My Statement to the French Court: Maybe Writing will work better

In the judges’ opinion on the first Karsenty trial, I did not appear, nor did the document I contributed (Enderlin’s drawing).

The appeal will have no live witnesses, but Philippe asked me for a statement which I had to provide in a handwritten copie. (I haven’t written so much by hand in over two decades.) Here is the text in English, suivi du texte définitive en français.

Statement for the Court of Appeal in Paris:

I, Richard Landes, have viewed the France2 tapes from September 30 and October 1, 2000 taken by Talal abu Rahmah and supplied to France2 Middle East correspondent, Charles Enderlin, on three different occasions, and for the first time on Friday, October 31, 2003. I had two major shocks on that day, and one several years later when the first decision in the Enderlin-Karsenty case was handed down by Court 17 Paris.

The first shock was to see the tapes themselves. Of the action scenes, almost all of them were patently staged. Young men faking injuries, others running up and roughly evacuating them in front of cameramen like Talal abu Rahmah, and putting them in one of the many ambulances, apparently available as props. It was a public secret: everyone knew the rules of the game. Some were so comical that the Israeli France2 cameraman, who was watching with Charles Enderlin and me, laughed.

The second shock came when I asked the cameraman why he laughed.

    “Because it seems so fake,” he replied.
    “Yes,” I commented, “it all seems fake.”
    Then Enderlin added, “Oh, they do that all the time. It’s a cultural style, they exaggerate.”
    “But if they do it all the time, why not in the case of Al Durah?” I asked.
    “Oh, they’re not good enough for that,” he replied.

That’s when I understood how deep the problem went. Not only did the Palestinians stage footage, something I already had suspicions about from having seen Reuters footage from the same day, but someone as prominent and professional as Charles Enderlin knew about it, and found nothing wrong with it. Enderlin’s attitude seemed to be, “sure they fake it, but I can tell the difference.” As for Talal abu Rahmah, he expressed complete confidence: “He would never lie to me, we’re friends. Our families have shared meals.”

Later in the conversation, another disturbing event happened. Mr. Enderlin made me a map of Netzarim Junction in which he placed the Israeli position on the wrong side of the road.

enderlin's drawing

This indicated one of two equally distressing possibilities. First, that he understood so little of what had happened that day that he didn’t even know the most basic elements of the layout of the scene. Second that he was lying to me (and must have assumed that I was so little informed that he could get away with it).

Since the emplacement of the Israeli position was critical for the challenge to his reportage produced by the Israeli army in November of 2000 (the angles of fire made it almost impossible for the Israelis to have hit the father and son even once, much less a dozen times), and since he had read that study and reported to the French public on its findings on France2 news, the idea that he didn’t know where the Israeli position was seemed almost impossible. On the other hand, he made no attempt to keep the map, and I was able to take it out of the meeting.

Enderlin’s attitude actually explained the obvious faking done by Palestinians and recorded by the cameramen. (The Reuters rushes from the same day confirm in every detail the extensive staging, even allowing us to identify “directors” at work in some of the sequences.) These street actors and photographers do not have to even try and hide what they are doing since the Western correspondents do not hold them to any standards. (Apparently they just look for the most believable action sequences which they can edit and present in their news broadcasts.)

Charles Enderlin has employed Talal abu Rahmah for decades, and in all that time, he apparently never explained to him that taking pictures of patently staged drama is not what a journalist does. On the contrary, Enderlin regularly insists in public that abu Rahmah meets the highest standards of the profession.

For me, all this represented a shocking experience, a kind of information vertigo in which cherished assumptions about the basic honesty and professional standards of the Western media collapsed under the weight of both the evidence, and Enderlin’s reaction. Subsequent experiences with American news producers confirmed the depth of the problem: even when they viewed staged footage (from Reuters), and admitted that it was staged, they seemed to lack the desire to confront the problem.

My third shock came on October 19, 2006, when I read the decision of the 17th Chamber of the court in Paris for case 0433823049. Having traveled all the way to Paris in order to testify at the trial, and having spoken about the above-mentioned incidents, having offered Charles Enderlin’s sketch as testimony to the court, I discovered that my testimony had been completely ignored (passé sous silence) by the judges in making their decision. This was particularly surprising since they reasoned that:

It has been pointed out previously that the evidence invoked by the defendant on this point originates from a single source, although it is presented in various avatars. This theory rests essentially on statements by Nahum Shahaf, who was interviewed by MENA in November 2002, who participated in producing the documentary Al Dura: The Investigation, and whose comments largely inspired the book by Gerard Huber – the correspondent for this same press agency – as well as the article in the magazine Confidentiel.

Not only was my investigation independent, but, having seen the France2 footage multiple times and spoken at length with Charles Enderlin, which neither Nahum Shahaf, nor Gerard Huber and the people at MENA had done, it was based on new and critical primary sources and interviews.

I believe that the kind of journalism that Charles Enderlin practices harms the entire profession of journalism, which, itself, represents a critical component of civil society. It is precisely the journalistic irresponsibility exemplified by Enderlin’s work that has contributed to journalism’s rapid decline in the opinion of the public in the last decade. The public’s lack of faith in our current mainstream media news providers is, therefore, as much to be regretted, as it is regrettably justifiable.

Which brings me to the final point. I have studied closely the material in the Al Durah case, and have come to the firm conclusion that this footage was staged. There are many reasons for this conclusion which I will not go in to in detail. But let me cite four of the main reasons that have to do with the France2 tapes taken by Talal.

1) The rushes of Reuters and France 2 indicate that staging “news” is normal in the Palestinian Authority. The rushes demonstrate how often staging takes place, and how elaborate the preparations for staged scenes actually are (including identifiable directors, props, and staging areas).

2) The earlier footage (as well as independent footage from Reuters and AP) show that the father and son were behind the barrel well before the “shooting” began, and therefore the story that Jamal al Durah told about spontaneously taking cover behind the barrel to escape a sudden outburst of shooting is falsified by the actual footage.

3) The final scene in the “death” sequence has the boy raising his arm and looking out. The fact that his right hand was over his eyes and not clutching his stomach, and that he could raise up his arm and look out again contradicts what M. Enderlin’s report which has the boy already dead of a stomach wound. Perhaps sensing that this contradicted his report, M. Enderlin cut this footage from his report. He later claimed that this was a scene of the child’s death-throes so painful that he cut it to spare his viewers.

4) In the footage from October 1 shot by Talal abu Rahmah in Shifa hospital in Gaza City, there is a picture allegedly of Muhammad al Durah lying dead on an operating table. He has an enormous stomach wound, with his intestines spilling out. This could only be an exit wound, which suggests that this boy (who may not be Muhammad al Durah) was shot from behind. In any case, in none of the footage shot by Talal abu Rahmah on the previous day do we see any evidence of such a wound on the boy behind the barrel or of the enormous bleeding that such a wound would produce.

The news media are the eyes and ears of a free and civil society. They blind us to reality when, unable to distinguish obvious fakes from real events, they present the former as the latter. And no creature can survive, whose own senses betray it. Now it is in the hands of French Justice to uphold the standards of a free and civil society.

I know that this attestation is for use in court and that all false declarations render be liable to prosecution for perjury.

Richard Landes

Le texte français suit:

Déclaration à l’attention de la Cour d’appel de Paris:

Mon nom est Richard Landes. J’ai pu visionner moi-même, à trois occasions, les enregistrements de France2 réalisés les 30 septembre et 1er octobre 2000 par Talal abu Rahmah puis fournis au correspondant de France2 pour le Moyen-Orient, Charles Enderlin. Le premier de ces visionnements a eu lieu le vendredi 31 octobre 2003. Ce jour-à, j’ai ressenti deux chocs profonds, suivis d’un autre, plusieurs années plus tard, lorsque la 17e Chambre du Tribunal de Paris rendit la première décision de justice dans l’affaire Enderlin-Karsenty.

Le premier choc a été la simple découverte des enregistrements. La quasi-totalité des scènes d’action étaient manifestement mises en scène. Devant des caméramans comme Talal abu Rahmah, des jeunes gens simulaient une blessure, d’autres accouraient et les évacuaient sans ménagement jusque dans l’une des nombreuses ambulances qui semblaient servir d’accessoires de tournage. C’était un secret public : tout le monde connaissait les règles du jeu. Certaines scènes en devenaient si comiques qu’elles déclenchèrent le rire du caméraman israélien de France2 qui visionnait les images avec Charles Enderlin et moi.

J’ai ressenti le deuxième choc en demandant au caméraman pourquoi il riait.

    « Parce que cela a l’air d’être mis en scène », répliqua-t-il.
    « Oui », ai-je dit alors, « tout cela semble mis en scène. »
    Puis Enderlin ajouta : « Oh, ils font cela tout le temps. C’est un style culturel, ils exagèrent. »
    « Ils font cela tout le temps, mais pas dans le cas d’Al Dura ?», demandai-je.
    « Oh, ils ne sont pas assez bons pour ça », répondit-il.

C’est alors que j’ai compris toute la profondeur du problème. Non seulement les Palestiniens mettent en scène des prises de vues – une chose dont je me doutais déjà après avoir vu les séquences tournées ce même jour par Reuters –, mais quelqu’un d’aussi éminent et professionnel que Charles Enderlin le savait et n’y trouvait rien à redire. Enderlin semblait dire : « Bien sûr qu’ils mettent les choses en scène, mais je sais faire la différence. » Et il m’assura de sa totale confiance en Talal abu Rahmah: « Jamais il ne me mentirait. Nous sommes des amis. Nos familles mangent ensemble. »

Un autre événement troublant s’est produit plus tard dans la conversation. Enderlin me dessina un plan du carrefour de Netzarim sur lequel il plaça la position israélienne du mauvais côté de la route.

enderlin's drawing

Cela ne pouvait provenir que de deux raisons, aussi préoccupantes l’une que l’autre. Soit il savait si peu de choses sur les événements qu’il ignorait jusqu’aux aspects les plus fondamentaux de la scène; soit il me mentait (et devait penser que j’étais moi-même si peu informé qu’il pourrait me mentir impunément).

Or l’emplacement de la position israélienne était crucial pour la remise en cause du reportage proposée par l’armée israélienne en novembre 2000 (les angles de tir empêchaient presque irrémédiablement les Israéliens d’atteindre le père et son fils ne serait-ce qu’une fois, sans parler d’une douzaine d’impacts). Et Charles Enderlin avait lu cette étude et l’avait commentée pour le public français sur France2. Il semblait donc pratiquement impossible qu’il puisse ignorer où se trouvait la position israélienne. D’un autre côté, il n’a pas tenté de conserver ce plan et j’ai pu l’emporter après notre rencontre.

L’attitude d’Enderlin met bien en lumière la pratique de mise en scène manifeste des Palestiniens et le tournage qui en est réalisé par les caméramans. Entre parenthèses, les prises de vues réalisées le même jour par Reuters confirment cette mise en scène jusque dans les derniers détails et certaines séquences permettent même d’identifier les « metteurs en scène » à l’œuvre sur les lieux. Ces acteurs et ces caméramans n’ont même pas besoin de tenter de cacher ce qu’ils font, puisque les correspondants occidentaux ne leur imposent aucun standard (il semble que ces derniers se contentent de chercher les séquences d’action les plus crédibles, qu’ils éditent et diffusent dans leurs reportages d’actualité).

Charles Enderlin emploie Talal abu Rahmah depuis des décennies et pendant tout ce temps, semble-t-il, il ne lui a jamais expliqué que de prendre des images de situations manifestement mises en scène ne constitue pas un travail de journaliste. Au contraire, Enderlin répète régulièrement en public qu’abu Rahmah satisfait aux plus hautes exigences de la profession.

Pour moi, tout ceci a constitué une expérience très pénible, une sorte de vertige d’information par lequel des convictions qui m’étaient très chères, sur l’honnêteté fondamentale et les standards de professionnalisme des médias occidentaux, s’écroulaient sous le poids conjugué de l’évidence et de la réaction d’Enderlin. D’autres expériences, avec des agences de presse américaines, ont confirmé l’étendue du problème : même après avoir visionné des séquences (de Reuters) mises en scène et avoir admis qu’il s’agissait de mises en scène, les responsables ne semblaient pas désireux d’affronter le problème.

Le troisième choc a eu lieu le 19 octobre 2006, lorsque j’ai lu la décision rendue par la 17e Chambre du Tribunal de Paris dans l’affaire n° 0433823049. J’avais pris la peine de me rendre tout exprès à Paris pour témoigner à l’audience, j’y avais parlé des incidents susmentionnés et soumis à la Cour le dessin de Charles Enderlin – et je découvrais que mon témoignage était totalement passé sous silence dans la décision des juges. C’était d’autant plus surprenant que leur argumentation contenait la chose suivante:

Il a antérieurement été précisé que les éléments dont se prévaut le prévenu à cet égard provenaient d’une source unique, il est vrai déclinée sous divers avatars. Cette thèse repose pour l’essentiel sur les déclarations de Nahum SHAHAF, qui a été interrogé par la MENA en novembre 2002, a participé au documentaire « Al Dura : L’enquête » – réalisé par cette agence – et dont les propos inspirent largement l’ouvrage de Gérard Huber – correspondant de cette même agence – ainsi que l’article du magazine CONFIDENTIEL.

Non seulement mon enquête était indépendante, mais elle se fondait sur plusieurs visionnements des enregistrements de France 2 et de longs entretiens avec Charles Enderlin, ce que ni Nahum Shahaf, ni Gérard Huber, ni les membres de la MENA n’avait fait, de sorte que mon témoignage faisait intervenir des sources et des interviews essentielles et inédites.

Je pense que le journalisme pratiqué par Charles Enderlin fait du tort à la profession journalistique dans son ensemble, laquelle constitue un composant crucial de la société civile. Et c’est bien cette irresponsabilité journalistique, dont le travail d’Enderlin fournit un exemple frappant, qui a contribué au rapide déclin de l’image du journalisme dans l’opinion publique au cours de la dernière décennie. Le manque de confiance du public dans les principaux médias actuels est hélas aussi regrettable que justifié.

Ce qui m’amène à mon dernier point. J’ai étudié attentivement le matériel de l’affaire Al Dura et je suis arrivé à la conclusion inébranlable que ces séquences étaient mises en scène. Cette conclusion se fonde sur de nombreuses raisons que je n’aborderai pas en détail ici. Permettez-moi simplement de mentionner les principaux motifs en liaison avec les enregistrements de France 2 filmés par Talal.

1) Les enregistrements de Reuters et de France 2 indiquent que la mise en scène d’événements d’actualité est considérée comme normale dans les territoires palestiniens. Les enregistrements montrent bien la fréquence extrême et l’élaboration approfondie des mises en scène (avec des metteurs en scène identifiables, des accessoires et des zones de tournage).

2) Les séquences antérieures (de même que des prises de vues indépendantes de Reuters et d’AP) montrent que le père et son fils se trouvaient derrière le cylindre en béton bien avant le début de la « fusillade » ; la thèse de Jamal al Dura selon laquelle il y aurait cherché refuge spontanément pour échapper à un feu nourri soudain est donc une falsification.

3) La scène finale de la séquence « fatale » montre l’enfant levant le bras et observant les alentours. Le fait que sa main droite était levée devant ses yeux, et non appuyée sur son estomac, et qu’il ait été capable de lever le bras et de regarder autour de lui contredit une nouvelle fois la version présentée dans le reportage de Charles Enderlin, selon laquelle l’enfant aurait alors été mort d’une blessure à l’estomac. Charles Enderlin supprima cette séquence de son reportage, comprenant peut-être qu’elle compromettait son explication. Il prétendit plus tard avoir coupé cette scène d’agonie de l’enfant pour éviter des images trop pénibles au public.

4) Les prises de vues réalisées le 1er octobre par Talal abu Rahmah à l’hôpital Shifa de Gaza comportent une scène censée montrer la dépouille de Mohamed al Dura sur une table d’opération. Le corps a une énorme blessure à la hauteur de l’estomac, d’où s’échappent des intestins. Ce ne peut être qu’une blessure provoquée par la sortie d’une balle – cet enfant (qui pourrait ne pas être Mohamed Al Dura) a donc été touché dans le dos. Mais quoi qu’il en soit, aucune des images filmées la veille par Talal abu Rahmah ne fournit le moindre signe ni de la présence d’une telle blessure sur l’enfant caché derrière le cylindre, ni des énormes saignements qu’elle aurait provoqués.

Les médias d’information sont les yeux et les oreilles d’une société civile libre. Lorsqu’ils ne sont plus capables de distinguer les fabrications manifestes des événements réels, qu’ils confondent les premiers avec les derniers, ils aveuglent cette société. Et aucune créature ne peut survivre si ses sens la trahissent. Il appartient maintenant à la Justice française de défendre les principes inhérents à une société civile libre.

Je suis informé que cette attestation est destinée à être produite en justice et que toute fausse déclaration m’exposerait à des poursuites pour faux témoingnage.

Richard Landes

15 Responses to My Statement to the French Court: Maybe Writing will work better

  1. Eliyahu says:

    RL, it’s obvious why you feel so “at home” [l’havdil] with this al-Durah Case. It’s medieval blood libel although taking place in the 21st century. It can be added to the Damascus Affair of 1840 and the Beilis Case of circa 1910. They too were medieval blood libels, although taking place in modern times. The difference between al-Durah and those two earlier cases may be that they were directed against the Jews after somebody or bodies had disappeared or a corpse had been found. In the al-Durah hoax, it seems unlikely that anybody died, certainly not young Muhammad. Recall that in the Damascus Affair [see Jonathan Frankel’s book], the French PM of the time, Thiers, allegedly a liberal, was on the wrong side, accusing the Damascene Jews of holding to cruel medieval practices [i.e., drinking Christian blood]. The British, however, were on the right side then, after the local British consul in Damascus was told by London to leave the Jews alone. Today, however, the UK is probably the most dangerously anti-Israel state among the major powers. The British press today, such as the bbc, was very eager to glory in the Jenin massacre myth.

    So let’s bear in mind when we view the contemporary world situation of Israel in general that we are viewing mass hysteria and mass delusions, incited by powerful and insidious mass communications media. Many academics in the UK, USA, etc., are influenced by the manipulated mood of mass hysteria, delusion, and hatred, just like any rank and file lumpenproletarian. Cynical politicians like Tony Blair, fan the flames of madness, delusion, and hysteria by claiming or insinuating that all of the world’s problems related to Islamic violence and fanaticism would immediately dissipate if only the Muslims were satisfied by Israeli “peace moves,” like giving in to mass murderous terrorists.

  2. Rudi says:

    For those of you that read french, here an article by Enderlin that” we “generated.”

    It shows clearly that Enderlin continued his libel and I hope that this text can also be used against him in the appeal.

    Mazzel for Karsenty!

  3. Lynne T says:


    Enderlin, being of member of the 5th estate and born of Jewish parentage, as the source of this modern day blood libel makes this case infinitely uglier than the blood libels you cite. He’s a more dangerous and effective counterpart to the American sicko Norm Finkelstein.

  4. Sophia says:

    I saw a more subtle but possibly no less potent example today, on CNN International, which discussed the Israeli decision to declare Gaza a “hostile entity” solely from the point of view of how hard life is for the Palestinians in Gaza.

    Shockingly, though the rocket attacks on Israel were briefly mentioned, almost the entire focus of the report, which must be considered propaganda rather than journalism, was on the people in Gaza who are “suffering so much already” and now will be “collectively punished” by Israel.

    The fact that Gaza IS a hostile entity can’t begin to stand up to the scenes of cute little Palestinian kids, the specter of their suffering and privation, in the face of Israel’s quandary as to how she can try to defend her citizens from constant attack. Rather, the impression is given that Israel is a cruel, vindictive brute that arbirarily punishes innocent children for no reason.

  5. Sophia says:

    I saw a more subtle but possibly no less potent example today, on CNN International, which discussed the Israeli decision to declare Gaza a “hostile entity” solely from the point of view of how hard life is for the Palestinians in Gaza.

    Shockingly, though the rocket attacks on Israel were briefly mentioned, almost the entire focus of the report, which must be considered propaganda rather than journalism, was on the people in Gaza who are “suffering so much already” and now will be “collectively punished” by Israel.

    The fact that Gaza IS a hostile entity can’t begin to stand up to the scenes of cute little Palestinian kids, the specter of their suffering and privation, in the face of Israel’s quandary as to how she can try to defend her citizens from constant attack. Rather, the impression is given that Israel is a cruel, vindictive brute that arbirarily punishes innocent children for no reason.

  6. Sophia says:

    Oops. Sorry about the duplicate post!

  7. fp says:

    These days i would be surprised if any media report would show concern for Israel.

    They are essentially lazy and ignorant — just like most of their audience — and regurgitate just what pals and arab propaganda feed them.

    With the academia taken over by leftist and saudi-funded moonbats, the west is essentially in dhimmitude.

  8. Solomonia says:

    French Court Orders Release of Hidden Al Dura Footage

    Big news! A French judge ordered the release of video footage that could reopen the controversy surrounding the 2000 shooting of Mohammed al-Dura. The appeals court judge in Paris ordered France 2 TV to show the court about 25 minutes…

  9. Joanne says:

    I’m wondering if Enderlin and other journalists rationalize their fraud by saying that they’re framing a guilty party.

    My guess is that they feel that Israel is guilty of a lot of horrors, so even if the incidents they show aren’t real, the staged incidents illustrate genuine events happening elsewhere.

    It’s a stupid and harmful idea and based on a distorted view of Israel, but I bet you that this is their reasoning. I wouldn’t put it past them.

    Or maybe it’s just lazy journalism: If you don’t cooperate with the P.A. or Hamas, you get no stories whatsoever and you may even receive threats. And if you don’t give your editors and your public what they want to hear, you’re out of a job. Enderlin got caught, that’s all. He used a Palestinian cameraman who had even fewer scruples and less judgment than he does.

  10. Eliyahu says:

    Sophia, I saw that Ben Wedeman report on cnn too. Wedeman has been anti-Israel from way back. This ties in with Joanne’s surmise about how they –journalists– think. In my view, Joanne, they are told what to think before they come to Israel or anywhere in the Middle East. They know what is expected of them in order to earn their keep. And indoctrination and group-think go on before they leave the US or UK, etc.

    It’s also my view that many of the anti-Israel academics in the USA got their start as 1960s/1970s “leftists” and have been trying ever since to vindicate their adolescent slogans and passions, in the guise of scholarship, not letting facts get in their way. Further, these “leftist” anti-Israel attitudes [and anti-Israel positions] fit in well with the attitudes and passions of many old time establishmentarians, as in the State Dept and CIA and related university intellectuals [like walt-mearsheimer, Wm Polk, malcolm Kerr, etc]. Isn’t there a curious convergence between anti-Israel Establishmentarians like jimmy carter, W-M, Polk, Zbig, jim Baker, Lee Hamilton, etc., and much of the so-called “left” in the Middle East Studies Assoc, the Columbia U MEALAC, etc??? Isn’t it extremely interesting that mearsheimer went to speak at the Daily Kos convention?? Consider the Judeophobic/Israelophobic attitudes of certain academics of Jewish origin, like chomsky & finkelshtunk. Can their arguments and claims that in effect deny the moral meaning of the Holocaust, that is, the moral lessons that should be learned from it, be offensive to those who supported the State Dept policy during WW2 which was to minimize rescue of Jews under threat and to maximize the numbers of murdered Jews? The same questions should be asked about the United Kingdom and the UK Foreign Office [and its BBC offshoot] in regard to the prevalent anti-Israel attitudes in British “elite” and “leftist” public opinion.

  11. […] yet… the previous judges, in a disgraceful opinion, were able to ignore the rushes, my testimony about them, and treat th […]

  12. fp says:


    you are correct, however that’s not the whole story.

    anti-semitism went underground. arab propaganda has been huge. the educational system in the west collapsed — producing a gullible, ignorant public which cannot think for itself. the islamist terror has inflicted huge fear on the west. and peak oil and the rise of russia, china and iran has changed the configuration of power in the world.

    if you add all these to your analysis, it is not difficult to project the trend. and the worst is yet to come.

  13. fp says:


    ignorance is what makes framing of “guilty” parties possible. If these people were knowledgeable and able to think for themselves, they would not be likely to operate in this manner.

    However, keep in mind that the media wants to be popular (for both career and profitability purposes). And the audience today is anti-israel for quite a few reasons (israel is viewed as an inconvenient country). This makes the anti-Israel bias of the media very well received and, therefore, provides further incentives to continue.

  14. […] t at some of the key issues here. Is it shocking that fakes are being used? According to what Charles Enderlin said to me, and […]

  15. albert soued says:

    Just a few words to tell you that I remenber the live broadcasting of the al dura event on french channel 2;
    a) I was really astonished as the evening broadcasting doesnt show the same father than the noon broadcasting. At noon the father was laughing on the stretcher…(his son was supposed to be killed)
    b) on one image the barrel was metallic painted like concrete; on the other, no more barrel, it was a real concrete duct or nozzle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *