The Lockerbie Incident – Pan Am flight 103, Part III

Part III – Lockerbie bombing

When you introduce the word »bomb« into one’s mind, bombarding him/her with the term in newspaper articles and TV news flash, with a picture such as this :

panam1

…your mind doesn’t get suspicious seeing this as a consequence of huge explosion, does it? That’s just how it is supposed to look, right? I mean, we’ve all watched movies back then and TV was flashing us with war zone coverage from the Iran-Iraq War, Palestine fighting back Israel, Invasion of Grenada, Arab-Israeli Conflict, Lebanon War, Falklands War, Soviet war in Afghanistan, Salvadoran Civil War, South African Border War, etc… (the list is just shocking to comprehend). So we should have no doubt that this picture represents a crater made by kerosene explosion.They’ve said so on TV, right? And they’ve said so in all newspapers that one crazy Libyan can be responsible for something like this (+270 dead people), so you should have no doubt about it again. Or do you, just as I do too, doubt about all this Lockerbie bombing event?

In the picture above is Sherwood Crescent, part of Lockerbie town area where as the story goes, 91,000 kg of fuel apparently landed and exploded. We see a large cylindrical hole in the ground, but very little charring if any. This remark goes especially for the part of this half-tunnel, closer to us in lower middle focus, like if some magical curtain would prevent fireball from reaching it. Houses in the immediate vicinity are unscathed, first such white house just above the half-tunnel seems to have furthest window glass to the left intact. I’m not an expert on explosives nor did I ever witness an explosion of 91.000 kg of kerosene, but I suggest all window glass in town should have been shattered due to a compressed air wave following such enormous explosion. Same would be suggested for the red car that can be noticed  just above the half-tunnel, with his rear window still inside the chassis (it looks broken, but not shattered).

Here is the picture, that many sources tagged as »photo most associated with Pan Am 103 flight« :

pan_am_103

First thing I wondered about is just how could a front window glass of a cockpit, that fell from 31.000 feet stay attached to the cockpit chassis? With glass below the chassis even touching the ground although it came to full stop in split second as it touched the ground? Really? This glass is for sure made by the same factory that made that red car’s windows, must be some meteorite proof add-on option .

Aerial picture (capture from this video) of the cockpit part of the fuselage shows:

cockpit-aerial

Here are two more, in black&white version as I couldn’t find any color version of the same pictures (or any decent aerial picture of the crash site, actually), but it is enough to show my point:

cockpit-aerial1

cockpit-aerial2

There we have three pictures of the remains of the cockpit / flight deck of Pan Am flight 103 from some elevated point (what are those cracks on Earth’s surface in B&W pictures anyway?), enough to see that such piece of metal came to stop in the same and relatively small area where it first hit the ground. No bouncing, no falling apart, no window glass shattering, it simply hit the ground with estimated 120 kts weighing approximately 17.500 lb (7.937 kg) and got squashed to approximately half of its original size (page #35, Official report here). With the force of impact we can only imagine, I think the flight deck should have a) moved/bounced at least  enough to notice it on the ground and b) been much more damaged, which especially applied to window glass . Although the Official report said the flight deck had no obvious horizontal speed at the moment of impact, the Earth’s surface does move as it rotates. It shure looks more like flight deck was dropped from some elevation, not to high above the ground though, as in example from a crane:

crane

Oh, excuse me, I made an error here, that is a picture of a crane removing the cockpit section afterwards. But it may look as if it was just prepared to drop though, doesn’t it?  I would really like to be on the opposite side of the flight deck than shown here above, its remains look to nicely modeled as if it was prefabricated to look like wreckage.

inside-cockpit

Above is the picture of flight deck’s interior, evidently flight deck’s fuselage got stripped of everything because of the force of impact. Surprisingly enough, rust can be seen on the chassis pillars in the left of focus, something I wasn’t expecting to see on a 747 jet airliner flying regular oversea roundabouts until few hours before this picture was made. Notice that quite substantial volume of this squashed flight deck is filled with rubble coming from itself, all shredded to rather small pieces, which makes me wonder about the mechanism of this shredding process. What I can conclude after all, those pieces must have been shredded only after the deck made a touchdown for sure or else they would have been blown away by that monstrous wind capable of carrying heavy pieces of fuselage for miles and miles, right? I presume as well this is the main reason, the shredding effect, that we can find no explicit or less explicit pictures of Pan Am 103 victims at the crash site.

But then there is more to the story of cockpit / flight deck of what was once known as Clipper Maid of the Seas. As it can be read and learned in Official report , page #16, last paragraph on that page reads as:

»The complete fuselage forward of approximately station 480 (left side) to station 380 (right side) and incorporating the flight deck and nose landing gear was found as a single piece (Appendix B, Figure B-9) in a field approximately 4km miles east of Lockerbie at OS Grid Reference 174808. It was evident from the nature of the impact damage and the ground marks that it had fallen almost flat on its left side but with a slight nose down attitude and with no discernible horizontal velocity. The impact had caused almost complete crushing of the structure on the left side. The radome and right nose landing gear door had detached in the air and were recovered in the southern trail.«

(There is more details about the timeline in the Official report, where we can learn that nose section / flight deck of the airplane was the first piece to fall to the ground).

A huge inconsistency with the official story is already evident, how could a 21-inch hole (blown to the right side of the airplane by alleged bomb) tear it apart in several pieces? By what mechanism? Is there something more to this Official report and its appendices that would explain it in appropriate manner? Most certainly so :

datum-line

I’ve taken this graphics depicting spots where debris was found to show how irrational this theory looks when looked from a birds perspective. As the alleged bomb goes off (or as the sound is heard on the CVR flight recorder), the airplane is at point B , taking a nose-down dive from 31.000 feet to approximately 19.000 feet, where it begins to disintegrate,  two major portions of the wreckage fell on the town of Lockerbie and other large parts, including the flight deck and forward fuselage section, landed in the countryside to the east of the town. A larger, dark, delta shaped object, resembling an aircraft wing, landed at about the same time Sherwood area of the town. The delta shaped object was not on fire while in the air, however, a very large fireball ensued which was of short duration and carried large amounts of debris into the air, the lighter particles being deposited several miles downwind. (The wind is reported as upper winds of 250° and 260° and decreased in strength from 115kt at Flight Level 320 / Flight Level 310 was 103’s designated flight level of 31.000 feet/ to 60kt at FL 100 and 15kt-20kt at the surface). Debris from the aircraft was strewn along two trails, one of which extended some 130 km to the east coast of England (page #3, Official Report). (For practical purposes the trails of debris ended at a range of approximately 25 km, beyond which only items of low weight / high drag were found).

Just amazing how far the debris allegedly flew with no propulsion attached to it, aided just with atmospherical wind conditions. Surprisingly, the delta shaped object – wing section with 91.000 kg of kerosene – was not set on fire by alleged bomb explosion or disintegration process only to explode at the touchdown. So what exactly was the mentioned fireball fueled with if not by jet fuel? By what kind of physics can the debris be flown up to 25 km (and even 130 km to the east coast of England) aided by wind only ? Aircraft was traveling at approximately 500 kt at the moment the alleged bomb exploded, taking a nose-down dive first, disintegrating while at descent, so allegedly flight deck landed on the ground with no significant horizontal movement. Shouldn’t the same principle stand firm for all other debris (except some paper, interior trim parts and insulation pieces maybe) ? Why and how would the flight deck be landed farther from the Heathrow airport where it originated than largest part of the fuselage? What is the physics behind it,  mechanism to explain it? If aircraft is more-or-less in one piece, taking a nose-down dive at the point when the alleged bomb exploded, starting to disintegrate while there was much less (or none) horizontal movement involved, what is the explanation for a 25 km long trail of debris? Is it actually possible to have Earth’s (not i.e. Jupiter’s) atmospherical winds carrying pieces of substantial weight such as :

debris1debris2debris7debris6debris5

debris41.jpg

…to deposit them up to 25 km in downwind direction? With no random scattering of falling debris? Such pieces of wreckage could be easily deployed i.e. by pushing them out of a cargo aircraft, such as Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, capable of carrying up to 118 tonnes of cargo. Weight of empty Boeing 747-121 is given as approximately 168,2 tonnes, meaning we’d need to deploy two of those C-5’s, thus delivering two parallel wreckage lines consistent with findings on the ground. Possible? As much as winds carrying that mass of wreckage for miles, but possibly much more probable, I’d say. With the remark, that order of found wreckage debris on the ground matches only to the order of wreckage piece as they were loaded into the aircraft carrying it. First in-last out or something like that.

Let’s look at some pictures of the alleged devastation left by the impact of wing section, which hit Lockerbie’s Sherwood Crescent. Here is the impact site :

lockerbie5

Why is earth / dirt not charred at all? 91.000 kg of kerosene explodes exactly at this spot yet there is no visible remains of a devastating fire? Not even rocks have any marks of heat or char? I wonder if anybody thought of taking some dirt samples and analysing those for chemical residues. If so, I’d really like to read such report about it.

Let me introduce some more angles of the same crater / half-tunnel :

lockerbie7lockerbie8lockerbie11

Interesting enough the road was not significantly damaged, one may argue even that the road was not damaged at all. Looking at the bunch of curious guys below, where they are standing on that particular road very close to the crater’s edge, it looks intact. Again, like if a mysterious curtain was preventing the enormous blast of 91.000 kg of kerosene from damaging the road. Oh, wait, I forgot, we already have that curtain installed at the last third of the half-tunnel. All clear.

lockerbie2lockerbie1

Those pictures sure have more of a construction site feeling to them than some serious crime scene investigation site. But not to be rude, there was some effort invested by the investigators at the crime scene:

lockerbie6lockerbie9lockerbie12

Just what in the world is this fireman doing? And what did water jet hit changing the angle of it? I just can’t see it there.

To be continued…

(in the meanwhile, just be careful, you never know when an airplane may fall on your head)

capture-sarcasm

12 thoughts on “The Lockerbie Incident – Pan Am flight 103, Part III

  1. Man, YOU are really a complete idiot. So, your very clever method of coming clother to something called “truth” is to take a look on the photographs from the official crash investigators (BTW. not very clever to publish these shots, if its all a big lie – just saying^^). Then you point on things in these photos you don’t understand. But your conclusion of things you don’t understand is not to think about the possibility that you are just clueless nobody. NO! Your conclusion is that something must be very, very suspicious about this incident. In every word of you it becomes very clear that you simply have no clue about anything, I would suggest you are a little bit mentally retarded, isn’t it? All of your points are just so stupid and laughable. The fireman water jet photo is clearly the strongest evidence, that this was all staged 😀 Man: get a life, a girlfriend or at least a job – instead of wasting the internet with your YouTube University graduate thoughts.

    Like

    1. Your logic is really beautiful. The point of showing that the pictures were / are doctored is exactly the opposite of your suggestion. Your choice of words is even more telling, as if I made you really angry by disclosing a certain scam. Are you sure that it was the Lockerbie case that pissed you off? I have a gut feeling you chose this post of mine to give your barking an echo just for the purpose of barking for what it really is. I guess hearing your voice makes you a bit more courageous and at the same time it proves that barking dogs really can’t bite.

      Now, go learn some manners, kiddo.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. No forward propulsion ? you are forgetting the speed of the aircraft, the debris field is accurate. This is without doubt one of the worst conspiracy theories I have ever heard, given the competition that is some achievement. No sign of a devastating fire ? ridiculous. Your theory is embarrassingly illogical and an insult to all the victims families.

    Like

    1. I’m not forgetting anything, so I reckon you think the way you read, which is superficially. Here, try again:

      “As the alleged bomb goes off (or as the sound is heard on the CVR flight recorder), the airplane is at point B , taking a nose-down dive from 31.000 feet to approximately 19.000 feet, where it begins to disintegrate…”

      Nose-down. Dive. Lateral speed of aircraft = 0. Zero lateral speed means the aircraft is not moving at all in any direction but downward. The airplane is in a free fall, in case you didn’t understand what that means.

      No sign of fire coming out of a humongous explosion of 91.000 kg of kerosine, yes. Try to actually read what I wrote:

      “This remark goes especially for the part of this half-tunnel, closer to us in lower middle focus, like if some magical curtain would prevent fireball from reaching it.”

      That means you need to explain to me why is only one half of the crater charred while the fire didn’t reach the other part. Just scroll up the page and look at the picture I lead with. I’ll be waiting for your sensible answer, but won’t hold my breath.

      Like

  3. As someone who owns a complete 747-300 cockpit, and has completely taken out the interior and restored it, I know every inch of the cockpit structure. Just as you were, I was confused at how the cockpit windows did not completely disintegrate upon impact. It was only after seeing so many other 747 accidents where the windows remained cracked, but intact, no matter how bad the crash, that I became very interested. It was only after I had access to the real cockpit that I discovered the two main windshields are about two inches thick and are comprised of many glass and conductive plastic layers for windshield heating. I read in the 747 Maintenance Manual that the glass is actually considered structural components of the aircraft. Each front windshield weighs 150lbs and is held into its frame with 97 countersunk bolts. Titanium is used extensively in the window structure. Even with a full-sized axe, you could not chop through the two front windshields. The four side windows are not quite as think, but are constructed like the front two. Trying to axe your way through those is also slower than simply chopping into the aluminum fuselage. The windows do not open from the inside and the crew’s only way out of the cockpit is through a small hatch in the cockpit roof. So, now I understand why the cockpit windows remain broken, but intact after a bad crash.

    As far as the cockpit debris you see goes, you need to understand how the cockpit is constructed. Every instrument is held in with a clamp behind the panels. Every control panel module is held in place via special rails that the four corners of the panels twist-lock into. Since the cockpit landed on its left side, the entire Flight Engineer’s panel would have structurally collapsed down and all of its instruments and control heads would have detached into a huge pile of twisted wiring and broken plastic/glass. The wire bundles that run behind the FE’s station are fastened to the interior walls via plastic clamps which would have torn loose and also pulled off the messy insulation blankets mounted behind the fuselage skin. Unlike cars, the 747 cockpit interior doesn’t use much plastic for wall and ceiling panels or trim. It’s made of a light weight honeycomb material that is very brittle and also fiberglass, which is also very brittle. After seeing the photo you posted of the rear of the cockpit, I can easily see why it’s a landscape of small fragments held together with thousands of wires.

    The protruding floor beams are also in the correct place. And as the accident report stated, the aircraft had been through the “Section 41 Modification”. This involves adding additional skin to the cockpit area of the aircraft along with strengthened floor beams and attachments. This “beefier” skin would help it NOT collapse after such a long fall.

    I don’t say yeah, or neigh, to your conclusions, but I can at least contribute to the answer regarding the condition of the cockpit section in this tragic crash.

    Matt

    Like

    1. Thanks for chiming in, Matt. I’ll carefully study every last detail and reply when I’m done researching about it.

      Considering your last sentence where you’ve mentioned “this tragic crash”, I’m assuming you believe this crash is tragic because it was real. Correct?

      Like

      1. To be honest, I was a teenager at the time this happened and there was no Internet. We had three networks and CNN if we were lucky. I saw the nose section, just like you, and could not resolve how that nose section of a 747 could fall from 30K+ft and land on its side with the windows not completely dislodging or collapsing in on themselves. I wondered if the pilots had oxygen masks and were conscious and fighting for control of nothing all the way down. Then they find a tiny piece of a circuit board from a consumer portable radio and make all the connections from just that. It seemed sketchy to me at the time, but again, there was no Internet and no provocative thoughts to challenge the running story of what happened.

        I’m ashamed that I don’t remember what the geopolitical issues were at the time to make someone kill hundreds of people they didn’t know. With all the data available now on the Internet, and multiple documentaries on PAN-AM 103 on YouTube, it clarifies the mess that was left over from this apparent terrorist act. The reason I don’t think it was faked is because of economics. Having to quickly dig a huge flaming crater in a small town in Scotland, and distribute the bodies and even the smallest parts of debris over such an enormous area, Would cost countless millions of dollars, if not billions, and require pre-planning beyond the scope of any James Bond film plot. Then after all these years, they still have all the aircraft debris stored. If it were faked, I’d want to shred all the evidence ASAP. Not leave it around all these years for possible scrutiny.

        I can only testify to the technical aspects of the aircraft that made it look the way it did. That’s all I can confidently contribute. Who, why and how the plane blew apart is something I just don’t have the expertise to answer. I can tell you this, though, there was a Qantas 747 heading to Sydney when a liquid oxygen bottle burst in the cargo hold, blew a good size hole in the fuselage just in front of the wing, and the bottle rocketed up through the floor, bent a side door opening handle, hit the cabin roof, bounced off a galley wall and then got sucked out through the gaping hole. This could have brought the plane down if conditions were right. I read the full investigation and they spent two years trying to figure out how an oxygen bottle could fail so catastrophically. It was unprecedented and they intentionally damaged the same type bottle in every way they could and could NOT figure out the failure mechanism. They finally had to concede that they just could not find the cause.

        Could a faulty oxygen bottle have brought down PAN-AM 103? I’ve read so many incident and accident reports that I know there is a very small percentage of cases that the NTSB simply can’t figure out. You have interesting theories, but all I can really do is help with the technical questions about the 747.

        Matt

        Like

        1. I had some time on my hands and will dive into a technical reply a bit later. Anyway, a few quick points:

          in my opinion, your teenager gut feeling was spot on. What you lacked to prove it right was available sources which you admit was true, and some motivation to get to the bottom of this.
          before accepting any premise of a Muslim gone mad leaving a carnage behind, you need to present at least one case in recent history (1980’s onward) where such premise was undoubtedly proven. War on terror is a classic propaganda with many motives: problem-solution-resolution, where PTB invent and force the narrative from the beginning. Yes, careful and deceitful planning for years in advance, spending millions if necessary so they can gain trillions worth in resources, looted treasuries, army spending, reconstruction, etc. Mind you, what they spent to achieve all this, gets financed from the budget. Or drug dealing which they also control. Anyway, economic angle also doesn’t hold water as they profit enormously from either of the above just mentioned.

          Like

        2. In two comments you’ve made so far there’re many assumptions, but I can understand your viewpoint. There’re many points where we disagree, because I think your doubt and sceptisicm end up too early. Meaning that I’ve gone further or deeper trying to understand, getting to the bottom of what we call reality. »If it’s on TV, then it must be real« is the biggest issue here.

          You say that you own a cockpit of a Boeing 747-300. The flight 103 in focus here was a 747-121. I was trying to find some data on differences in windshield / cockpit windows between the two, but couldn’t find any. Can you link to any document about it? What I did find was a technical sheet from a company called PPG that makes Boeing 747 replacement parts. Model 747-121 can be found only in aeronautic museums nowadays, but PGG’s sheet says they make parts for series 100/200/300 and 400. There’s no data about the thickness of front 2 windshields / windows in there, though. So I can only take your word for it, but would really rather see some pictures of your own cockpit windows and shared here. Anyway, here some raw PPG data:

          Quoting from PPG’s sheet:
          »PPG is the only supplier able to provide the latest enhancements for replacement windshields and glass or lightweight glass-faced acrylic side cockpit windows.
          …PPG offers two designs for the No. 2 and No. 3 side cockpit windows for the 747: all-glass and lightweight glass-faced acrylic windows. The lightweight glass-faced acrylic configuration is a variant of the original cockpit window with proven reliability and offers weight savings of up to 37 pounds«.

          As you can read by yourself too, it says nothing about how the original front 2 windows were made. They only talk about the enhancements of their replacement parts, so I can assume with certainty that original windows were not as strong as the new, enhanced ones. According to the above picture, there’re actually several layers of unspecified thickness, however the biggest portion of this layered windows is made of thermally tempered glass. What the unspecified »interlayer« was made of is left undefined and it’s not stretched acrlyic since they clearly defined it as such in the other picture.

          In the picture you were originally commenting, the two front windows are shattered, as if the termally tempered glass layer has shattered, while the acrylic interlayer didn’t. However, I doubt that would be the final result of forces involved after a freefall from 30k feet, though. I’ve seen a YT video, where a single blow with a hammer weighing 3.5kg broke 10mm thick acrlyic aka plexiglass into few larger pieces. Do you have any links to pictures from other similar Boeings where, as you state too, one can see unshattered windows after the crash happened?

          However, PPG says that the side windows no. 2 and 3 are originally lightweight, but they offer both glass and its lightweight version as replacement. I think there’s something fishy about that – why would there exist both the original version, stronger and weighing 37 pounds less, and the all-glass version? Who would want to replace an original leightweight and structurally sounder side windows and install the all-glass version, which is both heavier and less strong in the case of any impact? I think this is turned upside down, but I digress here. Even if the price is double for the lightweight version, there’s no savings here to be made. If cockpit crew gets hurt with shattered glass while airborn, everybody dies.

          In that picture, side windows are not shattered, even though the PPG sheets shows they’re covered with thermally tempered glass. Do you find that reasonable? I don’t, considering the great forces involved at the alleged impact of free-falling cockpit with ground.

          Like

          1. Attached are a few photos of 747 crashes where the windows either shattered internally, or didn’t break, and still maintained their shape.  In the Kalitta incident, you can see where they tried to use and axe through the main windshield, but gave up and finally axed into one of the side windows.    

            Like

          2. The 747 windshields had to go through extensive destructive testing to be certified safe to be a part of what was then the largest airliner.  As is with most 747 rotables (regularly replaced parts) the windows are interchangeable between the 100 to 300, and probably 400 aircraft.  This is done so that the airlines would not have to stock multiple versions of windows for their varied 747 fleets.  As the years progressed, technology improved and several 747 windshield providers came up with different mixes of window construction.  The Maintenance Manual details three different layer combinations based on the associated manufacturer.  I tried to contact PPG by email because of their windows in my cockpit became cloudy.  They totally ignored me, of course, so I eventually figured out I had to activate the window heat layer to push the moisture out.   I could find no evidence on-line of a main 747 windshield ever failing where it threw glass in the pilot’s face.  There is a plastic layer on the interior to contain small particles in case of a bird-strike fracture.  The advances in complex window designs, like the 747 windshields, have evolved much during the life of the aircraft.  The improvements have dealt with lighter weight and reduction of delamination between the layers of acrylic and glass.  Nowhere does anyone address “strength” as a selling point difference between the types of glass and acrylic.  They ALL have to test to meet the same stringent requirements the original windshields met in the late 60s.  Their construction involve very complex ovens and fixtures that PPG, and the others, keep as proprietary.  I could only find one main window coming out of what looked like a huge vacuum oven.  These windows are so expensive that they are almost always one of the priority parts removals of scrapped 747s.  I could only find an old price of one of the main windshields where it stated it was $125,000 each new.  I don’t know what it is with inflation, but they keep very good care of their glass.  They even have sections of the pilot’s manual that tell them NEVER to run the wipers on dry windshield.  The rubber blades are held with 9lbs of force at the minimum and scratches are possible with dry operation.  They’re just too damn expensive and time consuming to change often. These are the only factual items I can find, with reasonable time, to help you understand why the glass held its shape while the inner layers shattered.  While I work in the aerospace industry as an engineer, I do not work for Boeing and Boeing is VERY protective of ALL technical data about their aircraft.  They would not respond to my inquiries any more than they would reply to yours.  I only can contribute this little bit of information based on hands-on knowledge.   As far as the tragedy of the event is concerned, I can’t find anything that even hits at this horrible disaster being “staged” in any way.  As I researched further, I only became more depressed and horrified at what those people went through as they took several minutes to fall from 31,000ft to the ground.  Right or wrong, I’m convinced the aircraft did explode at altitude and the horrible raining of airplane parts and bodies on Lockerbie did occur.  A tragedy of that magnitude cannot be faked.  Even at the extreme fringe of the 747 being blown up for reasons other than what they researched would not justify the cost of staging the crash.  It’s just so much less expensive to buy a 747 and blow it up than take a machine that huge and mangle and distribute everything for miles.  I feel terrible for the families.  I think they have suffered enough.  After 9/11, everyone knows there are people out there so full of hate that they’d kill thousands of innocent people.  The people that caused the Lockerbie disaster were just cowardly forerunners of terrible acts to come.   I just didn’t like the responses I was reading about your theory using profanity and emotion from people who never probably even flown in a 747.  Even if it seems extreme, alternatives to disasters like this should keep us thinking about other disasters and maybe how to prevent more of them.  I only had one tiny piece to share that I could back up with tech data and pictures.  I don’t see a reason to insult you for questioning the event.  I just can’t find any evidence of it being staged on my own.  It’s been too long and I have nothing more than old, limited data.   I hope other reasonable people with specialized knowledge can help you with your quest for answers.   Matt    

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s