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.

 

History Channel program "World Trade Center"

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
lol, there trying to say the towere brought down them selves.

WITHOUT bombs, what a lie




posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Well, it's the history channel, what do you expect? heh, if they said anything different, they'd be out of the air


They're following the pancake theory?



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
This confuses me when I read it...

Are you trying to say that the history channel believes the World Trade Centers are living organisms that themselves chose to collapse; without the assistance of the planes that crashed into them, or the theory of bombs being planted within them?

This confuses me a lot, but that's what I got from reading your post...

Can you provide a link to information about this as well?



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I knew they lied, but I watch it. Thankfully, not for complete accuracy. I think the theory I believe is "Deconstruction-airplane" theory.

The plane acted as bombs in the building, since the steel was maintained it's shape with silicon and strafoam installation within the steel beam. When the gas, oxygen, hydrogen, and insane heat. Heated it, it exploded.- That's "Panacake Theory"

I believe in "DA" theory, which is the planes were already believed by some of the goverment and construction crews in the area to be ready to collapse(see panacake theory), so they sent their fastest, smartest guys to blow up the building, realizing the top of the buildings were going to collaspe and building number 7 could cause a large fire. Similar to that in Brooklyn recently, but that's just me.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I'm all for conspiracy theories, but when you look at the fact that the planes actually collided with both towers carrying all that jet fuel,(highly combustable, by the way) it is not all that far-fetched to believe that the buildings DID come down of their own accord. The initial explosions WOULD have blown away all of the fireproofing materials, and as the building continued to burn, the steel would eventually have given way. Jet fuel is one of the hottest burning substances we've created, and you have to also keep in mind that when the explosions happened, much of the blast was carried down the elevator shafts only to explode on lower level floors. This would have weakened them as well. What I find most interesting is that supporters of this "government cover-up" keep coming back to Bush's reaction when he was "first told" about the incident. Was is really all that strange that he just continued to sit there in that classroom as the children finished their reading? I have heard some say that this was because he already knew what was going to happen before it did. I just say that it was the only sane way to react. Instant surprise and action would have inspired confusion and maybe even panic. It was tactful. I'm not big on the man, but this was just a smart move, nothing conspiritorial about it. Who knows? Maybe the WTCs were blown up on purpose, but if so, it was a damn good cover-up, I'll give them that.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 05:39 AM
link   
I don't put much stock in the history channle. About the same time late 2004 early 2005 that the "Wings" channle became the "Military Channle", History channles religious shows went from basically non-biased shows of various world religious ideaolgy, to that of conservative Christianity shows. Any longer, if it's a religious show on History channle, it's just a damn Bible class.

And agree with whoever said about them being off the air if they showed WTC as being demo'd, they would be gone.

Don't know about anyone else, but I def see a connection between these cable channles lineups, and the regime I mean administration that re-elected themselves I mean was re-elected

NN



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
The initial explosions WOULD have blown away all of the fireproofing materials, and as the building continued to burn, the steel would eventually have given way.


How does a plane impacting the 94th, 95th and 96th (aprox) floors, blow away ALL the fireproofing? Do you realize how huge the towers were?
Most of the aircrafts fuel burned up on the outside of the building, note the big fireball.
Most of what would have been inside the building also burned up in the initial explosion. Fuel burns hot but fast. The fuel would not have lasted long enough to weaken steel columns, especially all of them. For a vertical collapse to work all supports have to fail at the same time, or within seconds as done in a controlled demo.
If only a percentage of the columns fail you would get, at most, a partial collapse as unaffected columns would have remained standing.
There was no vertical force applied to the central columns to cause them to collapse vertically.


much of the blast was carried down the elevator shafts only to explode on lower level floors. This would have weakened them as well.


Any proof of that? Also an explosion is a quick release of heat and energy, if it was infact these fuel explosions (actually just one) that caused the collapse it would have happened at the time of the explosions. NYFD declared the towers stable and fires under control after the impacts. So why did it take over an hour for the collapse to initiate? Where does building 7 fit into this theory?



Was is really all that strange that he just continued to sit there in that classroom as the children finished their reading? I have heard some say that this was because he already knew what was going to happen before it did. I just say that it was the only sane way to react. Instant surprise and action would have inspired confusion and maybe even panic. It was tactful. I'm not big on the man, but this was just a smart move, nothing conspiritorial about it. Who knows? Maybe the WTCs were blown up on purpose, but if so, it was a damn good cover-up, I'll give them that.


Since when does the government care about panicking kids, or anyone for that matter? In fact they control us through fear.
The sane thing to do when you're told the country you are charged to protect is under attack is to just sit with a confused look and keep reading, so not to scare the kids? Sure.
A damn good cover up?
Wake up man, their 'cover up' is falling down around them quicker than the towers did!

[edit on 7/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
First of all, I don't believe that the steel MELTED. I believe that the angle clips supporting the steel gave way in the fires. These clips were the weak points of each floor, and given that each set of floor joists was only meant to support 1300 tons, once the most severely burned floors gave way and the outer box columns bowed out, the floors would free fall down onto each other in a domino affect. That would begin with about 45,000 tons with the combined weight of the ten floors above the disaster zone. There was no central safety point to stop this affect, because the designers of the building had set it up to withstand WIND pressure, not GRAVITY pressure. The thing was like 90% air, which is why the rubble pile was not very large. Once those floors fell, it would not have taken much to collapse the rest. Now it was a redundant structure, which is why the plane impact didn't do much to sway them. These towers had only taken a 1/3 of what they were capable of when the passenger liners impacted. Now granted, I will give you the fact that jet fuel burns fast, but it is still not an instantaneous reaction. Once the fire had started, it would have spread across the floor and continued to burn. As far as proof of the elevator shaft explosions, no, I don't have any. But then the entire site was reduced to piles of concrete, steel, and ash. Where amongst all this is your evidence for demo? Nowhere, because there is nothing left. All we have now is conjecture and the FACTS of what came before. The type of fire at the WTC was a diffuse fire, which of the three types, generates the least amount of heat. But this WAS sufficient to weaken the corner clips and damage the structural integrity. The towers were built fast and on an easy design to save money. They were among the best in design for resisting wind, having the capacity to withstand a hurricane, but nobody accounted for a passenger liner carrying somewhere around 60-90,000 L of jet fuel slamming into the side of them.
Finally, on the Bush topic, I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not he was "confused" when he was told about the attack. What I will say, is that the government may not care about panicking children and teachers, but when the reading in question is nationally televised, the INDIVIDUAL MAN that is President is not only thinking about the WTC. Any self-respecting politician is also thinking about PR. Had it ONLY BEEN the children he was in front of, things may have gone differently, but anyone in the country could have seen him at that point. Again, it was just tactful. Have a nice day.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
I'm all for conspiracy theories, but when you look at the fact that the planes actually collided with both towers carrying all that jet fuel,(highly combustable, by the way) it is not all that far-fetched to believe that the buildings DID come down of their own accord. The initial explosions WOULD have blown away all of the fireproofing materials, and as the building continued to burn, the steel would eventually have given way. Jet fuel is one of the hottest burning substances we've created, and you have to also keep in mind that when the explosions happened, much of the blast was carried down the elevator shafts only to explode on lower level floors.


There's not much of a question that burning jet fuel would have weakened the metal. However, these buildings were built to withstain category 5 hurricanes, earthquakes, severe fires, and I believe I read somewhere that they were even built to survive a plane collision.

Sure the steel would have been weakened by the jet fuel, however, it would of taken much longer for the heat to weaken it to the point of collapse than the, I believe somewhere around 45 minutes, that it took. If you have watched 9/11 Loose Change, they show examples of buildings that were burning for as long as 20 hours; as many as 20 of the floors burning at super high temperatures, and yet the buildings resisted collapse every time. Add to this the fact that the WTC are very stable buildings, as I said, meant to withstand various factors that might naturally or artificially occur.

Hard to say; especially years after it happened, with less evidence of the events every day.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
The thing was like 90% air, which is why the rubble pile was not very large.


The mass of the building was not 90% air. I think you're confused with the area inside the actual buildings.


Once those floors fell, it would not have taken much to collapse the rest.


This is a big assumption that no one can seem to back up. Also realize that the collapse rates didn't really slow the whole way down, even as most of the debris fell off to the sides and landed outside of the footprints, and the columns became thicker and thicker all the way down.

So for WTC1, this means 13 floors falling onto and completely destroying 97 floors, without slowing the whole way down, even with most of the mass falling off to the sides. And columns thickening on the way down. And BillyBob's also pointed out an expulsion, a "squib," that came out of the building ahead of free-falling debris early in the collapse. There are a lot of problems like this that are totally unreconciled with your side of the argument.


Now granted, I will give you the fact that jet fuel burns fast, but it is still not an instantaneous reaction. Once the fire had started, it would have spread across the floor and continued to burn.


A couple comments on this:

1) Even NIST now admits that there was not enough jet fuel to bring the towers down. They moved on to blaming office fires; they're now saying it was mainly fires that were feeding off of the paper and plastic and etc. in the offices in the buildings.

2) Neither of the fires stayed in one part of the building for the entire time. They roamed and died out and wouldn't have consistently heated any single part of either building. (This is also in the NIST report btw.)


But this WAS sufficient to weaken the corner clips and damage the structural integrity.


I'd also like to point out that the truss failure theory is also unsupported.

The perimeter columns were all plainly visible that day, and there was not nearly enough buckling to justify the collapses of either buildings. NIST even resorts to publishing images of WTC2 after it had already began to tilt over to try to buff up their claim. We all know that the buildings fell; that's not exactly proof that the trusses failed. That's called circular logic.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
1) Even NIST now admits that there was not enough jet fuel to bring the towers down. They moved on to blaming office fires; they're now saying it was mainly fires that were feeding off of the paper and plastic and etc. in the offices in the buildings.


Does anyone know how hot paper and plastic burn?



As for the 13 floors collapsing and taking down the whole building..

This has occured before, I believe in another country. Something like the top 12 floors of a building collapse on the rest from a massive fire; the building as a whole did not collapse.

I'll see if I can find the exact incident.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
If you watch the video footage from when the towers collapse, you can distinctly see the buckling of the outer box columns at the sight of initial collapse, which DOES actually support the failed angles theory. And keep in mind that the WTC was a new design in skyscraper technology. It DID NOT HAVE the typical 5m center columns and tons of masonry to support it on a vertical level, moreover the structure was designed with 244 smaller columns surrounding a 27x40 m core. Between them on each floor is a huge section of concrete supported by steel web joists. The design flaw here is that ALL OF THIS IS HELD TOGETHER BY WEAK ANGLE BRACKETS. The outer columns are strong, true, as are the core columns which housed the elevator shafts and stairways and such, but the floor that spanned between them is 1300 tons. If only ONE floor were to give way, landing on another floor, already weakened by the fire and impact damage(there were at least two floors), which gives way to another floor, now adding to 2600 tons, then giving way to the next floor, which can also only support 1300 tons and so on and so forth. Look at the footage as the building collapses. The outer columns break outward as the building follows itself down. And as for seeing the columns "holding firm" after the planes hit, well, you wouldn't notice the minute initial bowing anyway. By the time the naked eye could see the structural flaw occurring, it was already falling.

Trade Center Collapse Footage

Here's the link. A good close up is of WTC-1. Check it out.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I understand your points Eden, one floor collapsing could have caused the entire building to collapse when that weight started to build up. However, if you have watched the tapes and timed the collapse, it collapses at nearly free fall speed; which makes many people skeptical. If this added weight with each floor did cause the entire structure to collapse, why was it not at least slowed by the structure of the building?



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
Does anyone know how hot paper and plastic burn?


Potentially not much differently than jet fuel since they're all hydrocarbons, but a lot of the office material wouldn't have been as easy to ignite (except for stuff like paper, which burns quick anyway), and it most likely wouldn't have put off as much heat overall as all of the jet fuel.

You can back this up with video of the Twin Towers, because after the jet fuel burned away in the first 15 minutes or so, the smoke coming from the buildings turned darker, and eventually black, suggesting the fires stopped doing so well after the jet fuel burned away. Black smoke means a lot of soot in the smoke, meaning uncombusted hydrocarbons, meaning the fire isn't making efficient use of its fuel.

Open-atmosphere fires can burn at around a max of 850 C, and for the steel to have been sufficiently weakened, it would've at least had to have been heated to around 600 C. At even a little over 400 C, though, the steel would've been glowing in broad daylight (not to mention 600 C), and besides no glowing steel being spotted, NIST couldn't find any samples of steel that had even been heated above 250 C. Steel conducts heat excellently, and that's only the heat that's getting to it after so much has already been carried away in the wind (sooty smoke conducts a lot of heat away from its source, btw) or absorbed by the concrete slabs or etc. It's really doubtful that any significant portion of steel was ever heated to anywhere near a significant temperature given those roaming, short-lived fires in those buildings.


Originally posted by EdenKaia
If you watch the video footage from when the towers collapse, you can distinctly see the buckling of the outer box columns at the sight of initial collapse, which DOES actually support the failed angles theory.


Just as much as it does the theory that thermite melted through support columns to cause the structure to fail. What you say here is similar to this:


The outer columns break outward as the building follows itself down. And as for seeing the columns "holding firm" after the planes hit, well, you wouldn't notice the minute initial bowing anyway. By the time the naked eye could see the structural flaw occurring, it was already falling.


...and the logic you're using doesn't add up.


Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.


Some examples:


1. Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

2. "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

3. "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

4. Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."


Source.

And the same applies here. You're saying that the trusses failed first, pulling the perimeter columns inward, and thus the collapse initiated. Looking at WTC2 starting to collapse, you can see it tilt to the side, with perimeter columns bending as the mass of the building tilts onto them. This is not proof of a truss failure anymore than it is proof of the columns being severed by thermite. It's not proof of anything really. It's just the building (WTC2) tilting before it began to fall.

WTC1 didn't really have so much as a tilt before it fell, and it still started off falling symmetrically. Does that mean all of the trusses/perimeter columns failed at the exact same moment across an entire floor of the building? Otherwise it doesn't seem like you could apply the same solution to both WTC1 and WTC2.


If only ONE floor were to give way, landing on another floor, already weakened by the fire and impact damage(there were at least two floors), which gives way to another floor, now adding to 2600 tons, then giving way to the next floor, which can also only support 1300 tons and so on and so forth. Look at the footage as the building collapses.


Yeah, look at the footage. The floors don't fall neatly on top of each other. And look at the massive amount of ejected debris, and then at pics of Ground Zero afterwards. The stuff was flung everywhere; most of the debris did not fall straight down, as the majority of it landed outside of the footprints after falling over the sides of the buildings during the collapses.

The idea that the floors fell neatly one upon another, adding weight the whole way down, is an abstraction that doesn't match the actual collapses. If what you're saying was true, then the vast majority of debris would've been in two large piles at the bases of the buildings. This wasn't the case at all.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Look, all that you just presented is an argument that both thermite and the failed bracket could have caused the trade center to collapse, which does what, exactly? You've successfully argued for both sides. Yes, the collapse could have been triggered by thermite, as well as it could have been triggered by faulting parts. No, I don't have hard evidence, but neither do you. When was the last time you were actually in the WTC? Or even picking around in the pile of rubble? The FACT is that there is no evidence for either side because the evidence no longer exists. So arguing YOUR point by telling me that mine has no evidence is a mute point. Now, as far as the actual collapse of the building is concerned, let us apply physics again. I never once said that the brackets failed simultaneously. However, let us say for the sake of argument that a square is held aloft by four brackets on each respective corner. If just ONE bracket fails, then the others are forced to support the entire weight of the square, and not evenly either. If one corner fails, then that corner then falls slack, putting bend pressure on the others. It is only a matter of time before the weight of the rest would cause them to fail as well. The same could be true here. I'm not saying that the floors fell evenly, all the way down, "stacking perfectly" as they fell. Physics says that this will not happen, as well as gravity says that different objects with different weights and momentums will fall at uneven paces and toward different intervals. There is no reason at all to assume that there must be a separate pile if debris. Again, using physics, what do you think happens when one object is suddenly heavily compressed against another? Friction of wind pressure. It is obvious to me why "things were ejected from the floors" is because they were forced out as the building collapsed. That is tons of glass and steel and concrete slamming down against itself as it comes down. You honestly think that everything in that building WOULD just fall straight down? Just doesn't add up. And as for my "begging the question", to say that the trade center collapsed because the floors toppled along one another is no different than arguing your point, "The trade center collapse was a government conspiracy." "How do you know?" "Because they used thermite to blow out the columns." "How do you know they did that?" "Because they tried to cover it up with some story about it collapsing on its own." You can't prove either point, so as I said before, it all comes down to conjecture. I think you'll find that you won't win over many people to your side if all you have to throw against the opposition is, "My argument about something that no longer exists beats out yours because you lack evidence."
I understand now that you think a bomb was responsible. Very well. Since all you really have is conjecture then I will agree to disagree and move on. Have a nice day.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
I'm all for conspiracy theories, but .... What I find most interesting is that supporters of this "government cover-up" keep coming back to Bush's reaction when he was "first told" about the incident. Was is really all that strange that he just continued to sit there in that classroom as the children finished their reading? ........ Instant surprise and action would have inspired confusion and maybe even panic. It was tactful. I'm not big on the man, but this was just a smart move, nothing conspiritorial about it. Who knows? Maybe the WTCs were blown up on purpose, but if so, it was a damn good cover-up, I'll give them that.


I agree with you there, but the fact still remains National knew of the possiblity of a terrorist attack at the time, and they shouldn't have waited to the last second to have drills there, especially with such a high population in one area. If you wanna debate about Bush's action, please take it to PTS. BTW, I'm not a big fan of his either. But I still think the goverment/NY construction works working for them nearby blew up small parts of each building, after most people were out.


Still very sad, really.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I agree NoNik, it's gone totally bias, and all their old ideology shows have been turned into philosphy shows on History International, but it's still better than MTV. Plus, I supplement my shows with my-at-home-libary, it's small for a libary, but it works well for me, and I can study all the theology, culture, and history I want, and my computer naturally.
I've been watching the HISTORY CHANNEL, DISCOVERY, AND TLC FOR 10 YEARS, and I'm sure after Bush got an e-mail about it, he or his people got on Discovery Channels butt, and that's why it made the paper last year over goverment threating to take funds from Local-college channels and Discovery channel, if they didn't change some of the shows.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
Look, all that you just presented is an argument that both thermite and the failed bracket could have caused the trade center to collapse, which does what, exactly? You've successfully argued for both sides.


Yeah, that's what I was trying to do. I was just showing that the bending columns weren't really evidence of anything in particular.


Now, as far as the actual collapse of the building is concerned, let us apply physics again. I never once said that the brackets failed simultaneously. However, let us say for the sake of argument that a square is held aloft by four brackets on each respective corner. If just ONE bracket fails, then the others are forced to support the entire weight of the square, and not evenly either. If one corner fails, then that corner then falls slack, putting bend pressure on the others. It is only a matter of time before the weight of the rest would cause them to fail as well.


Ask any demo engineer and they'll tell you that even a single column resisting a collapse, such as, as with your example, a corner, can and will lopside a collapse very rapidly. This can be expected.



There's WTC2, which is supposed to be the less symmetrical of the two collapses. Remember that it started off tilting about 15 degrees outwards.

Now if you take a collapse time in seconds and divide it by the number of floors being pulverized in the same building, you'll get an average on about how long it took to crush each 12.5-foot floor. It comes down to small fractions of a second per floor. There's another way of determining this figure from videos by watching how long it takes for the roof of one of the towers to drop a certain number of feet before becoming obscure, and it comes out to around the same numbers. It's just over 0.1 seconds per floor with WTC1 (using a conservative 11 seconds whereas FEMA claims 8 if I remember correctly; and using 97 floors below the falling cap).

And I emphasize again, that buildings are extremely easy to lopside in such collapses if there's resistance in, say, a corner, that's unbalancing the rest of the collapse. The "matter of time" you're talking about is small fractions of seconds per floor at most, if that, to retain that beautiful symmetry.


I understand now that you think a bomb was responsible. Very well. Since all you really have is conjecture then I will agree to disagree and move on. Have a nice day.


Everything leading up to this was a total straw-man on your part. And if it wasn't, maybe you can show me my posts where I argued the way you're claiming I have. Ditto.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Ask any demo engineer and they'll tell you that even a single column resisting a collapse, such as, as with your example, a corner, can and will lopside a collapse very rapidly. This can be expected.


Sure, assuming that the other corners withstand the pressure of the entire weight of the floor for the fraction of time it would take to lopside. If the pressure was great enough from the released corner to put enough strain on the rest, there would be virtually no time for the floor to lopside before the other supports gave way. This was, by the way, the answer I got from an demo tech after taking your advice. He is swaying more towards the bomb idea on the WTC, but he tells me that here a lopside is not going to happen beyond the shadow of a doubt. In fact, he says, "probably the weight of the floor WOULD pull it down close to straight."('probably' being used loosely as he shook his hand from side to side.)




There's WTC2, which is supposed to be the less symmetrical of the two collapses. Remember that it started off tilting about 15 degrees outwards.
Now if you take a collapse time in seconds and divide it by the number of floors being pulverized in the same building, you'll get an average on about how long it took to crush each 12.5-foot floor. It comes down to small fractions of a second per floor. There's another way of determining this figure from videos by watching how long it takes for the roof of one of the towers to drop a certain number of feet before becoming obscure, and it comes out to around the same numbers. It's just over 0.1 seconds per floor with WTC1 (using a conservative 11 seconds whereas FEMA claims 8 if I remember correctly; and using 97 floors below the falling cap).
And I emphasize again, that buildings are extremely easy to lopside in such collapses if there's resistance in, say, a corner, that's unbalancing the rest of the collapse. The "matter of time" you're talking about is small fractions of seconds per floor at most, if that, to retain that beautiful symmetry.


True, a building IS easy to lopside, and would be just as easy if the columns had been blown out, which would have been much more obvious than the video shows if it were to have taken out enough of the columns to completely collapse the structure. Even a bomb placed perfectly at every column(which is difficult to imagine considering the daily use and capacity of the WTC) you would still not have COMPLETE annihilation of the support columns, and therefore still have resistance. And as far as your final statement in this post about my "straw-man" technique, I don't think I need to quote every post you made(which I would need to) to show anyone that you have not argued any more convincingly than I have for your point. Both arguments are founded on conjecture, a lack of solid evidence, and a whole lot of "maybes". It's all opinion, and both are obvious at this point I think. This dog is dead.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
So if the weight of floors falling on lower floors cause the collapse, what bought the collumns down?

If the floors attachments to the collumns failed from the weight, then shouldn't the collumns have remained standing?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join