Connect with us

Red Pill

News

The MH17 air traffic tower radar image that no western media is willing to report

A new report has surfaced from air traffic controller radar data that clearly shows military aircraft were in the vicinity of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 when it crashed on July 17, 2014. The data comes from an air traffic control center in Rostov near the Ukraine border and shows 20 minutes of recording of the airspace before and after the shooting down of MH17. Western MSM…silent.

Published

on

0 Views

Western main stream media quickly picked up and dissected last nights Russian Channel 1 satellite image, suggesting the Malaysian Boeing MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian warplane…because it is obviously a doctored photo.

As military expert and analyst The Saker quickly reported:

I am quite sure that the photo of the MH-17 being shot down is fake. The military aircraft appears to be a SU-27, the angle is wrong, as is the side of the attack, and this is not a satellite picture.

What was not reported on, and what appears to be very legit and very hard to dispute, is the below radar data from Russia’s Rostov oblast (a region bordering East Ukraine) indicating that military aircraft were in the air near Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 when it crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 17.

The image was released by a Russian air safety consultancy and reported yesterday via RT…

The consultancy provided a snapshot representing the readings taken by a radar station located in Russia’s Rostov, near the Ukrainian border, shortly before and about 20 minutes after the MH17 crash.

map-2

 

According to Sergey Melnichenko, CEO of Aviation Safety consultancy, there were one or two warplanes in the air close to the Malaysian airliner. The data casts doubt on the version of the tragedy favored by Western nations, which claims the plane was shot down from the ground by rebel forces with a sophisticated surface-to-air missile.

The data “came from an air traffic control center in Rostov,” Melnichenko told Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, declining to reveal which one and whether it was civilian or military. He assured that “we have full trust in the sources, which helped us make it available to the public.”

“The data clearly shows that at the moment of the crash and after it there were planes moving north of the Boeing course. Most likely, they were military, because the spots are very close to each other. The conclusion is that there were either one or two aircraft there,” Melnichenko told the daily.

Another indication that the planes in question were military aircraft is the fact that they didn’t respond to being scanned, Melnichenko said. Civilian planes always reply to signals from radar, while military aircraft are “usually unequipped with transmitter-responders or the pilots turn them off during combat flights,” he explained.

With the rebel forces possessing no air force of their own, Russia and Ukraine are the most logical parties to send warplanes to that area, the expert said. But it would have been impossible for a Russian warplane to make it over the border without being detected by Ukrainian and NATO radars.

“There would’ve been reaction on something like that long ago – from NATO and Ukraine. But there was no reaction because there was nothing to react to,” he explained.

Several days after the MH17 crash, the Russian Defense Ministry released evidence that it detected a Ukrainian fighter jet near the Boeing at the time of the catastrophe. Kiev denied deploying any jets on that day, but it had been routinely using aviation to deliver airstrikes at rebel positions.

According to Melnichenko, the new data is consistent with that published by the military.

“Our data is somewhat more precise…they didn’t present the airplane’s flight paths as clearly. But maybe they did it intentionally, I don’t know,” he said.

The expert added that the presence of military planes north of the Boeing would put them in a position to the left of the plane. Some photos from the crash site showed damage to the cockpit’s left side, consistent with a scenario of an attack by those planes.

Now back to The Saker and his take on the radar image…

The Russian newspaper MK has obtained a screenshot of the recording of a civilian Russian radar screen in Rostov – just east of the Russian-Ukrainian border.

What this image shows is 20 minutes of recording of the airspace before and after the shooting down of MH17. The course of MH17 is shown in purple while the numerous little blue “T” shaped objects in the circle show the radar return of one or, possibly two, aircraft which either do not have a transponder or which have not switched it on. Either way, since we know that the Novorussian Resistance did not have aircraft, and since we know that the Ukrainians have denied that they had any aircraft anywhere near this area at that time, and since we know that had this been a Russian aircraft the US/NATO AWACS and satellites would have picked it up and presented this damning proof a long time ago we can come to the only possible conclusion: the Ukies and their US/EU patrons are lying, the aircraft seen on the radar are Ukrainian, no Buk missile was involved in the shooting (though I personally believe that one was used to cue the Ukrainian aircraft to MH17) and that MH17 was shot down by a combo of gun and missile fire from one or two Ukrainian aircraft.

The Saker

PS: by the way, if a civilian radar needs a return signal from a transponder to get the identity, altitude and speed of an aircraft, military radars do not. Since I am quite sure that the Russians also had plenty of military radars in the region, I am equally sure that, just as the US and NATO, the Russian military also has the ironclad proof that the Ukies did it in the form of radar track recordings. Whether they will ever present such proof or not (and I am sure that they would prefer not to) or whether they will only generate such “leaks” from civilian sources as the one today in MK instead is unclear to me. I guess it depends on what the AngloZionist propaganda says.

Slowly but surely the truth, and the ongoing but oft forgotten cover up will surface. Until then commenters who did happen to run across the radar image news are having a very hard time dealing with the reality of the situation.

Taking the red pill is a painful and lonely process, as you awaken to the deception overload that was shovelled into your mind.  It’s a lot easier to live under the comfortable numbness of the blue pill.

These commenters below, from the Examiner.com (which did run the story) are in the denial / anger phase, of awakening from a lifelong slumber of lies…

The short and sweet, “Russian RT propaganda” denial…
So, the report comes from RT, one of Putin’s greatest propaganda arms, and from a snapshot taken at a Russian flight control center, and has taken months to be released. Am I the only one who thinks this is bogus?

The “I saw it on youtube so it must be fact” denial…
This report is from RT. It bears no credibility in its contents because it is coming straight from Russia. The fact remains that the plane was shot down by rebels who are continually being supported by Russia. The truck that shot the passenger plane was even shown on youtube with Russian plates. You cannot change the facts. That is it and even now Russians in their attempt to show off their military power have been flying wrecklessly all over Europe. It would not surprise me if they shoot down another passenger airline jet or crash against another plane by accident. I wonder what their excuse would be then? The world is not stupid. Are they going to say it was not their military planes?

The “I didn’t get the memo that the audio recordings have been proven a hoax” denial…
Ok, why is no one quoting the separtists audio recordings saying they just shot down a airliner. Did everyone forget this? Also I wouldn’t believe one thing that RT reports. I’ve watched this channel while in Ukraine and couldnt believe how they twisted every story to make the West look bad.

The “I did not get the memo that the Soviet Union does not exists” denial…
So there are no Soviet troops continuously crossing the border into Ukraine. . .Putin was not accompanied by warships to a trade conference in Australia. . Soviet military & spy aircraft aren’t encroaching on Western air space. . .homosexuality is allowed in the Soviet union. . . .Pu$$y Riot are free to protest the Soviet government. . .oligarchs that own oil companies & dare protest Putin’s policies are not robbed of their corporations. . .uh, huh. . .right. . .meet the Soviet Union. . .same as the old Soviet union. . .threatening a return to the Cold War policies & using threats of nuclear war to buttress their policies & rationalize their display of might. . .

The “I did not get the memo the Soviet Union does not exist, and NATO expansion map” denial…
The difference is NATO hasn’t disrupted the borders, air space & travel of those in & of an autonomous nation. . . meanwhile the Soviet Union continues to engage in bullying tactics; the main reason the conflict in Ukraine exists is the Soviet union has been attempting to extort control of Ukraine by forcing them to join other Eastern Bloc nations in a Soviet run anti NATO group. . .exerting the increasingly growing debt Ukraine owes the Soviet union & hiking oil prices many fold over market value. . .to separate Ukraine from the rest of the world. . .without the freedom to render their own choice. . .

Do you really think we are that daft? Please.

The nice try with “some logical reasoning” denial…
…let’s reason this out! The separatists in Eastern Ukraine never flew a plane in the whole period of this crises. Why would a Ukrainean military aircraft target Malaysian airline flight MH17? Was it suspected to be a fighter plane operatd by the Separatists? Did the Separatists ever operated one that could have called for such suspicion?

We wish all the commenters well on their journey to truth, hopefully they too will reach a stage when such tragedies and crimes like MH17 will illicit a more red pill response, like these two commenters below:

A commenter asking the right questions…
Only 3 questions. Why US satellite data is not still released. Why 27 Ukrainian antiaircraft BUK (SA-11) launchers were deployed in the battle zone when MH17 was shot down? After all, rebels don’t have aviation. And is it by chance that Putin’s plane appeared there after 17 minutes after the tragedy?

A commenter who understands what’s a stake for the US if the truth gets out…
This was reported by the Malaysia New Straits Times a long time ago, but all in the west poo-pooed it. I read a comment here that the commenter believed the US finding . The US hasn’t published its finding, probably because it is the same as the Russian radar information. For the west to find or admit that Ukraine fighter planes shot down MH17 is unthinkable, as it nullifies all the US efforts and expenditure to draw Ukraine to the west and to exploit Ukraine mineral resources .

References:

http://rt.com/news/205339-mh17-air-plane-malaysian/

http://www.mk.ru/incident/2014/11/12/dannye-aviadispetcherov-podtverdili-ryadom-s-boingom-rukhnuvshim-na-ukraine-letel-voennyy-samolet.html

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/11/mh17-more-proof-that-ukies-did-it.html

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Liberal Hollywood caught in sexual feeding frenzy

Asia Argento called out by a man SHE sexually abused, revealing the true nature of Hollywood’s “moral cause”.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The #MeToo phenomenon looked to the first glance a bit like a “moral snapback” in Hollywood, as it appeared that the years of hidden sexual perversity and predatory behavior was being revealed so that it might be stopped.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

However, a slightly more serious look at this began to reveal that it was far less upstanding than Hollywood’s elite wanted the adoring public to believe. Swiftly, the movement became the feminist movement’s latest salvo against men, because it provided women accusers with virtually unlimited power to defame any man – all that was needed was for her to say that man X made an unwanted advance and that man’s life would be mired in the mud of slander.

In some cases, of course the presence of sexual abuse was real, and tragic. However, as with many attacks from the dark side, a little truth mixed with the lie makes the lie much stronger, and this recipe proved a huge success for the #MeToo movement. The viral spread of this hashtag and the social “outrage” associated with it turned the lives of many people completely upside down.

However, now the truth begins to show. And what’s more, it begins to show how utterly rotten and, honestly, evil this group of people can be.

Asia Argento is an actress who was one of the early accusers of the producing mogul Harvey Weinstein, arguably the “Wanted” poster child of #MeToo. This woman is physically very beautiful, which makes her someone easy to believe by the elite and by the foolish who take her appearance as somehow proof that she is good. So, her accusations against Mr. Weinstein held, despite the fact that she continued having sexual relations with him for years afterward. She blamed Weinstein for this situation saying about this, “after the rape, he won.”

But late Sunday night on August 19th, news began to surface that Argento had herself seduced and forcibly had sexual relations with a 17 year old actor, Jimmy Bennett, when she was 37 herself. After Argento had gone public with her accusation against Weinstein, Mr. Bennett’s lawyer notified Argento of his intention to sue her for US $3.5 million for emotional distress, lost wages and assault and battery.

Asia Argento agreed to pay him off to the tune of $380,000. This was reported by The New York Times.

This is not the only damaged person in contact with Ms. Argento. Just two months ago on 7 June, her lover Anthony Bourdain was found dead in his hotel room at only 61. Mr. Bourdain reportedly suffered from severe alcoholism and its accompanying depression and suicidal tendencies.

The #MeToo movement went extremely viral in its early months, and commentator Rush Limbaugh characterized it as the latest onslaught against men by feminists:

I’m going to tell you, if you’re in politics and you’ve ever looked at a woman the wrong way, you can expect a woman at some point to go public and say so. In fact, because of the success they had with this, it’s entirely possible that men who haven’t done a single thing in terms of mistreating a woman, abusing her, or harassing her, are still, nevertheless, going to be accused of it. It has become a political tactic. We have now had — this is a point that I made yesterday — we have now had something that is a genuinely serious thing in its own right and its own contained universe. Sexual harassment, the use of sexual harassment, the treatment of women, or others, in the workplace, that’s a legitimate thing. But it’s now just been corrupted and weaponized and made to look like a political opposition research weapon, and that’s exactly what’s happened. 

And so, anybody can see, and you can see that when one of these allegations is made, the women are believed, and the men who are accused are not. Which means the men have to prove a negative and the accusers don’t have to prove anything. That is a powerful weapon the Democrats have decided to use. And believe me, as we speak, they are behind closed doors creating further strategems using this, and they are picking their targets. And you’re going to see more of it, I predict.

This present issue though with Mr. Bennett’s situation shows that this is actually much worse than just the latest outbreak of feminism.

The elite in the United States comprises the actors and musicians that have made their names everyday references in popular culture for almost the entire country. These “beautiful people” are tracked by paparazzi and now, apparently, newspapers of national and international significance. Further, the revelation of impropriety among Hollywood elite was mistakenly presented (perhaps deliberately so) as an attempt to make Hollywood look as though it were beyond reproach. The reasons for this are not clear, but speculation exists that it was a setup for an ego te absolvo moment for the Left so they could attack Trump from a “moral high ground.”

But the very prominent expression of “moral outrage” among such “leaders” in this group falls apart when one sees that this group is not at all guided by anything that is truly good. Jimmy Bennett’s case speaks most powerfully about this, because he was raped, essentially, by a woman who he had come to associate in his mind as a “mother figure.” He got a payout, but there is no outrage to speak of against Asia Argento. She made the news because of this revelation but all it appears to show is that the Hollywood elite are eating each other. This woman has some very dark liaisons, too, and the aura of death and decay surrounds her. Yet, she is still a “star.”

Perhaps a good aspect of this report is that we see it a bit more clearly for what it is.

But, that is what many of us said when Harvey Weinstein’s escapades were revealed.

Continue Reading

Latest

Doug Casey on Social Media: “Facebook enshrines stupidity”

“Just as Myspace was displaced by Facebook, I predict Facebook 2.0 will come along and replace Facebook.”

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Joel Bowman via InternationalMan.com:


Joel Bowman: G’day, Doug. Thanks for speaking with us today.

Doug Casey: No problem, Joel. It’s a pleasure to hear your Australian accent come across the ether from Mexico.

Joel: Let’s dive right in. A week or two ago, Facebook registered the largest single day loss for any one company in stock market history – roughly $122 billion. CEO Mark Zuckerberg lost around $15 billion himself, as much as the annual GDP of several resource-rich, West African nations.

Looking back to 2000, during the go-go days of the dot.com boom, Intel and Microsoft both registered staggering single-day losses, too… $90 billion and $80 billion, respectively. And we know what happened next in that case…

So, investors want to know… is past prologue? What’s next for Silicon Valley’s tech darlings?

Doug: Talking about losing multiple billions in a single day, it’s really a sign of the times. I remember when the only billionaires in the world were Howard Hughes, John Paul Getty and John Beresford Tipton– the mythical billionaire on a 1950’s-era show called “The Millionaire.”

These days, however, it seems everyone’s a billionaire. In fact, there are several thousand billionaires roaming the planet today, with new ones being minted almost every day.

Of course, much of this so-called wealth is just paper. It’s not real. In fact, it’s pretty clear to me that we’re in a stock market bubble. Which is being driven by the bond market hyper-bubble. And that, in turn, is fueling a real estate bubble, which I believe is just now beginning to deflate in major cities around the world.

None of this augurs well for the stock market. You’ve got bubbles all over the place. Except in the resource market. That’s the one place that hasn’t inflated. In fact, it’s been going down since it’s last peak in 2011.

Getting back to Facebook, I hope it goes bankrupt. I hate it as an institution. I hate what it does. I don’t like its policies. I don’t like its management. I don’t like the fact that it’s causing people to destroy whatever privacy they have left. While turning their brains to mush sending out selfies all day.

Joel: You’ve put a lot on the table there, Doug. Let’s unpack a bit of that, starting with the general tendency toward cerebral rot…

Many younger readers may not remember this, but there actually existed a time before everybody knew everything, when people had to read books and discuss them, engage in healthy debate and rigorous dialectic in order to learn and develop intellectually.

Now that everyone apparently has plenty of time to Instagram their kale salads and “like” one and other’s cat pictures, are we to assume mankind has finally reached the End of Learning…some new Age of Enlightenment?

Or might Facebook and its (anti)social media cousins represent – in addition to the potential fallout for investors – another, hidden cost to society?

Doug: Perhaps humanity is bifurcating into the Morlocks and the Eloi at this point. It’s true that people used to go to libraries. But even the Library of Congress has only a tiny fraction the world’s data available; libraries are quaint and delightful, but they’re dinosaurs.

All the knowledge in the world is now at our fingertips on the Internet. The Internet is one of the greatest inventions in history, on a par with moveable type and the Gutenburg printing press. A few people are using it to educate and better themselves—but relatively few.

Most people just use it for trivial amusement, as you mentioned. Facebook adds very little value to the equation. In fact, I can’t see that it does much that’s productive. It’s basically a vehicle for gossip and watching cat videos.

Joel: And it’s less than that. Aside from the general degradation of public discourse, social media also represents a kind of unalterable historical record of bad jokes and regrettable moments, accessible to anyone who may wish to besmirch one’s character or skittle one’s reputation.

We’ve all said things we wish we hadn’t. To err is to be human, after all. What do you make of a world in which everyone’s worst moments are readily available to everyone else – including potential enemies – at the click of a mouse?

Doug: Facebook enshrines stupidity. A heavy Facebook user is, in effect, saying: “Look at me! I’m a thoughtless person who doesn’t have anything better to do with his time”. That’s on top of the fact that users are exposing their thoughts, actions, and whereabouts to the NSA, the FBI, the CIA and any of a hundred other nefarious agencies. In fact, there are credible allegations that Facebook, along with Google and Amazon, are willing tools of these intelligence agencies. No good can come of being a Facebookista.

But that’s about whether you should use Facebook. Whether you should own Facebook stock is a different question. Even after the recent selloff, Facebook still has a market cap of about $500 billion, which impresses me as a lot for a chat site cum advertising vehicle. Especially one where most of its growth is behind it. A lot of users are getting hip to the fact they’re not customers, they’re the product.

Facebook was a clever innovation ten years ago. But you know, there’s an old saying in the stock market: High Tech, Big Wreck!

Just as Myspace was displaced by Facebook, I predict Facebook 2.0 will come along and replace Facebook. My understanding is that kids now see Facebook as something used by old people– people over 21 years of age. So if it’s going nowhere with the younger generation, where’s it’s future? Maybe it picks up a billion new users in the Third World. Ultimately, what’s that worth?

Facebook may not be a terminal short sale, but I certainly won’t be putting any of my own money into the stock.

Joel: Assuming you’re correct and Facebook 2.0 does displace the current market leader, are you hopeful that such a platform may serve to promote a heightened level of discourse? Perhaps people might find their way into “phyles,” that is, subgroups based on commonly shared values that actually have real world meaning?

Doug: I hope that, in a year or two, International Man itself grows into a community of likeminded people with above average I.Q.s, libertarian values, and real world experience. IM might, itself, even branch off to become its own kind of Facebook. A private version.

I know there’s a lot of talk about regulating FB, or breaking it up. That’s a bad idea; the government should have zero to do with business in general—and areas related to free speech in particular. I’m disgusted by the fact FB has kicked Alex Jones and others off their platform. But they have a right to do so, as a private company. Although, on the other hand, they’re almost a creature of the State.

But that’s not an excuse for the government to “step in”. What will happen is that a newer, better Facebook lookalike—or a dozen of them—will replace them. FB will self-destruct. It’s a non-problem.

To be frank, you and I don’t really have that much in common with most of the 7.3 billion people on this planet. In fact, while I like many individual humans, I despise humanity in general. The more people you put together in a group, the more they act like chimpanzees. Big groups force down the lowest common denominator.

There’s some cause for optimism, but only on a person-to-person basis. I prefer the company of people who value free minds and free markets—and I suspect most people who are reading this now feel the same way.

Joel: That’s probably a very good note to end this conversation on, Doug. Thanks, as always, for taking the time.

Doug: Meanwhile, we’ll look for something with the potential of Facebook in 2008… and stay away from Facebook today.

Continue Reading

Latest

Can America Ever Come Together Again?

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org:


If ex-CIA Director John Brennan did to Andrew Jackson what he did to Donald Trump, he would have lost a lot more than his security clearance.

He would have been challenged to a duel and shot.

“Trump’s … performance in Helsinki,” Brennan had said, “exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was … treasonous.”

Why should the president not strip from a CIA director who calls him a traitor the honor and privilege of a security clearance? Or is a top-secret clearance an entitlement like Social Security?

CIA directors retain clearances because they are seen as national assets, individuals whose unique experience, knowledge and judgment may be called upon to assist a president in a national crisis.

Not so long ago, this was a bipartisan tradition.

Who trashed this tradition?

Was it not the former heads of the security agencies — CIA, FBI, director of national intelligence — who have been leveling the kind of savage attacks on the chief of state one might expect from antifa?

Are ex-security officials entitled to retain the high privileges of the offices they held, if they descend into cable-TV hatred and hostility?

Former CIA chief Mike Hayden, in attacking Trump for separating families of detained illegal immigrants at the border, tweeted a photo of the train tracks leading into Auschwitz.

“Other governments have separated mothers and children” was Hayden’s caption.

Is that fair criticism from an ex-CIA director?

Thursday, The New York Times decried Trump’s accusation that the media are “the enemy of the people.”

“Insisting that truths you don’t like are ‘fake news’ is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists ‘the enemy of the people’ is dangerous, period,” said the Times.

Fair enough, but is it not dangerous for a free press to be using First Amendment rights to endlessly bash a president as a racist, fascist, sexist, neo-Nazi, liar, tyrant and traitor?

The message of journalists who use such terms may be to convey their detestation of Trump. But what is the message received in the sick minds of people like that leftist who tried to massacre Republican congressmen practicing for their annual softball game with Democrats?

And does Trump not have a point when he says the Boston Globe-organized national attack on him, joined in by the Times and 300 other newspapers, was journalistic “collusion” against him?

If Trump believes that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are mortal enemies who want to see him ousted or impeached, is he wrong?

We are an irreconcilable us-against-them nation today, and given the rancor across the ideological, social and cultural chasm that divides us, it is hard to see how, even post-Trump, we can ever come together again.

Speaking at a New York LGBT gala in 2016, Hillary Clinton said: “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … Some of those folks … are irredeemable, but … they are not America.”

When Clinton’s reflections on Middle America made it into print, she amended her remarks. Just as Gov. Andrew Cuomo rushed to amend his comments yesterday when he blurted at a bill-signing ceremony:

“We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great.” America was “never that great”?

Cuomo’s press secretary hastened to explain, “When the president speaks about making America great again … he ignores the pain so many endured and that we suffered from slavery, discrimination, segregation, sexism and marginalized women’s contributions.”

Clinton and Cuomo committed gaffes of the kind Michael Kinsley described as the blurting out of truths the speaker believes but desperately does not want a wider audience to know.

In San Francisco in 2008, Barack Obama committed such a gaffe.

Asked why blue-collar workers in industrial towns decimated by job losses were not responding to his message, Obama trashed these folks as the unhappy losers of our emerging brave new world:

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

These clingers to their Bibles, bigotries and guns are the people the mainstream media, 10 years later, deride and dismiss as “Trump’s base.”

What Clinton, Cuomo and Obama spilled out reveals what is really behind the cultural and ideological wars of America today.

Most media elites accept the historic indictment — that before the Progressives came, this country was mired in racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, and that its history had been a long catalog of crimes against indigenous peoples, Africans brought here in bondage, Mexicans whose lands we stole, migrants, and women and gays who were denied equality.

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

For such as these, Trump cannot scourge the media often enough.

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending