos. As far as John Lear is concerned . . . that was a joke, yet I find most public people have some fringe beliefs so John has been very public and has discredited his self because of it . . .

As a non-pilot I can be snowed by either group . . . so which one to place my confidence in . . . what are the motives. . . what are the motives? The Truthers are committed to ID any inconsistency they feel exist in the 911 official story . . . MetaBunk as a group is dedicated to debunking any conspiracy out there in the public arena . . . seems two extremes of the same continuum to me . . . I find the truth is often somewhere in the middle . . .

Alright, that was a reasonable response. And indeed, I can understand your POV there. There is no reason to trust members of this site anymore than Truthers. Well put. I never quite see debunking as an opposite end of a spectrum personally, though I can certainly understand why it can seem like that at times considering that debate can often be quite direct and blunt where a side always has to defend a thesis.

In my philosophy though, yes... the truth is often in the middle, but when it comes down to investigating what is real or not, it comes down to a balancing act. It's about weighing the facts, and finding out what is relevant, before drawing a hypothesis, and hopefully a conclusion when the sufficient facts tie in reasonably to formulate a picture.

If there is a fuzzy spot in the whole topic, it's down to what a hijacking pilot can do at ~510 knots at low altitude. You have to admit, your theory hinges on that issue being that it's not possible for them to hit a building at that speed. Certainly, most regular pilots, airline, commercial, or otherwise don't fly their planes past manufacturer specifications. So in a sense, guys like us and the truthers who aren't test pilots are defending their positions with only what they know.

In my opinion, I think of the whole issue like a speeding bullet travelling in a straight line. A .22 bullet can travel the equivalent of closed to 900 knots, remain fairly straight depending on winds, and hit a target. An airplane is nothing more than another object flying through the air, granted it has wings jutting out, is massive in comparison, and has much more drag, not to mention much more brittle. So in that respect, if an aircraft doesn't break up at ~510 knots, I just see no reason why it can't hit a target with a little aim and accelerate. To me, this makes sense. But you can form your own opinions here, I'm just debating.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
MetaBunk as a group is dedicated to debunking any conspiracy out there in the public arena

No we are not. I'm about debunking EVERYTHING. Read the About page:

https://www.metabunk.org/content/120-About-Metabunk
Metabunk.org is dedicated to the art and pastime of honest, scientific debunking. It is primarily a discussion forum, however the focus in on providing useful resources, and avoiding repetitive debate and arguments.

Threads should be kept on-topic, and discussion should be kept very polite. Threads should ideally be short and focussed, with a thread title that accurately describes the content. New topics should be in new threads.

Metabunk.org is run by me, Mick West. It started as a spin-off from the Contrail Science site, as we needed a more flexible forum for discussing a wider range of topics. But the chemtrails forum is still the most popular here. Discussion topics tend to focus around conspiracy theories such as 9/11 and the "New World Order", and not so much about the paranormal.

I also like to discuss debunking as a topic itself, in the MetaDebunking forum. Particularly about how debunking can be as effective as possible.

Debunking is about exposing bunk. If a conspiracy is true, then I'd be more than happy to expose the cover-up.

You make it seem like I'm declaring war on anything with a conspiracy label. Far from it. Conspiracy theories have a lot of bunk, but you might notice I also spent several hours yesterday and today on a dubious energy investment scheme, because it was full of bunk.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/11...-panel-cone-spin-cell-quot-CoolSpin-quot-scam
 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Alright, that was a reasonable response. And indeed, I can understand your POV there. There is no reason to trust members of this site anymore than Truthers. Well put. I never quite see debunking as an opposite end of a spectrum personally, though I can certainly understand why it can seem like that at times considering that debate can often be quite direct and blunt where a side always has to defend a thesis.

In my philosophy though, yes... the truth is often in the middle, but when it comes down to investigating what is real or not, it comes down to a balancing act. It's about weighing the facts, and finding out what is relevant, before drawing a hypothesis, and hopefully a conclusion when the sufficient facts tie in reasonably to formulate a picture.

If there is a fuzzy spot in the whole topic, it's down to what a hijacking pilot can do at ~510 knots at low altitude. You have to admit, your theory hinges on that issue being that it's not possible for them to hit a building at that speed. Certainly, most regular pilots, airline, commercial, or otherwise don't fly their planes past manufacturer specifications. So in a sense, guys like us and the truthers who aren't test pilots are defending their positions with only what they know.

In my opinion, I think of the whole issue like a speeding bullet travelling in a straight line. A .22 bullet can travel the equivalent of closed to 900 knots, remain fairly straight depending on winds, and hit a target. An airplane is nothing more than another object flying through the air, granted it has wings jutting out, is massive in comparison, and has much more drag, not to mention much more brittle. So in that respect, if an aircraft doesn't break up at ~510 knots, I just see no reason why it can't hit a target with a little aim and accelerate. To me, this makes sense. But you can form your own opinions here, I'm just debating.
I would love to see some input from someone with credentials who had not yet formed an opinion . . . Viewing the opinions from both sides of the arguement . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No we are not. I'm about debunking EVERYTHING. Read the About page:

https://www.metabunk.org/content/120-About-Metabunk


Debunking is about exposing bunk. If a conspiracy is true, then I'd be more than happy to expose the cover-up.

You make it seem like I'm declaring war on anything with a conspiracy label. Far from it. Conspiracy theories have a lot of bunk, but you might notice I also spent several hours yesterday and today on a dubious energy investment scheme, because it was full of bunk.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/11...-panel-cone-spin-cell-quot-CoolSpin-quot-scam
Sorry, I did not properly use your vocabulary but I think Rico got my point . . . MetaBunk collectively decides what Bunk is and decides which Bunk to Debunk. . . it is a coincidence that most bunk seems to be found in conspiracy theories . . . 911 being a conspiracy theory has a large presence here . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top