It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

page: 17
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Long ago it was disclosed that there was a business jet in the area that was asked to do a flyover of the area. Again, just a wee bit of honest research.....


Long ago it was disclosed, NOT by the mainstream media, that the FBI asked Miller to "be a team player", and he agreed, and changed his story 180 degrees.

What's your point? I have no problems with there being a Falcon in the area.

I DO have a problem with UA93 crashing in that field, because there is no evidence that it crashed there.
edit on 27-7-2017 by Salander because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
I DO have a problem with UA93 crashing in that field, because there is no evidence that it crashed there.


Let's examine just half-a-dozen of the factors you are claiming are nothing but red herrings, in the above remark.

1) A plane and all its passengers went missing
2) A huge cloud of smoke was recorded on video, rising from the ground in the area where the plane disappeared
3) A large crater was found in the ground at a location corresponding to the position from which the huge cloud of smoke arose
4) A large number of bits of human flesh were found scattered around the crater
5) Some of those bits of human flesh were scattered a good distance from the crater, suggesting an explosion had occurred in the area that the plane had disappeared, corresponding to the observed position of the huge cloud of smoke
6) Those bits of flesh were tested for DNA and matched to the DNA of family members related to each of the passengers who had gone missing on the plane that disappeared

It seems to me that the only way to have left such evidence would have been to land UA93 at an undisclosed location, force the passengers to disembark and board another plane instead, and then fly that plane to Shanksville and crash it into the field where the six 'red herrings' were observed.

Wouldn't it have been a lot simpler to just keep the passengers on UA93 and crash that plane into the field instead?

Alternatively, you could suggest that the passengers of UA93 were kidnapped, put through a giant mincing machine, and then strewn like confetti in the vicinity of an artificially-created crater to make it look like an explosion that killed them all had occurred there. And then set off a huge smoke-bomb there to create a huge cloud of black smoke, visible for miles around, to attract attention to the staged crash-site.

But again, it would have been a lot simpler to bypass the mincing machine, the creation of the phoney crater, and the huge smoke-bomb, and just crash UA93 and all its passengers into the field instead, achieving precisely the same overall effect with far more efficiency, speed, and finality.

Admittedly, I am not a James Bond villain, so perhaps my alternate scenarios for faking the UA93 crash are impractical. If anyone has any better ideas about how to do it, I'll be interested to read them.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: turbonium1

But when people produce evidence of crash-tests that support the official version of the collapse, you dismiss them by claiming it wasn't the same aircraft or the same structure. So I'm not sure why (read: I don't believe you when) you claim that you would be satisfied by a scale-model re-enactment.

It seems that nothing short of rebuilding the WTC towers and then crashing two 767s into them would fulfil the requirements you're setting out.

Also, if one were so inclined, one could point out that the collapse of the second tower provided a good demonstration of the cause of the collapse of the first. There, you have two more or less identical events with more or less identical results. But I imagine, correct me if I'm wrong, that the collapse of the second tower is read by you as confirmation that the collapse of the first was somehow impossible.


It's confirmation of an identical method(s) used in pulverizing the twin towers, clearly.

Explain how a building collapses into dust, because nobody seems to have the slightest clue...

I'd like these 'experts' to collapse a building to dust.


Science is about asking questions, on anything unknown, and what is known will always be questioned, and many were not known, after all.

When the scientists refuse to raise one question about it, that's a dead giveaway.


Do you think all these scientists have never questioned the official account, that fire and damage caused massive structures to pulverize into dust, in 20-25 seconds, because nobody doubts it. Nobody thinks about why it can't be replicated - scientists never need to replicate anything!

What happens when any scientist fails to replicate their theory, claim, idea, hypothesis, etc.?

When a theory cannot be duplicated, it's not valid.

It's revised, or replaced, or tweaked, or whatever...


It won't work with a computer simulation, of an already failed theory.


Scientists that see nothing wrong with massive buildings that turn to heaps of dust, as if it's a normal thing in these building collapses!!

Nothing normal about it.

You see the buildings collapse, and believe that fire and impact damage caused the collapses.

But, when you see the buildings turn into trillions of micro-sized dust particles, in those same collapses, do you really believe it's normal in any way?


The mass media is repeating their story, as everyone knows (or should know) that it's a shameless lie.

A building won't blanket streets in dust. No way.



It's funny you say models don't work...

They have stated how the towers were designed...

The towers were designed to withstand multiple plane impacts, right?

Right.


How did they manage to design the towers to withstand multiple plane impacts, without the actual building, or actual planes, to hit the non-existent building?

Somehow, they understood exactly how to design plane impacts for these buildings.....BEFORE they were ever built!!

And how were the towers designed to withstand extreme winds, beforehand?


If you notice that nearly every building, including high-rise buildings, are unique. Even the 'twin towers' were not identical twins, either!

I've heard about how the towers were unique, so they can't be compared to all those other buildings, which never collapsed...

These buildings were unique, as well, and very different, yet none of them collapsed. Not even close to a collapse. Total collapse is a totally ridiculous notion, on any level.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Long ago it was disclosed that there was a business jet in the area that was asked to do a flyover of the area. Again, just a wee bit of honest research.....


Long ago it was disclosed, NOT by the mainstream media, that the FBI asked Miller to "be a team player", and he agreed, and changed his story 180 degrees.

What's your point? I have no problems with there being a Falcon in the area.

I DO have a problem with UA93 crashing in that field, because there is no evidence that it crashed there.


The only evidence needed are Manhattan streets washed in a foot deep blanket of 'dust', micro-sized particles from pulverized buildings...

This is only possible by applying enormous energy against the structures.

And who would have had the capability for this....hmm



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

If the buildings turned to dust, then why was heavy equipment and thermal lances used to cut and break the WTC ruble into manageable loads for dump trucks. Apply a little common sense and stop only "researching" conspiracy sites that more or less lie.

Note: after thought. If the towers were turned to dust, how did their collapse damage other buildings. Stop pushing false talking points.

Nutty 9-11 Physics
www.uwgb.edu...

Really Nutty 9-11 Physics
www.uwgb.edu...

Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
www.uwgb.edu...



Is Much of the World Trade Center Missing?

Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.

The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.

So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected. Some conspiracy sites allege that the rubble pile is only 5% of what would be expected. Others use a figure of 33% as the height of a rubble pile relative to the original building and then argue that the pile should have been 140 or so meters high. But when Controlled Demolition Inc. (www.controlled-demolition.com...) dropped a 23-story, 439-foot (134 m) building in Detroit in 1997, they ended up with a pile averaging 35 feet high (11 m) and a maximum of 60 feet (18 m) high. The rubble pile was an average of 8% of the height of the original building and a maximum of 14%. Scaling that up to the World Trade Center, we get heights of 33 to 58 meters. In other words, the rubble pile at the World Trade Center is totally in line with other large building collapses. 33% may work for a small building a few stories high, but a large building will compress the debris pile a lot more and also fill void spaces more effectively with pulverized debris.





edit on 29-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed

edit on 29-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Added



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon


I appreciate the time you take to post items 1 through 6, but I have no particular theory regarding 93.

What is certain is that 93 did not crash in that field. What is certain is that, just as Miller and the photos showed, NO airliner crashed in that field.

As to what might have happened with any passengers, where they ended up, dead or alive, matters not to me.

The fact that cannot be escaped is that the government story is contrived, made for TV, a myth. We were all deceived by a magnificent deception. Some of us understand we were deceived, some of us have not made it that far yet and remain deceived.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
What is certain is that 93 did not crash in that field. What is certain is that, just as Miller and the photos showed, NO airliner crashed in that field.


This just isn't true at all, and I demonstrated it a page or so back.

I can't see the point of engaging with the same nonsense over and over again, so I'll bow out of this little exchange at this point and wait to see if anything more substantive turns up.

(This comment also goes for turbonium, who is repeating stuff that is simply incorrect, despite the correct versions having been put to him several times, and doesn't seem to understand what architects do).
edit on 29-7-2017 by audubon because: typo



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

If the buildings turned to dust, then why was heavy equipment and thermal lances used to cut and break the WTC ruble into manageable loads for dump trucks. Apply a little common sense and stop only "researching" conspiracy sites that more or less lie.

Note: after thought. If the towers were turned to dust, how did their collapse damage other buildings. Stop pushing false talking points.

Nutty 9-11 Physics
www.uwgb.edu...

Really Nutty 9-11 Physics
www.uwgb.edu...

Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
www.uwgb.edu...



Is Much of the World Trade Center Missing?

Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.

The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.

So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected. Some conspiracy sites allege that the rubble pile is only 5% of what would be expected. Others use a figure of 33% as the height of a rubble pile relative to the original building and then argue that the pile should have been 140 or so meters high. But when Controlled Demolition Inc. (www.controlled-demolition.com...) dropped a 23-story, 439-foot (134 m) building in Detroit in 1997, they ended up with a pile averaging 35 feet high (11 m) and a maximum of 60 feet (18 m) high. The rubble pile was an average of 8% of the height of the original building and a maximum of 14%. Scaling that up to the World Trade Center, we get heights of 33 to 58 meters. In other words, the rubble pile at the World Trade Center is totally in line with other large building collapses. 33% may work for a small building a few stories high, but a large building will compress the debris pile a lot more and also fill void spaces more effectively with pulverized debris.






Obviously, there was a lot of debris, that's a given..

However, a lot of material WAS turned into a fine dust, and that's a big problem.

All that dust cannot be explained by any normal collapse



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

How do you burn coal? You pulverize it in a rod or ball mill with steel liners and steel rods or balls to create dust. The mill spins and the rods effectively fall only a few feet to crush the coal into dust. The same process is used to crush rock.

How is a 500,000 ton building falling 110 floors grinding steel, aluminum cladding, drywall, and concrete creating dust a problem? Especially the dust created by drywall.
edit on 29-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

www.uwgb.edu...



A kiloton is 4.2 x 1012 joules, so the gravitational potential energy is about a quarter of a kiloton or 280 tons of high explosive, per tower.


The energy released by a falling tower was equivalent to 280 tons of high energy explosives. That wouldn't turn drywall into dust?
edit on 29-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Quote who said the towers were designed to survive multiple large jet impacts? Is that at the same time?



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The 'experts' had no explanation for this dust, and only spoke about the initial point of collapse. They never spoke of the collapse itself, which was very strange, to just stop, all at once.

Not describing the collapse, in a study on the collapse, is a deliberate omission of evidence.

This evidence is integral to the study.


The cause(s) of the global collapse is not known to be the cause of initial point of collapse, by assumption, and they just stop the whole study of collapse, nothing else to study!

That's absurd!



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
They never spoke of the collapse itself,


NIST describing what happened after collapse initiation:



Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was released, developing substantial kinetic energy. The impact of this rapidly accelerating mass on the floors directly below led to overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subsequent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mechanism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the col- lapsing towers.

As the composite floor decking was most likely quite rigid due to the continuous concrete floor, the transverse bridging trusses, and the intermediate deck support angles, failure of the floor as a whole would be expected at the connections attaching the floor to the exterior wall and core.




app.aws.org...



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You never worked with drywall,ceiling tiles, nor cut concrete?

You are baffled by a building containing 200,000 tons of steel, floor after floor of drywall, and concrete that ground together with the force of 280 tons of explosives creating dust as it was a mystery.

Dust is created by a mechanical means. Rod mills, ball mills, grinding, cutting, sanding.....

What are you trying to say created the dust if it was not the mechanical grinding by the millions of collisions of steel, concrete, drywall, insulation, fireproofing, and ceiling tiles during collapse.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

If what you say is dust was formed by being "vaporized" it would not have the properties of dust. It would be solidified droplets. It would have very different properties than dust. Especially if it was made to go airborne due to starting as a molten vapor.

Cite a case of a person receiving lung injuries from a molten cloud in the tons being released.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Thought this was interesting
Patric Smith's Ask the Pilot.
www.askthepilot.com...


Reality: Indeed first responders saw nothing that resembled a plane, because, really, there was nothing that resembled a plane. According to the black boxes, the skyjackers had put the 757 into a near vertical dive at maximum power. Similar to the case of American 77, the jet disintegrated in a manner totally consistent with an ultra-high speed, direct-impact crash. For the sake of comparison, have a look at the debris field from the crash of American Eagle flight 4184 near Roselawn, Indiana, in 1994. This was a commuter plane that dove into soft earth at half the speed of United 93, yet only the tiniest pieces remained. When PSA flight 1771 crashed in California in 1987, hitting the ground in a similar high-speed nose-dive, the largest remaining pieces were described as “the size of a human hand.” Tom McMillan’s excellent book, “Flight 93,” chronicles the Shanksville crash and subsequent recovery efforts in great detail. The trees surrounding the impact crater were full of bits of luggage and human remains, much of it caught up in branches. Plenty of aircraft debris was later excavated from the crater itself.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Quote who said the towers were designed to survive multiple large jet impacts? Is that at the same time?


Specifically designed to withstand a large plane, and claimed by the on-site construction manager that it could withstand multiple plane impacts, as he explains below. The quote links to the video, on the source page...


Frank A. Demartini: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.


www.prisonplanet.com...

From the same source...

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
By Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load


community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

Another quote from the source...

“The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”


So the towers were SPECIFICALLY designed to withstand a large plane impact, at 600 mph, AND any subsequent fires. They understood that greatest problem would be many people would be killed in the large fires. Not any structural failures, and CERTAINLY not a total collapse, in 20-25 seconds, which is what you still find credible.


The last defence of this fantasy is that the 707 is lighter, and smaller, than a 767, and it wasn't designed for such a plane, with more fuel.
They never mention that the 707 was faster than a 767. The 707 cruise speed is 607 mph, and the 767 cruise speed is 530 mph. And the towers were designed for a 707 flying at 600 mph.

The higher speed of a 707 would more than compensate for the 767's greater weight and size, for any impact damage. And the slightly greater fuel carried by a 767 would just kill more people in fires, which, as they state, does not cause structural failure.


So all the excuses are gone. Add to that the fact NIST could not replicate this collapse in a real world demonstration, which is reason alone to dismiss their theory. Add to that the fact NIST's theory required significant weakening/damage of the steel core columns, in order to have any collapse. If you've read their report, you'll find that NO steel core column samples even came close to temperatures high enough to weaken and fail. And that was the best evidence NIST could find to try and confirm their theory!

Which led them to forget about the real evidence, their complete failure to replicate such a collapse, their 'study' on how the buildings collapsed, which assumes it isn't relevant to study the collapse itself, because nothing else could have caused the collapse, beyond the initiation point!!

Nothing left but to create computer models that 'prove' their theory of collapse is realistic, and valid, and makes perfect sense. Computer models can create any illusion you want, as if it's realistic, and nobody (usually) has a clue about it being crap. That's what NIST did. They show a fantasy scenario where multiple core columns fail at once, and initiate the collapse. The only problem is that, as said above, there WERE no core columns that failed from fire/impact damage, and NIST knows that. So what they do is assume that there WERE such failed core columns, but they weren't found in the debris! And THAT was how they were able to create models of collapse by fire and impact damage.

Imaginary core columns all failed at once, and initiated the entire collapse.


Science at it's very best!!



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
The only problem is that, as said above, there WERE no core columns that failed from fire/impact damage, and NIST knows that. So what they do is assume that there WERE such failed core columns, but they weren't found in the debris! And THAT was how they were able to create models of collapse by fire and impact damage.

Imaginary core columns all failed at once, and initiated the entire collapse.


You mean like this couple of examples?


The column sections themselves proved to be very strong, their connections not so much. If it had been possible to manufacture each of the core columns as a single piece they'd still be standing.



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



Specifically designed to withstand a large plane, and claimed by the on-site construction manager that it could withstand multiple plane impacts, as he explains below. The quote links to the video, on the source page...


When designing WTC did calculations on what would happen if hit by large aircraft, remembering the B25 impact
into the Empire State Building (also year later in 1946 an Army aircraft struck building at 40 Wall Street killing
occupants)

en.wikipedia.org...

Because of these incidents had to consider what would happen if aircraft struck the building.

Showed that to topple WTC tower would require lateral force of 17 million Foot-pounds, aircraft impact would generate
13 million foot-pounds.

Ergo building would not fall down from aircraft impact

Problem was at that time could not model fire effects from ruptured fuel tanks.

It was the fire started by jet fuel which killed the WTC towers



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
You never worked with drywall,ceiling tiles, nor cut concrete?

You are baffled by a building containing 200,000 tons of steel, floor after floor of drywall, and concrete that ground together with the force of 280 tons of explosives creating dust as it was a mystery.

Dust is created by a mechanical means. Rod mills, ball mills, grinding, cutting, sanding.....

What are you trying to say created the dust if it was not the mechanical grinding by the millions of collisions of steel, concrete, drywall, insulation, fireproofing, and ceiling tiles during collapse.


It's baffling that you've never seen a single high-rise building collapse to the ground without being a CD, before 9/11, or after 9/11, but you accept the notion that 3 high-rises managed to do it on the very same day.

You've never seen any CD of a building puff out massive dust clouds before, have you? I've never seen it, and assuming you've never seen it, it's baffling that you think it's normal to see it. I'd like you to show me how 'normal' it is, with any other examples. If you can't, and I'm sure you can't, find any other example of it, then it's NOT normal, because it's never happened before, or since.

Let's compare the tower collapses to the WTC 7 collapse, for now...

WTC 7 has tons of steel, concrete, and drywall, too. And it smashes down with explosive force, floor by floor, as well.
So by your argument, dust clouds should be billowing out along the collapse point, as drywall and concrete are being pulverized into dust particles, correct?

But no massive dust clouds billowed out of WTC 7 during its collapse, right?

It's truly baffling that you've never seen massive dust clouds before, or since, that day, and you believe it's 'normal'. With the WTC 7 collapse totally contradicting your argument.


Have a closer look at when the dust first begins to billow out dust clouds, for each tower...

The dust clouds are seen from the initial point of collapse. They start to collapse at different points, so the weight coming downward is quite different, for each of the towers. But they both have massive dust clouds billowing out from the point of initial collapse. It doesn't matter what the downward force, in either case, it cannot pulverize all this material into dust particles at the initial point of collapse. Or at any point of collapse.

A massive weight coming down is not going to pulverize all sorts of materials below into dust particles, because the lower floors offer comparatively little resistance to oppose the massive downward force. Did tower floors offer any resistance to the downward force, during collapse? No. The calculations show they collapsed at nearly free fall speed. Anyone can see that when 110 floors collapse in about 20-25 seconds, there cannot be much resistance from any of those floors.

Pulverizing concrete into dust particles requires RESISTANCE to the impact force. It does not matter how massive the impact force hits the concrete, without any, or enough, resistance to that force, the concrete will not pulverize into dust particles. It's like trying to smash a concrete slab in mid-air, with a jackhammer. When you put the concete slab down on the ground, you have resistance to the jackhammer, and you can smash the concrete slab.


Get the idea?







edit on 30-7-2017 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-7-2017 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join