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.

 

POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

page: 22
4
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Has anyone come up with a reasonable explanation on how the explosives were put into place unnoticed at the exact impact sites yet?


Yes. a long time ago already, and I have a few more, but here is one :

www.saunalahti.fi...

THE DEMOLITION OPERATION OF THE WTC TOWERS

1) One needs to find out the right size and the dimensions of suitable cutting charges and then order 24 000 pieces. One must as well order fitting detonators (detonators were needed a lot more). Fitting detonators usually already exist in stores of military forces (or the CIA). Time of delivery is several months in any case. All detonators must be equipped with some kind of safety mechanism, which will be removed by a radio signal at the final moment.

2) After this, the cutting charges are installed in the selected rooms that are not in use. Some of these rooms may as well serve as temporary storages for charges needed elsewhere. After this the apartment is renovated and circulated to the clients in the WTC. One man continuously assembles maybe 5 cutting charges per hour. With 10 assemblers 350 charges are installed a day. As surplus transportations of supplies, renovators and guards. Maybe about 20 people more were needed (5 of them know what is going on, 15 do not). For the installation of the charges this operation takes at least four months with 30 men. Considering step 1), six months are probably needed. The amount of personnel could not have been increased, but probably decreased, if more time was available.

3) To some of the chosen apartments, no one had access. That is why on the weekend on 9/8/2001 and 9/9/2001 it is announced, that floors up from the 40th floor are being equipped with cables and no normal employee has access to the working area there. The installations of explosives are completed and at the same time at least in the charged areas listening devices are set to find out a possible premature discovery of the plan. If someone finds charges the guards are soon on the scene and will deal the situation in one way or another.

4) One completes the area of secret service in WTC 7 so that its demolition operation can be carried out. A military flight beacon is placed there (planes are homing to it from far away). Remote controls for air planes and radio transmitters to be capable of blowing up at least one third of the cutting charges are placed. At this location, the ability to eavesdrop any area of the WTC, for example by a laserbeam, aimed to a selected window, probably already existed.

5) A radio beacon helping the final approach is placed in targeted apartments in the WTC towers. Close to these, remote controlled napalm explosives are placed as well, in order to draw the interest from the planes to fires. The higher in the towers the planes are targeted, the less there will be deaths. (Real terrorists would do exactly the opposite.) Evacuation from lower floors should be possible through the staircases. The target is to create a new reason for odd wars and fascistic laws, not to kill as many Americans as possible. 'A new Pearl Harbor', meaning the death of about 3000 citizens is probably the desired loss of lives.

6) The attack plans are made so that they can be executed during the chaos, for example in the offices of the investigations of the economic crimes by the FBI. (The attackers had already their own men infiltrated in these facilities.) Also in WTC 6 (customs) either a small nuke or a very strong bomb is blown out (which one, depends on whether there was melted steel ponds in the cellar of WTC 6.) An explosion, of course, hides the loss of any supplies (A nuclear explosion covers up murders, as well.)

7) In the morning of 9/11 the operations are performed after a timetable in which seconds are important. From the command post facilities the actions in towers are monitored. To hide the true nature of the operation, there was probably an agent on call in both towers, who could silence the people finding out too much. (The agent probably did not know what was going to happen.)

It is not likely that all the people, who knew about the demolition charges in the WTC, or those who installed the remote controls of the aircraft or did some camouflage paintings for drones are still are alive and capable of telling about their acts, which changed the world.

8) The mini-nukes are transported to the cellar floors in elevators. After that the elevators are locked down, guarded and monitored - no service repairman will be allowed near these elevators. The thermonuclear device used in WTC 7 was different, its yield was set lower and it was directed in a way better suitable for that building.

9) The explosions have been timed so that 99.9% of people around will look at the top of towers, and perhaps two seconds later the small thermonuclear bomb is exploded in the cellar of the south tower, and again two seconds later another very powerful charge in the WTC 6 customs building while nobody is looking that way. There are also the continuous explosions of the thousands of cutting charges tearing the south tower down at the speed of gravity-driven free fall.

10) The demolition of either of the WTC towers took at least half a year to prepare, including installation of 10 000 cutting charges and the delivery of a thermonuclear device at the last moment. The demolition of those ultra strong steel pillars in the central core using cutting charges only is not possible without waking up unwanted attention. These charges must be in touch of the steel pillars, and there is not enough enclosed space in the central core to hide these biggest possible charges.

11) The demolition operation is finished by destroying WTC 7 using a nuke and completely destroying the op center with its equipment. Concrete evidence like the military flight beacon and the remote control devices for cutting charges and napalm as well as the recordings of eavesdropping devices regarding events within the towers vapourize and vanish without a trace.


I advise you to read the text above and under my quote in that link too, it's also important for the story, but I am afraid a moderator would not appreciate it, that I also quoted that much.

[edit on 30/11/05 by LaBTop]




posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
The buildings burned and smoldered for 3 months....
Maybe the government has some new type of explosives, but generally when explosives are used whatever's being exploded doesn't burn for 3 months.


You need to read up on thermite. The thermite reaction was discovered way back in the 1800s. This is old technology. Who knows what is available to the feds these days? Thermite is simply iron oxide powder and aluminum metal powder mixed together, you can make the stuff at home (although I don't recommend it) and cast your own iron, or melt a hole through your car's engine block if you want. It is very stable because it requires a high temperature ignition (like a magnesium strip), thus you can leave it stored (or placed) for years and years. But once ignited it burns in an extremely exothermic reaction at temperatures upwards of 2500C, melting anything it comes into contact with not designed to withstand such heat. Btw, steel melts at around 1370 C, varying depending on the grade of steel.

Here's a paper on thermite and how it could have been used in the WTC buildings:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


More videos of (small) thermite reactions:

www.davidavery.co.uk...

tb3.com...

www.balloonwrap.com...

www.cci.ethz.ch...

boyles.sdsmt.edu...

www2.chemie.uni-erlangen.de...



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Labtop

That is probably the most outlandish theory I have ever heard on the demolition side of things.

Napalm and nukes?

wheres the radiation?

Why use napalm when you have thousands of gallons of jet fuel?

The "power down" has yet to be confirmed and only applies to one tower.


I know that many of you disagree with me on a lot of things, but can't we all agree that a mini nuke was not used on WTC 7 and that the planes were actual planes filled with innocent victims?


James Bond style scenarios are not the real world. If you insist that the entire building was lined with explosives you are talking about witnesses in almost every office in the building. Even with the outlandish scenario from above, there would be witnesses.

Until there is proof of Forbes story, does anyone have a realistic window of time when explosives might have been installed on every floor?

I think all of us can agree on dismissing napalm and "low yeild" hydrogen bombs. Not to mention the rooms full of people assembling explosives, with only 5 knowing what they are doing. How do you not realize you are making explosive devices?

[edit on 30-11-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
On this video I watched called "loose change" It zooms in on the airplane and you can see two fuel tanks or missiles. Really interesting. Also interesting that this plane had no company? Just a blue stripe.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
owner of the wtc complex admitted to demolishing building 7 in a PBS interview.

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I posted the wrong link before for the paper on thermite . Here is the correct link:

www.physics911.net...



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
9) "....The explosions have been timed so that 99.9% of people around will look at the top of towers, and perhaps two seconds later the small thermonuclear bomb is exploded in the cellar of the south tower, and again two seconds later another very powerful charge in the WTC 6 customs building while nobody is looking that way. There are also the continuous explosions of the thousands of cutting charges tearing the south tower down"

That is the most outlandish thing ever... the guy is whacked.

Not to toot my own horn but, being a "demolition expert", I will say that the stringing of what would be miles of det cord would not go un-noticed, and would be impossible to string in a building that is already built.

"These towers were build to take the impacts of hitting Boeing 707's, comparable to Boeing 767's".

Again.. this guy doesn't have a clue, and did no research:
707 Max. weight= 336,000 lb ...... Fuel Capacity= 11,500 U.S. gal
767 Max. weight= 450.000 lb ...... Fuel Capacity= 23,980 U.S. gal

Big difference.

Something I posted long ago, is that the guy who designed the asbestos insulation, and the process to apply it (knowing the required specifications /scenario of plane hitting building) said, while the building was still under construction, that if there was ever a major fire above (I believe he said) the 52nd floor, the building would collapse. This was due to the change made from an asbestos-based insulation to something else... thanks to environmental whackos.

The "experts have trouble getting the data they need(ed) to fully investigate what happened, as shownn below:
"To date, the NSF-funded researchers continue to face problems. They continue to be denied access to important building diagrams and blueprints, and so are unable to complete their analyses or develop the computer models necessary to better understand the failure of the buildings structural elements. Perhaps more importantly, without these computer models, engineering researchers will be unable to develop effective mitigation strategies".
So how can the locals on this forum, or anyone for that matter, even begin to make assertions without proper information?


The lack of the availability to get said information may be caused by the following:
NY TIMES - The trade center was built by the Port Authority, which is not subject to any building codes. Despite promises by the Port Authority to "meet or exceed" the New York City code, the federal investigation found that the trade center had fewer exit staircases than required and that the Port Authority never tested the fire resistance of the floors. It also found no evidence that a rigorous engineering study supported the authority's repeated public assertion that the towers could stand up to the impact of a fully loaded commercial airliner.
Again, not enough info to make assertions.

For what it's worth, kerosene (jet fuel) when vaporized, will "explode" when provided an ignition source. Explosion= shock wave= vibrations to superstructure/floor plates et-al.

Also, NO PLANE would be allowed to load, take off or otherwise conduct normal operating procedures at any major airport without the company name and a number showing on both sides of the fuselage.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I think that something that no-one seems to have considered before to any extent, but you have implied, is that maybe the biggest conspiracy of it all - is that the WTC was not built to it's promised or expected standard. That is something that people should seriously consider if nothing else.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Howard...

Nice talking with you. I've actually taken on a BIG task. At first I thought it wasn't going to be as bad. Yeah, I know...nothing is easy. But now, thinking about everything...it would take a person like me about 15 + years to do every calculation needed to officially say that yes or no it happened. I do have a program that is DOS based....yes that dates me...but my question was legitimate....is the inner core one piece or several different pieces? It makes a HUGE difference....don't ya think?


Wow....wait a second here.... Didn't you claim to be an structural engineer?...at least some of the advocates of the "demolition theory" claim that you are....

I just have to wonder what structural engineer, or engineer in any field for that matter, would ask whether the core of any building was made of one piece or several pieces....


Oh and btw, that task was already taken by a real engineer in these forums, Valhall, appart form the other reports which other engineers have given and which the "demolition theory crew" continue trying to ignore....

This thread is not a discussion at all.....

[edit on 1-12-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Did Zappafan1 and AgentSmith even took the time to read ALL the pages of just ONLY that Appendix from the NIST report 1-1 C ? ? ? Or the whole NIST 1-1 reports with all THEIR own separate appendices?
Did I do all that work to read them, and post them on pages 20 and 21, for nothing? With links and pages by me!

It is very well explained in that Appendix, to what standards the owners and rentees of those buildings were held responsible, and they go over all the daily, weekly, monthly, yearly checkups which were held in those buildings.
Of many, many structural important subjects, and the reports are photocopied in there.
It's also full of heaps of drawings accompanying those inspections and standards.

And I have news for you, there are hundreds of more NIST reports and appendices to read through.
I have the feeling you didn't read one.

Note 1: Zappafan1, next time could you be so nice to give the source-url's of your quotes?


NOTE: LeftBehind asked for a theory how they placed all the charges.
He got one, and some extra theories as a dessert.
You all fall over the dessert, which is outlandish, yes, but you spent not a jota on the theory he asked for!

So I presume that is an accepted theory.
A possible planning and execution of explosives placements.

As someone already said before: before 9/11, you would not spent more than a casual look at a guy with an overall with a company logo all over it, it would be every day live in those towers, it swarmed there with these engineers every day.


[edit on 1/12/05 by LaBTop]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Howard...

Nice talking with you. I've actually taken on a BIG task. At first I thought it wasn't going to be as bad. Yeah, I know...nothing is easy. But now, thinking about everything...it would take a person like me about 15 + years to do every calculation needed to officially say that yes or no it happened. I do have a program that is DOS based....yes that dates me...but my question was legitimate....is the inner core one piece or several different pieces? It makes a HUGE difference....don't ya think?


Wow....wait a second here.... Didn't you claim to be an structural engineer?...at least some of the advocates of the "demolition theory" claim that you are....

I just have to wonder what structural engineer, or engineer in any field for that matter, would ask whether the core of any building was made of one piece or several pieces....


I wasn't asking if it was one or several pieces.....I think we all know that answer....several pieces welded, riveted and bolted together. I WAS asking if Howard considers the core as ACTING as one column or several columns. Sorry for the mistake in language (not my strong side).

You keep implying that I am not a structural engineer......care for my transcripts? Furthermore...I have stated already that I'm not sure either way as of yet, but you still need to pick on my poor language skills?

Also, I haven't seen Valhall (the real engineer) in here and what type of analysis is going on? Is he/she a structural engineer that knows finite and infinite structural analysis. Has he/she taken classes on steel, concrete and timber design? Yes, I know...timber wasn't used in WTC buildings...was just asking Etc....because I would love to coroborate with Valhall...it would make both of our lives easier.

Edit: spelling....sorry Valhall...I'll spell it right from now on

[edit on 1-12-2005 by MacMerdin]

[edit on 1-12-2005 by MacMerdin]:

[edit on 1-12-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I am afraid that not everyone seems to understand what "deny ignorance" means...

Howard, I feel for you my friend, but I grow tired of trying to reason with people who keep presenting fantasy as if it was science....atomic weapons, thermite reactions, etc...all of which has been covered in several other threads, and which for some unexplained reason...some of the same people keep bringing these up despite them knowing they have been debunked in other threads.....

There is no point to this thread. Good luck to anyone that "tries to reason" with people who do not want to see the truth.


[edit on 1-12-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Again you made a fool of yourself.
I doubt if you even checked on it, but here you go:

You insulted MacMerdin, then he politely ticked you on your much too keyboard happy fingers (and included your whole ORIGINAL post!)

Then you sneaky go back, EDIT your post as if you already included Valhall in there, and say goodbye to us all.

NO WONDER. I hope you keep your word, so we can concentrate on the real task, and do not get distracted by you :

Why were those pools of molten steel in those basements, of ALL 3 towers!
And that's a question even Valhall will have quite some problems with.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
agent smith and muaddib are getting nervous. a real structural engineer, and muaddib still can't stop with the ad hominem attacks about who is qualified to use their brains, and who isn't qualified. muaddib, you keep promising to leave this thread, but you're still here. false promises.


but, if you DO read this, muaddib, i will give you another quick physics lesson....(and a chance to win a million dollar prize for proving there were NO bombs).....


Force is a factor relative to resistance. For instance, we are on the earth's surface spinning around the earth's center at 1000 miles per hour. So we each have the POTENTIAL force of our individual masses being in a wreck at 1000 mph. But since we and most of the objects on the earth are all moving at the same relative speed, there is nothing for this force to work against and we are unharmed - in effect there is no force. The same holds true for the building collapses. The potential force to crush the concrete by the falling mass is relative to the resistance it meets. If there is no resistance, there is no crushing. If there is a little resistance, then there will be a little crushing, and so on, depending on the amount of resistance. If the bolts, rivets, and welds held, then the building would not continue to collapse. If the resistance of the bolts, rivets, and welds was less than the power needed to crush concrete, then the concrete would not have been crushed until the whole mass hit the ground. Entrants must prove that the steel bolts, rivets, and welds still had the resistance to stop the falling mass long enough for the concrete and contents to be crushed. Then they must explain what made them fail after the concrete was crushed. The timing is important since it takes time to do anything, especially to crush concrete, steel desks, etc. Entrants must include the energy required, source, resistance, and timing for breaking the bolts, rivets, welds, office contents, and concrete.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
agent smith and muaddib are getting nervous. a real structural engineer, and muaddib still can't stop with the ad hominem attacks about who is qualified to use their brains, and who isn't qualified. muaddib, you keep promising to leave this thread, but you're still here. false promises.


I'm not nervous about anything, friend, but I don't spend a lot of time concentrating on this subject and have a lot of other responsibilities and interests both in life in general and on ATS. Unfortunately this means I cannot give it the attention it deserves to enable me to delve into as much detail as you do.

However, I do think that it is a valid point to question the accuracy of initial statements regarding the damage control properties of the WTC towers. If it is possible that reports are altered to back up the official story, it is also equally possible that they have been doctored to cover up any exaggerations in the capabilities of the WTC to withstand severe attacks.

Going by your own rules you cannot rule this out as impossible or any less probable than the other theories.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
FWIW< as to the claim that the core was completely destroyed at the base of the building. 16 people survived in stairwell b of the north tower. They were located at around the 5th floor and wound up on three.

Above that point, however, no structure could have withstood the falling twisting mass of steel.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
[However, I do think that it is a valid point to question the accuracy of initial statements regarding the damage control properties of the WTC towers. If it is possible that reports are altered to back up the official story, it is also equally possible that they have been doctored to cover up any exaggerations in the capabilities of the WTC to withstand severe attacks.

Going by your own rules you cannot rule this out as impossible or any less probable than the other theories.


See Page 4 of this article, for an insight into the origin of the claim that the building could withstand the impact of an airplane.

To read the rest of the article, go to this page and search for the term "Height" to find the links to the PDFs.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Thank you Howard, that is interesting - I'll point out the relevent bit for anyone that doesn't feel like looking:


They ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. ''Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything,'' the caption said.
The Port Authority was already trying to line up the thousands of tenants it would need to fill the acres of office s
pace in the towers. Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity.
For whatever reason,Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out.
The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.
Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department,say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them.
One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered.
If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.
There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study ofthe impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later.
The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

scott-juris.blogspot.com...

From Howards link, a copy of a New York Times article.

Bold and Italic added for emphasis.


I guess some people will argue that this is not possibly true! I'm sure they did when this was brought up in the past - which I'm sure it would have been.

I especially like this bit in the other article about the survivors:


A Port Authority captain yelled at Lim to get moving, but he said, “You go ahead,” and he, too, put an arm around Harris, helping to carry her to the fourth floor.


That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.


The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet.
“I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.
www.newyorkmetro.com...


I guess the wind from the collapsing floors was the least of his worries, what with all those explosives going off - didn't I even read somewhere 'tactical nuclear weapons' LOL


Of course all this is obviously horrible dis-info spread by nasty Illumanati government dis-info agents to cover up the truth. The truth being that remote controlled airliners with missiles flew into the towers and then they were blown to smithereens with quiet explosives and burned with thermite (actually his lucky the thermite didn't burn thorugh him too), oh and some Bruce Willis lookalike tossing a package onto the roof. I'll skip the theories regarding UFO's, Mini-Nukes, Holograms, etc.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
FWIW< as to the claim that the core was completely destroyed at the base of the building. 16 people survived in stairwell b of the north tower. They were located at around the 5th floor and wound up on three.


How exactly is that evidence against the demo theory? The core columns could've easily been brought down without killing people so low in the buildings' stairwells. The columns can only fall in one direction each, leaving quite a lot of space open to only worry of some 20% of the building's debris falling in the form of shredded pieces of steel and dust.



You think (er, you promote the idea
) that those same columns came down via gravity, right? What's the difference? Does that mean the official explanation of the cores failing throughout the whole buildings must be wrong because those people survived it?


See Page 4 of this article, for an insight into the origin of the claim that the building could withstand the impact of an airplane.


I was under the impression that they did withstand jet impacts. I guess I forgot that when the buildings were hit, they both immediately collapsed without wasting any time on fires.

The fires must be what you are really blaming the collapse on, because certainly no core and perimeter column damage of less than 15% is going to bring down whole buildings with 75% redundancy on each floor. But yet that's all the damage the planes did. You must be chalking the other 60% failure of any given floor (all of them, actually, lol) to those fires.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
But I thought there were 'massive explosions' in the basements? If this is accurate and they were to destroy the support columns, then how come they obviously didn't? So now these explosions weren't in the basement anymore but over 22 floors up? please...


The buildings plainly did not withstand jet impacts, the elusive clue being given away by their stark absence from the New York Skyline.
The aircraft impacts consisted of the impacts themselves and the fires that followed. As the article state not only were the calculations (if done) based on a lesser aircraft, but also one which was travelling much slower and did not take into account the fires afterwards.

I also do not see how the survivors condradict the theory of a collapse from the top down as claimed, they do however contest the theory of explosives in basements.

Didn't you ever play the game where you stack building blocks up and take turns poking them out until the building gives when you were a kid? It might have helped you understand.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join