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.

 

Chemistry/Physics Behind the Attacks

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Physics is not my strong suit... can anyone explain why a building that is being imploded would fall faster than a building that is collapsing? Thanks.


The reason I asked this question is because from reading some of the posts I am under the impression that some people feel the buildings fell too fast to have collapsed, that because of the speed they fell they must have been demo'd.

I was under the impression that a falling object accelerates as it falls until it reaches its terminal velocity, at which time it stops accelerating and falls at a steady rate. See: Free Fall and the Acceleration of Gravity

I may be wrong about the above conclusion, but as I mentioned I am not keen on physics.

So anyway, I don't understand why anyone would think the towers or WTC7 fell too fast or too slow. Could anyone please explain? Thanks.




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732


So anyway, I don't understand why anyone would think the towers or WTC7 fell too fast or too slow. Could anyone please explain? Thanks.


i'm keen on physics, pant, pant.

in 'freefall', a falling object meets no resistance. when a building collapses naturally, the fall is slowed by the resistance of the building. every connection, bolt and pillar will offer resistance(that's what holds buildings up in the first place).
when a building goes into freefall, in means all structural support has been knocked out simultaneously.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Didn't some of the debris fall faster than the building. I assume the debris was in free fall, so using it as a reference the building will have been collapsing at a slower pace.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
So anyway, I don't understand why anyone would think the towers or WTC7 fell too fast or too slow. Could anyone please explain? Thanks.


The speeds at which the Twin Towers fell were not far behind free fall. Gaps are going to open up between the collapsing region and actual free-falling material as time goes passes, but the actual rate of collapse and the rate of free fall could not have been that much different. This is a problem because free fall in a vacuum, and "free fall" through masses of steel support columns, should yield quite different times.

In fact, I don't think the Twin Towers should have completely fallen at all. That is to say I think the collapse times should have been infinite (in terms of the immediate physics problems anyway, and not taking into account deconstruction, etc. of course).

Imagine WTC1. There were about 13 "upper" floors falling upon 97 "lower" floors.

The top 13 floors were the lightest, and had the smallest support columns, because they had to support less weight near the top of the building, as opposed to thicker columns in lower regions of the building, holding more weight.

The lower 97 floors not only had much thicker columns, and were just heavier floors in general, but, obviously greatly outnumbered the upper floors.

Now, skyscrapers are built very strong, and legally, must hold multiples of their own design weight loads. That is to say, if a building is expected to carry a maximum load of 10 pounds while in use, that building would legally have to carry loads of 20 or 25 pounds for extended periods of time, and stand strong without appreciable damage, before it could open. This is in NYC building code.

So the big question is: how far could 13 light floors get unto 97 heavier floors before being stopped dead in their tracks?

Common sense would hold that they wouldn't get very far.

Also keep in mind that there would be no free fall for the upper floors to gain momentum. There is resistance from all the structure steel right from the start, and that steel was designed to hold, on each floor, loads equivalent to multiple floors. So I seriously doubt that those 13 floors would crush every single freaking lower floor, all the way down, into nothing but dust and disjointed steel beams.

At least one individual has suggested that the weight of each floor increased the impulse destroying each floor, but this doesn't make sense because (a) a lot of energy was being exerted to destroy each floor into fine dust and disjointed steel beams, and support columns were not set up floor by floor, so basically what is being suggested is equivalent to a single steel column continuing to crush itself by the weight obtained through crushing itself, despite huge losses of energy in the system from the crushing itself (I hope this makes sense to you), and (b) most of the mass (the debris) was being ejected outwards and thus was not falling straight down upon remaining floors. Even if it were, the material would be largely deflected because of its utterly destroyed and dissossiated state.

Some have claimed problems with the trusses, but the problem here is where continued amounts of impulse would have come from to allow the collapse to continue, all the way down. All of this debris (probably 80% or more) was falling off the sides, and much energy lost in the destruction of each floor, so from where is the steady energy required to fall the trusses of each and every floor, without so much as a loss of velocity in the collapse rate? Trusses won't fail unless they have a reason to fail, and just because the floor above is missing, does not mean a truss will magically fail. Energy must be exerted. So we have the same problems as with any other theory blaming gravity alone.

We could go on further but basically I don't think any collapse time would be reasonable. The Towers simply should not have come down.

In the case of WTC7, besides that building also not having any reason to collapse, it seems to have fallen at about the rate of free-fall in a vacuum, which is pretty much impossible outside of controlled demolition (just like symmetry, with the building falling straight down upon its footprint perfectly, etc.). A demo team literally could not have possibly done much better than WTC7's collapse as observed.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Okay, I just sent this to NIST and copied FEMA and Cheney (figured I better not bother the pres).

Dear NIST Representative,

I am part of a group of engineers, scientists and other experts who have
come together to try and validate the failure model produced by your
organization for the World Trade Center towers. In particular, we have
decided to address tower 2 as we feel that if the NIST model can be
validated for that tower, any model of WTC 1 would most likely be accepted
a priori. This effort is toward being a second identical effort that can
lend voice to questions that exist concerning your analysis and
conclusions.

We are in the infancy stages of this effort and are running into
tremendous data gaps that will need to be filled in order to go forward.
Our intention is to exactly duplicate your analysis as an effort to
validate the results, and then to open the analysis up for debate and
discussion which may lead to subsequent passes with incorporated
modifications if the group of experts involved find areas they do not
agree with. In other words, to investigate the assumptions and
permutations of those assumptions.

What we have been unable to locate on your site (please forgive our
oversight if this information is available and we have some how missed
it):

1. Detailed blueprints used by NIST to create their FEA models.
2. The exact modeling parameters for each structural element of the FEA
model (i.e. dimensions and mechanical properties for each).
3. Loading data for impact.
4. Exact structural element modification after impact (i.e. exact
elements rendered severed, exact elements rendered damaged and how that
damage was incorporated into the element's model (plastic defomation,
fault initiation points, modifications to mechanical properties, etc.)).
5. Thermal degradation modifications to structural elements (i.e.
mechanical property changes, expansion, creep, plasticity, etc.)

In short, what we are needing to be made available on your website is all
the data to allow us to completely reproduce your efforts.

Have we overlooked this information? If so, can you provide us with a
location to access this data? And if it is not currently available, what
efforts can be made to make it available for public use?

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

*****

I'll update on what I find out as soon as I get a response.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Hmm....I can't vote you way above for some reason Valhall. If I could I would. I can't wait to hear what NIST has to say in their reply (if they reply). I've written twice to the Port Authority about a few questions I had, but never recieved a response. Hope you get more answers from NIST.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by craig732


So anyway, I don't understand why anyone would think the towers or WTC7 fell too fast or too slow. Could anyone please explain? Thanks.


i'm keen on physics, pant, pant.

in 'freefall', a falling object meets no resistance. when a building collapses naturally, the fall is slowed by the resistance of the building. every connection, bolt and pillar will offer resistance(that's what holds buildings up in the first place).
when a building goes into freefall, in means all structural support has been knocked out simultaneously.


1) If I drop a 10 pound weight onto my bathroom scale from a height of 12 inches, the scale doesn't just go to "10" and stop; it goes all the way up pretty high before coming back down to settle on 10. So don't we have to take this into consideration "if" we believe that support structures failed and the top 18 or whatever floors fell onto the next highest floor? Wouldn't it be all the weight times whatever the formula is to calculate how much weight/force was hitting the uppermost intact floor?

2) I don't understand what you mean when you say a building goes into freefall when all structural support has been knocked out simultaneously. In what situation would that happen? On all those shows on Discovery and TLC they say that when you demolish a building you only have to blow out certain main support structures, not all of them.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

1) If I drop a 10 pound weight onto my bathroom scale from a height of 12 inches, the scale doesn't just go to "10" and stop; it goes all the way up pretty high before coming back down to settle on 10. So don't we have to take this into consideration "if" we believe that support structures failed and the top 18 or whatever floors fell onto the next highest floor? Wouldn't it be all the weight times whatever the formula is to calculate how much weight/force was hitting the uppermost intact floor?


imagine if the 10 pound weight is your hand, then you will first have to chop it off to get it to drop.
the towers were not a loose pile of steel. they were hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete.

ever see those little steel ramps you can drive your car onto to change the oil or work underneath? and how about those little jacks that you can turn the handle and lift up half a car? think of how much the jack or ramp weighs(about five or ten lbs.), and how much the car wieghs(2500 lbs is my little car. 3000-4000 lbs is a sedan.)

steel is very strong. it cannot just suddenly become disconnected everywhere.

for the twin towers, the massive box columns of the core were welded together all the way up, essentially turning them into thousand ft. high single beams.
think of all those movies where someone(say with knight's armour, to even thiings out a bit) falls into a pike lined pit. the person never wins this battle. that is because the pikes strength is coupled to the ground. the person is trying to push not just the pikes out of the way, but the entire mass of earth.

so, for these giant pikes that were coupled to the earth to fold like cheap shirts in 12 seconds(not freefall, but extrememly rapid) is highly unlikey. to 'drop' the whole top piece, which is how the government's big brother blind 'em with the old razzle dazzle mumbo jumbo agency, NIST, is able to use the very rapid descent of freefall to get their MOMENTUM calculations from. remember, the speed at which a mass hits something determines it's momentum.
once again, the problem is that too many very strong intact, interconnected steel beams and whatnot have to all disappear at the same time. steel does not typically 'shatter'.
NIST claims plastic deformation and creep, and yet their own models show that the core wasn't hot enough to creep.


2) I don't understand what you mean when you say a building goes into freefall when all structural support has been knocked out simultaneously. In what situation would that happen? On all those shows on Discovery and TLC they say that when you demolish a building you only have to blow out certain main support structures, not all of them.


demolition is done by simultaneously knocking out all the main support columns at the bottom of the building, other charges are placed similiarly on all support columns on higher floor, as well, or multiple floors in some cases. as the intact 'cap' of the building goes into freefall, the higher floors approach the ground, and before they hit and transfer momentum back UP into the 'cap'(which would cause undesirable lateral ejections, like stricking a thin rock with a sledgehammer, possibly damaging adjacent buildings), the secondary charges are fired, allowing the cap to continue it's freefall.
there's some good gifs around here somewhere that show an illustrated animation.
controlled demolition is a science.

now, the two towers were done differently. they look like a fountain of rock and steel. all the concrete dust appears at the very initiation of the collapse, and comes from the top of the tower. this means, they didn't knock out the bottom first, probably because they were cooking pancake theories for the cover-up. they also did not fall in freefall.

tower seven had a huge cloud of dust, and a 'shockwave' was reported by witnesses, at the BOTTOM of the tower at the initiation of collapse. tower seven DID 'freefall'.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
BillyBob's post does the job, but nonetheless here's another response.


Originally posted by craig732
1) If I drop a 10 pound weight onto my bathroom scale from a height of 12 inches, the scale doesn't just go to "10" and stop; it goes all the way up pretty high before coming back down to settle on 10. So don't we have to take this into consideration "if" we believe that support structures failed and the top 18 or whatever floors fell onto the next highest floor?


Yes and no. Mass with velocity is going to, for all intents and purposes, be heavier, of course, but, there was no free-fall drop to build up much velocity at all. There would've been a great deal of resistance from the start, from all columns still intact below the collapsing floors, and there were quite a lot of them.


Wouldn't it be all the weight times whatever the formula is to calculate how much weight/force was hitting the uppermost intact floor?


There's not enough really data available to do this.

However, common sense would dictate that energy would be lost and the velocity of the collapses would decrease. Watch WTC2 collapse from the ground (there are a few such videos around) and see if you notice any loss of velocity. I have seen NONE. This makes absolutely no sense unless each floor was being blown out in fixed intervals by explosives.


2) I don't understand what you mean when you say a building goes into freefall when all structural support has been knocked out simultaneously.


I don't think anyone is saying this, but there are two things you seem to have confused:

A) For an even, symmetrical collapse, all columns would have to fail simultaneously on every floor.

B) In reality, no such thing happened (or, I should say, SHOULD have happened, according to official theory), and there were columns resisting the collapse every single inch of the way down, right from the start.


On all those shows on Discovery and TLC they say that when you demolish a building you only have to blow out certain main support structures, not all of them.


Not just a certain number of any columns here and there, or it makes a huge mess. The building's caps would have mostly fallen over sideways, just as WTC2 began to but stopped.

In a typical, run-of-the-mill demolition (ie WTC7), the base will be blown and the building will fall straight down onto it, with other detonations occurring to keep the damage within a small amount of space, and to of course make sure all of the building collapses.

With the WTC's, the charges were instead coming from the top down. To make it look as natural as possible while still demolishing them without much damage to adjacent property (and minimizing fatalities), each floor was blown out one-by-one and the free-falling debris prevented a clear view of this from higher elevations. Ground-level footage pretty clearly shows puffs coming out of each floor in a very symmetrical fashion (I can link you a vid from 9/11 Research if you want).

It looks to me as if the perimeter columns and core columns were taken out as different events, with the perimeter columns being totally destroyed, and the core columns being knocked out only in key locations, and being more typical and conventional, but this is just my view.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Dear NIST Representative,



Kudos for the effort but we already know that they are deliberately withholding evidence.

$13K for 911 truth?

Not to mention the fact that the building 7 analysis has been stalled for years only to ultimately be "farmed out".

Stalling and withholding evidence are obvious indicators of a high level cover up.

My guess is that you aren't going to get any further than the people before you that have attempted to get information out of the NIST.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Woohoo! We're in...I think i've got that covered with 2005 taxes!



Finally evidence that the blood they suck from me each year is going to go for something I want!

*valhall is hyped*



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
With the WTC's, the charges were instead coming from the top down. To make it look as natural as possible while still demolishing them without much damage to adjacent property (and minimizing fatalities), each floor was blown out one-by-one and the free-falling debris prevented a clear view of this from higher elevations.


Okay, much the same as physics, building demolition is not my strong suit. But from watching those TLC and Discovery shows about demolition, it seems that it takes the demo team more than just one or two days to put all the explosives in place, and that is with a completely stripped down building (no sheet rock, furniture, duct work, pipe chases, electrical wiring, HVAC machinery, etc. hiding all the support beams.)

However, building security IS my strong suit. I worked in high-rise hotels in New York City from the time I was 19 until I was 36, and I was the Director of Security at 2 of those buildings.

So I do know how difficult it would be to get a team of demolition experts into the buildings (along with all their saws, drills, whatever they need to do the work), move furniture out of the way, cut holes in the sheet rock, place the explosives, replace the sheet rock, tape and plaster over the holes in the sheet rock, re-paint or re-vinyl the walls, clean up the mess they just made, and put all the furniture back in place. That is not even taking into consideration that some of the key spots they would have to access might be behind duct work, pipe chases, electrical wiring, elevator shafts, HVAC machinery, etc) All without being detected. On 107 floors. In 2 buildings. The WTC is not closed on the weekends; there are hundreds of people in the building at all hours of the day and night.

Something else I would like to mention. One of my best friends was the Director of Security at the Marriott Hotel at the WTC. He was there the day of the attacks, and he was there every day in the 5 days before the attacks. He assured me there were no workmen anywhere in his building. Yes, I know it is possible the government "got to him" and bribed him or threatened his family or whatever, but could they possibly do that to ALL of the dozens of security people on his staff, the hundreds of security people on the WTC staff, and the hundreds of guests at the Marriott Hotel, and the hundreds, if not thousands, of WTC workers who would have seen this major-scale demolition charge planting team?

[edit on 25-2-2006 by craig732]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
However, building security IS my strong suit. I worked in high-rise hotels in New York City from the time I was 19 until I was 36, and I was the Director of Security at 2 of those buildings.
All without being detected. On 107 floors. In 2 buildings. The WTC is not closed on the weekends; there are hundreds of people in the building at all hours of the day and night.

Something else I would like to mention. One of my best friends was the Director of Security at the Marriott Hotel at the WTC. He was there the day of the attacks, and he was there every day in the 5 days before the attacks. He assured me there were no workmen anywhere in his building. Yes, I know it is possible the government "got to him" and bribed him or threatened his family or whatever, but could they possibly do that to ALL of the dozens of security people on his staff, the hundreds of security people on the WTC staff, and the hundreds of guests at the Marriott Hotel, and the hundreds, if not thousands, of WTC workers who would have seen this major-scale demolition charge planting team?


i've also worked security in a tower complex in downtown toronto. it would be impossible to 'sneak around' and set up a demolition. it would be much easier to do it IN PLAIN SIGHT, and, of course, with the crime family connection of marvin bush to the security company responsible for the WTC complex, the actual 'security guards' could be 100% ex-marine special ops black-ops specialists.

who will guard the guards themselves?

and don't forget! it's NOT TWO buildings, but THREE.

not being able to figure out HOW 'they' did it, does not equate them not being able to do it.
i can't figure out how david cooperfield makes huge things disappear, like the statue of liberty(how symbolic), or how he walked right through the great wall of china, but he did do these things.

i've seen lots of movies where they just slap some plastic explosions to a beam, and stick a remote-controlled detonator into it. they had those movies in the seventies. it's hardly science fiction.

these days, a particle beam could be focused from outerspace, or a sonic weapon could be used to literally vibrate the towers apart.

those elaborate explinations are not required, however.

the security company working with controlled demolitions inc. could do it.

if you believe the towers can fall by themselves, then it should be no stretch for you to imagine that not many explosives would be needed. just a few key points need to be blown out, and because neatness is not a concern, it is not important to try and avoid lateral ejections, or to drop the buildings into their footprints(although, as stated, tower seven was a classic implosion style controlled demo which DID stay in it's footprint).



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

So the big question is: how far could 13 light floors get unto 97 heavier floors before being stopped dead in their tracks?

Common sense would hold that they wouldn't get very far.


Common sense should say, that those floors can't stop that huge falling mass...



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Woohoo! We're in...I think i've got that covered with 2005 taxes!



Finally evidence that the blood they suck from me each year is going to go for something I want!

*valhall is hyped*


Does this mean you're going to pay the $13,278 to get the photos?



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
No...lol.

I just want the data. I'm reserving my 2005 taxes to pay for the modeling data. You'll have to find somebody else whose willing to claim their 2005 taxes went for the photos.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464

So the big question is: how far could 13 light floors get unto 97 heavier floors before being stopped dead in their tracks?

Common sense would hold that they wouldn't get very far.


Common sense should say, that those floors can't stop that huge falling mass...


Maybe you don't understand the relation between the numbers 13 and 97.

97 is a lot bigger. Not to mention, that all the floors that the number 97 represents, were generally much heavier and had much thicker columns than the top 13.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by craig732
However, building security IS my strong suit. I worked in high-rise hotels in New York City from the time I was 19 until I was 36, and I was the Director of Security at 2 of those buildings.
All without being detected. On 107 floors. In 2 buildings. The WTC is not closed on the weekends; there are hundreds of people in the building at all hours of the day and night.

Something else I would like to mention. One of my best friends was the Director of Security at the Marriott Hotel at the WTC. He was there the day of the attacks, and he was there every day in the 5 days before the attacks. He assured me there were no workmen anywhere in his building. Yes, I know it is possible the government "got to him" and bribed him or threatened his family or whatever, but could they possibly do that to ALL of the dozens of security people on his staff, the hundreds of security people on the WTC staff, and the hundreds of guests at the Marriott Hotel, and the hundreds, if not thousands, of WTC workers who would have seen this major-scale demolition charge planting team?

with the crime family connection of marvin bush to the security company responsible for the WTC complex, the actual 'security guards' could be 100% ex-marine special ops black-ops specialists.

who will guard the guards themselves?

and don't forget! it's NOT TWO buildings, but THREE.


Actually it is 4 buildings. The Marriott Hotel was an independent structure with connections to the WTC in the basement and lobby.

The WTC debris falling onto the Marriott Hotel also caused the Marriott Hotel to collapse (allegedly).

So I suppose if some people's theories about explosives bringing down the towers is true, they must have use explosives to bring down the hotel also.

Three of the Security Officers at that hotel have worked for me at other hotels. I assure you none of them are in any way "ex-marine special ops black-ops specialists". As for "who will guard the guards themselves?" as I previously mentioned the Director of Security is one of my best friends. He is well known in NYC and retired from the Port Authority Police Department in 1987. I assure you he is not an "ex-marine special ops black-ops specialists".

As for the WTC security guards, I assume that you have never been to the WTC if you think there is any possibility they were ever "ex-marine special ops black-ops specialists". I don't want to sound insulting here, that is not my style, but most of the guards that worked for that security company are $8-$10/hr "square badges". To put them into a perspective that I think everyone can understand, they were probably on a lower level then airport security screeners. If they were of a higher caliber, they would have been working in the hotel, where the pay at the time was around $19/hr.


[edit on 25-2-2006 by craig732]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
I don't want to sound insulting here, that is not my style, but most of the guards that worked for that security company are $8-$10/hr "square badges". To put them into a perspective that I think everyone can understand, they were probably on a lower level then airport security screeners. If they were of a higher caliber, they would have been working in the hotel, where the pay at the time was around $19/hr.


don't worry about sounding insulting. i have a VERY thick skin, lol!

and i was a 'square badge'. (i got fired on the spot for writing "employee #007, james bond, working for her majesty's secret service, 53th flr."(there were 52 floors), at 3:30 in the morning in the late night sign in. i JUST finished writing it, and the supervisor came and actually read the sign in book. what a HOOT! what a frickin' NERD, LOL!)
some of the other square badges were in university, some were working towards skilled trades, and some COULD tie their shoelaces, but only if they tied them together.
.

the fact is, there was no discernible common demographic thread to the employee base of the security company(a big one in toronto).

the thing is, IF there were ex-marine, or mossad agents POSING as security guards, with full entrenchment through the co-conspiring marvin bush, then it is moot what a 'real' security guard is typically capable of, yeah?

p.s. as an aside, a buddy of mine(who was security director) started a program at a hospital called, 'gotcha'. if they saw something they could easily steal in the hospital, they would go and put a 'gotcha' sticker on it. i thought that was pretty creative.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Billybob I love reading your posts; you make me laugh my a** off! 007! Ha!

Anyway, you and bsbray seem to be at odds over how much explosives would be needed to bring the buildings down. I mean, am I wrong that you need hundreds of charges placed in holes drilled in concrete all wired together to go off at the correct times?

If bsbray (and I) are correct and you need a lot, blowing out every floor, then I am baffled as to what caused the Marriott Hotel to fall because I know there was no one in that building installing large quantities of explosives.

On the other hand, if you, Bollybob, are correct and a few well-placed chunks of plastic explosives brought the tower down, then why couldn't a few well-placed overheated steel columns have failed and brought the buildings down just as easily?

And ok, I will concede that is possible (by stretching my imagination) to see that the hundreds of security officers that worked for the WTC were "in on it", as well as the dozens of security officers employed at the firms within the towers. But you still haven't accounted for the thousands of other people that would have seen a major-scale demolition project being undertaken... the workers, guests, visitors, police, etc.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by craig732]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join