Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 45
12
<< 42  43  44   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Both will block a flash handily? If concrete was vaporized and steel was melted, the overpressure may be a bit higher than drywall can handle. Of course you did this calculation or found a reference to such drywall


Ofcourse drywall would block photons - it is opaque, that was your question, 'where are the photons?' you did not ask about overpressure.

You are not looking for truth - your agenda is to debunk, that much you have made clear. Who are you working for, who sent you?


Besides. I do not represent the hypothesis, I simply see it as the most likely conclusion. You do not gain any ground here comparing pure fusion nuclear weapons with conventional fission-fusion hydrogen bombs. Even on a theoretical standpoint, it is obvious the two would have different effects. Not all nukes are the same and you appear quite silly with this line of thinking. You may have some "technical training" loosely on the subject but you have no CLUE what is developed in private. The issue of overpressure blowing apart the WTC is moot considering the devices in question were mini, or nano, in yield. Limited, outdated information regarding nuclear demolitions has been released to the public. This alone shows the government has been developing nuclear devices to demolish buildings for decades.

Now that others are here I will dig up a summary of the previous research for discussion.

9/11 Facts which support this hypothesis:

1. Because any object that is dropped will take the path of least resistance. Thousands of tons of construction steel, bolted and welded together forming a super strong structure that could stand by itself, is not the path of least resistance. When an object collides with another more solid object, or of similar strength, it will tilt and fall to one side (just as WTC 2 started to do until 'something' took out the floors below the damaged area).

2. Neutron radiation superheats water molecules in concrete causing a phreatic reaction. The concete literally explodes from within into tiny particles. This is the only plausible method of concrete micronization. Kinetic collapse could not consistantly powder the concrete to these microscopic levels:

35% was < 75 microns
46% was 75-300 microns
19% was > 300 microns

of the sub 300 micron cluster
35% 3 microns
20% 0.3 microns
5% 100 microns
5% 0.1 microns

3. The dust clouds expanded to five times the volume of the towers indicating extreme levels of heat. The 110 story towers dissapeared, only 7 floors were left as rubble.

Witness stated:
"You have two 110 story office buildings.
You don't find a desk.
You don't find a chair.
You don't find a telephone, a computer.
The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad,
and it was about this big:
(makes a shape with his hand about 4 inches in diameter)
The building collapsed to dust."

Since the mass of the building cannot be accounted for, this gives sufficient reason to doubt gravity collapse or conventional demolition. The towers simply vapourized.

4. Firefighters report molten steel like a "river" under the rubble, it is white hot and does not extinguish after months of water spraying (billions of gallons). Temperatures recorded to thousands of celcius. Maximum temperature of a hydrocarbon fire is 1517ºF. Steel melts at 2750ºF.

5. Nitric oxide is formed when air reaches temperatures above 2900°F. Nitric oxide brown clouds at ground zero:
www.photolibrary.fema.gov...

6. Lethal radiation from pure fusion bombs is vastly more limited than in a conventional nuke. Fusion radiation is short lived, approx 7-12 hours, can only be detected by $40,000 instruments, and is contained by the continuous spraying of water.

7. Tritium levels at ground zero 55 times over normal but not elsewhere in New York. Tritum exit signs were removed from the WTC following a fire safety overhaul in the 90s.

8. DOD put 15 million dollars into a pure fusion mini-nuke program which closed just over ten years ago. In the "classified world", when a program suddenly ends it is often a cover for going "black".

9. Several hundred rescue workers developed rare radiation-related cancers, not the types of cancers associated with asbestos inhalation but radiation.

10. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate.

11. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Neither kinetic collapse nor cutting charges can provide the energy required.

12. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7).

13. The spire behavior (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates, goes down, steel dust remains).

14. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate explosive event. The patterns in the graphs mimic nuclear tests.

15. A hydraulic steel press weighing 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris.

16. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton Effect.

17. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris.

18. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha particles created by fusion that are far more toxic).

19. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with fusion.

20. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radioactivity.

21. No intact bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and Powder theory.

22. Dr. Charles Hirsch, the chief medical examiner, said many bodies had been "vaporized" and were beyond identification.

23. 200 000 gallon sprinkler watertanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.

24. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy blast and EM pulse caused electrical components in cars to explode and burn vehicles far from WTC site.

25. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.

26. 8 ton WTC I-Beam - originally straight now perfectly curved - shaped by heat without stress cracks.

Image: i37.tinypic.com...

27. The half-lives of most radioactive isotopes don't extend the 4+ years it took before people started taking samples, not to mention the billions of gallons of water which is dilution. Neither was any of the steel ever tested for evidence of abnormal levels of isotopes or evidence of neutron bombardment.

28. The WTC "meteorite", a fusion of steel, concrete and other materials into one element only possible under extreme heat.

Image: i36.tinypic.com...

Video: www.youtube.com...

An example of the same phenomena at Hiroshima, image: i37.tinypic.com...









posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 


After the overpressure blew away the drywall, why did no one see the blast? In the collapse video that showed a standing core, why was it not being melted or vaporized by the fusion device?
What evidence do you have of nano-micro-magic fusion devices? What yields do you predict from such a device and what yields do you caculate to be necessary to produce enough neutrons to destroy the concrete? Why do you think that the brown dust is nitric oxide?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
The "brown dust", is patently a gas. It is billowing up from the ground on the right-hand side of the photo, just like a gas. Nitric oxide brown clouds are a known phenomena in areas of extremely high temperature, i.e. sites of nuclear detonation. They are formed by a natural chemical reaction when air reaches temperatures above 2900F, and evidence exists of those high temperatures underneath the rubble at the WTC. So, it simply cannot be refuted.

Pure fusion devices are not employed to blast the building apart, but for neutron radiation, i.e. to melt the core structure and instantly micronize half a million cubic yards of concrete (which in itself would obscure anything). The sound is consistant with audio recordings of the event, the 'flash' or light was absorbed by the opaque material. The blast is dependant upon yield, and we know pure fusion devices are theoretically scalable having no minimum yield, so I would say small enough remain inconspicuous, large enough to provide sufficient neutron bombardment. The bombs themselves may have been smaller than tennis balls.

There is video of the structure sublimating, a plethora of videos have been posted within the thread.

Pure fusion demolitions brought down the WTC. Nothing else fits the facts.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 

We will have to agree to differ on the opinion of mini-fusion demolition. A neutron flux necessary to do what you claim would have cooked many of the bystanders. No such event was recorded. You also claim that the steel would have been disrupted by neutrons without heating as the core seen in the collapse video was not radiating. Check your calculations.

FYI, nitric oxide is colorless. Did you mistake it for nitrogen dioxide?

[edit on 10/14/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
A neutron flux necessary to do what you claim would have cooked many of the bystanders.


Remember that concrete is used in nuclear reactors to shield against neutron radiation. Water, also. Information on this point varies, but there were 390,000 tons of concrete in each tower. In all likelihood the concrete and other materials absorbed most neutron radiation before exploding in a phreatic reaction, which is evidenced by the voluminous clouds of microscopic dust. The yield would have been calculated for such an effect. Hundreds of bystanders died in the collapses anyhow.


Originally posted by pteridine
FYI, nitric oxide is colorless. Did you mistake it for nitrogen dioxide?


You are correct. Thanks for pointing it out. The nitric oxide oxidizes to nitrogen dioxide.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
The 4th generation thermonuclear device was a bunker buster pointed upwards. Very directed and focused blast cone. How it was triggered? Probably with a laser. Or x-ray. Doubt it was triggered by plasma or red mercury, or antimatter.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


Nuclear bunker busters don't have focused blast cones. They are bombs designed to penetrate targets delivering the nuke as deeply as possible. A blast cone is not involved or needed, let alone theoretically possible.

newsimg.bbc.co.uk...
www.nogw.com...

Secondly, miniaturizing a laser powerful enough to trigger a fusion reaction and fitting it into a small casing - power supply included - is absurdly impractical to say the least. More likely that a minuscule amount of antimatter was harvested for the purpose. There are already developments in antimatter collection and storage, so think how far ahead this is in the classified world. Red Mercury is another possibility, not confirmed to exist however the inventor of the neutron bomb Sam Cohen seems to believe it's real. On the other hand, it's possible that Red Mercury was a disinformation campaign.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Recently we heard from Dimitri Khalezov ex Russian military nuclear detection specialist, a man trained to detect nuclear explosions, making some extraordinary claims about 9/11 who also concludes that the WTC was taken down with nuclear demolition devices. I've come to conclusion that the method for which Dimitri describes is questionable, although it is not the first time it's been suggested. Even if it's not 100% accurate it's still informative. Here's one of Dimitiris websites: www.nuclear-demolition.com...

Anyone who followed this thread will be aware of the nuclear demolition theory put forward by the anonymous Finnish military expert also concludes the same approach as Dimitris - a large nuclear blast in the basements created the top-down collapse. Perhaps Dimitri actually read Anon. Finnish military experts writings too but he has never referred to him. He certainly has read and referred to the other nuclear demolition theory from the other anon. guy (who claims to be an Aerospace and Technology Consultant) www.nucleardemolition.com... which involved nuclear reactors in the basements of the towers. Interestingly it's only one hyphen away from Dimitris URL www.nuclear-demolition.com...

I actually like Dimitris second truth, the one with Osama and the russian suitcase mini nukes, he should elaborate on this some more!


I wonder if the two authors are the same (or perhaps all 3) ?


If not then it only adds weight to the theory of 'some kind' of nuclear device was used to demolish the towers, particularly to a device that was planted below the towers. There's been a couple of new sites popping up across the internet dedicated to the nuclear demolition subject. One definitely worth checking:

wtcdemolition.blogspot.com...

The guy 'spooked911' makes some very good observations at the above url.

I am still very much open to the usage of nuclear devices on 9/11, whether it be a directed basement bomb, rows of mini nukes planted at certain intervals throughout the towers, or even this combined with other forms of explosives.

Here's a short vid I made some years ago. Youtube banned it but it's back again:



Well I hope you get it. One must consider the comparison in the video is against a 50 year old nuclear device, which I would imagine are very primitive in comparison to a modern nuclear weapon, yet the comparison holds well I think. These days nuclear weapons have come along way, they've gotten smaller and more useful. Precision is the key to a good and usable weapon, the military looks at large nukes as practically useless on the modern battlefield, the usage of a large nuke is the very last resort. Consider that essentially, a DU round is a nuclear weapon in a few respects but not really referred to as such. DU is radioactive, it's produced with nuclear processing, it can and is 'weaponised' to penetrate hard targets like i.e heavy concrete and steel and is perfect for the job - it's heavier than lead. Also, what's all the fuss over enriched uranium eh? I have a hunch that it has been 'weaponised' in an exciting new way, so exciting and new that is still Highly Classified, and the reason for me thinking this is partially due to the fuss that's been going on in the press about this substance, how hard certain countries are working to produce it and the subsequent concerns it raises. I think there is much the public aren't told about the properties of this material. Well, I suppose there is the issue of the terrorist threat getting their hands on the stuff and building a bomb really easy, but if they could wouldn't something of gone off by now? Hmm... perhaps it did. The issue of enriched uranium appeared to become much more important after 9/11 too.

Here's a challenge for you, which I've tried and have only found sparse details of:

What's the difference between the effects of a uranium bomb and a plutonium bomb?

Apparently there are significant differences and we may be able to show that a uranium bomb was used with enough info.. yet. Again one starts to hit brick walls when searching for this information because the details simply aren't out there yet. From what I have gathered though it certainly sounds like weaponised uranium was used on 911 mainly due to the effects it had on unfortunate burn victims like Felipe David and many others. Maybe it's time for some FOIA on the effects of nuclear weapons and how far they have actually come, although I expect it would be met with responses like 'threat to national security, sorry!

edit on 15-3-2011 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


I have many problems with this hypothesis. One is that a shockwave traveling up the structure would have been obvious and would have probably led to immediate shedding of the siding etc. Second, sending a shockwave through the bedrock would have led to a collapse of a large number of old (not seismic-proof) buildings in the neighborhood, which clearly didn't happen.
edit on 15-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: typo



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


I have many problems with this hypothesis. One is that a shockwave traveling up the structure would have been obvious and would have probably led to immediate shedding of the siding etc. Second, sending a shockwave through the bedrock would have led to a large number of old (not seismic-proof) buildings in the neighborhood, which clearly didn't happen.


There was seismic activity recorded that's comparable to a nuclear blast. There are variations to this hypothesis which could be considered too and I don't fully agree with Dimitris method, although I do think there were subterranean blasts I think they were much smaller and most likely directed blast like a shape charge or similar. I have always speculated at the possibility that the towers had a row of very low yield nuclear devices that were detonated from top to bottom. It could give the impression that explosives were going off on every floor.

Watch this:



There's clearly large powerful blast(s) occurring before the collapse, it sounds almost like a series of three then one final pop before collapse. It shakes the camera on the tripod in the top left corner of the video. Aside from the unusual appearance of the initial collapse, the aftermath looks to have all the hallmarks of a subterranean nuclear detonation. Perhaps all that concrete and steel acted as a buffer for the blast?
edit on 15-3-2011 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I do think there were subterranean blasts I think they were much smaller and most likely directed blast like a shape charge or similar.


I've never heard of shaped charges made with nuclear devices. I'm fairly sure they don't exist for variety of reasons (and sure enough it would kill portability which was the keypoint in that hypothesis). In addition, shaped charge is designed to work against a hard surface and it never works well against a porous stack of material. Just doesn't make sense.


I have always speculated at the possibility that the towers had a row of very low yield nuclear devices


Nukes are needed when you need decent yield. So again, I don't find logic in that.


Watch this:



I did. Didn't struck me as anything unusual -- I saw it with my own eyes when it happened back on 9/11 (however distance was too large to judge the sound). The popping sounds are easily explained as structural failure of various elements inside the building.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
...In addition, shaped charge is designed to work against a hard surface


You mean like steel and concrete? There was several million tons of it down at the trade center.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Nukes are needed when you need decent yield. So again, I don't find logic in that.


You do need a decent yield to reduce such a massive skyscraper into such fine powder.






Didn't struck me as anything unusual


Sure... I see that kinda thing all the time too!




The popping sounds are easily explained as structural failure of various elements inside the building.


Of course, like the sound it made when all that structure hit the ground. i.e none.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Originally posted by buddhasystem
...In addition, shaped charge is designed to work against a hard surface


You mean like steel and concrete? There was several million tons of it down at the trade center.


It's not monolithic. There are example of active and passive armor on the tanks (and stand-off structures) that work by dispersing the superheated jet after it passes the first layer and is no longer collimated. The WTC was not a slab of concrete. There is no need for a shaped charge.



You do need a decent yield to reduce such a massive skyscraper into such fine powder.


Please... They don't make nukes with a yield equivalent to a few hundred pounds of TNT (and you claim multiple such nukes).



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Please... They don't make nukes with a yield equivalent to a few hundred pounds of TNT (and you claim multiple such nukes).



On the contrary, the gap between nuclear and conventional explosives have been bridged.



How small can a nuclear reaction be? Through hydrodynamic experiments for triggering fusion, extremely lows yield nuclear explosions have been generated on the magnitude of "several Pounds of TNT." As noted above, in 1961 .01 kt was unveiled in 1961. In 1956, the Tamalpais with a yield of 0.072 kt was declassified.


www.house.gov...


"Technology Decontrols: Striking at the Heart of U.S. National Security"

Nice, relevant title for this doc, good source too - United States House of Representatives..!

So who do I believe, you or the experts who work for the US government?

edit on 16-3-2011 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
IF someone used a mini-nuke (Hydrogen or Atomic) wouldnt there have been a radioactive signature at Ground Zero? Also....on the side of Nukes being used on the WTC, take a look at the Illuminati Game Card showing the WTC being struck - it does depict "Nukes" not "Planes."
edit on 16-3-2011 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

Yes there was radiation at 'ground zero' exopoliticsnews.wordpress.com... as you would expect at a ground zero site en.wikipedia.org... You know how many people have become sick from working there? nuclear-news.net... People are dropping like flies each year and the death toll continues to grow, many of these people show the symptoms that have only been seen from places like after the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. en.wikipedia.org... The harmful radiation died away quite rapidly though, the majority of the radiation signature was gone after just a few days as the bombs were relatively clean nukes.

The site remained hot for months 911research.wtc7.net... even though they were constantly pouring water and specialized 'pyrocool' on to the 'hot spots' pubs.usgs.gov...


Almost 12 weeks after the terrorist atrocity at New York's World Trade Center, there is at least one fire still burning in the rubble - it is the longest-burning structural fire in history.

Pyrocool also contains two powerful ultra-violet absorbers. These chemicals absorb the high-energy emissions from the fire, which are most able to spread the fire to other materials, and re-emit the energy at a longer, lower-energy wavelength.

911research.wtc7.net...

Interesting article here about hydronuclear testing, perhaps a subcritical bomb was developed too:

www.globalsecurity.org...


In a hydronuclear test, fissile material is imploded, but a supercritical mass is not maintained for a long enough time to permit the device to deliver "full" nuclear yield. Depending upon the conditions of the test, nuclear energy releases may range from the unmeasurably small (milligrams or less) to kilograms or even metric tons of TNT equivalent yield.

.... second subcritical experiment Holog was conducted by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists on September 18, 1997...

.... The explosion was comparable to that of a large fire cracker or shotgun blast
edit on 16-3-2011 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Radiation measurements were carried out by NY Department of Health BEFORE And AFTER the building
collapse

Nothing was found - only elevated reading was from section of complex which housed a pharmacy where
radio pharmaeuticals were stored

www.neha.org...


A major concern was that terrorists could have unleashed a so-called “dirty bomb,” an explosive device containing radioactive compounds like cesium.

Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department’s office of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way to work when the first tower was hit.



Borri checked the World Trade Center site for signs of radiation before and after the collapse of the buildings. Radiation could have originated in industrial radiology sources, such as the installing beams of the huge office buildings, which may have contained some radioactive elements from x-rays taken, and from depleted uranium used in ballasts in aircraft wing tips (such counterweights in airplane wing tips give the most weight for least volume, says Borri). It might also be left from any medical or dental offices.



That was fortunately not the case, Borri found, using a portable liquid scintillation counter, which measures radioactivity like a Geiger counter. The high-tech portable gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger, counter with a much more refined ability to detect any kind of radioactivity.



Although Borri didn’t turn up any problematic radioactive readings by the end of the day, his work would be supplemented by the federal Department of Energy, whose technicians remained on site and continued to sample. [Only during the last days of the Ground Zero cleanup would radioactive testers find any evidence of radioactive emissions, from a pharmacy laboratory located within one of the buildings.]


FDNY Haz Mat unit checked the site for chemical, biologic and radiation - nothing was found by them


A total recall was ordered and upon the arrival of a few more Haz-Mat guys we performed quick surveys of the perimeter in two teams of four checking for radiation, nerve and blister agent, all results were negative.


Again the conspiracy loons are (Suprise !) LYING....!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Dman that's patently false and you know it...
Elevated levels of tritium, 55 times higher than what was expected, were found on site, in the water, and in the debris that was hauled away, don't you remember the debates about exit signs, gun sights, and watches? They tried to attribute the elevated levels to the exit signs initially, except someone forgot to tell them that the signs were removed a decade earlier. When that explination failed them, they went to gun sights and watches, the only problem with that was the watches aren't all that common after circa 1980's and the gun sights wouldn't add up to 55 times normal amounts. After that explination failed, they tried to blame the elevated levels on the Depleted Uranium counterweights in the nose of the aircraft, another failure as there were none in the airplanes in question and of course DU isn't tritium is it?
Bear in mind as well that these elevated levels were detected MONTHS after being constantly sprayed with water and rained on so god only knows how high they were initially and with a half life of about 12 years, this is a massive reading given the decontamination proceedures in place during the clean up and rescue phases.
The only 'loons' here are the ones that run around 'debunking' things that were widely reported, and you've been in this debate before if I'm not mistaken. Dumping sand and spraying water, where have we seen that before?
Don't let Dman dictate your thread OP, he's a regular... A quick look back through this thread should tell you all you need to know about Dman and this latest post of his. He's here to bury this information as efficiently as he can. Pharmacy? LOL
edit on 16-3-2011 by twitchy because: My Coffee Was Cold



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I saw the video of this supposed EX KGB agent. Apparently it would explain the type of cancer many firs responders got. However he explains an underground detonation creates a crushed zone, because the force of the explosion has nowhere to go. Then he goes on telling that the wtc got pulverized by that effect. First I dont think you could translate it that way. The force of the blast would have had many escape venues, blowing through the basement of the wtc. Also the rubble did not appear to be pulverized, except for the concrete, which is more of an indication for explosives from floor to floor.

I just dont see how an effect observed in an underground detonation would affect a building sitting on top of a nuclear device in the same way. And lastly the last few floors along with some of the walls were left standing, as explained in the video interview of dimitri, so there wasnt a top down collapse initiated at the bottom either, although thats not what dimitri claims, but somebody a few posts above does.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 42  43  44   >>

log in

join