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.

 

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

page: 23
0
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
There is no "model" for the WTC tower collapses, let alone building 7.

There was pancake theory, but NIST debunked it. NIST never really replaced it with anything, either, except a theory on how the collapses might have started, and that "model" is vague and confined to a single assertion that all of their tests failed to validate: the bolts on the trusses pulled in the perimeter columns as the trusses sagged, and caused all the perimeter columns across a whole floor to fail. What happened after that, in terms of a theory or model, does not "officially" exist.

Same with WTC7. No one has even offered anything for WTC7 yet, unlike the WTC towers and early pancake theories. So far everything in relation to WTC7 is pretty much a repeat of what happens to a building when it's intentionally demolished (fell straight down into its footprint, kinked so that it would do so, free-fall acceleration), except with the suggestion that fires and damage to completely irrelevant parts of the structure caused all the columns to fail from the base.




posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
There are thousands of 'sleepers' planted nationwide. Some of them have no connection with the middle-east - with families that have been here since the Mayflower - they may not even be aware they are linked to a large terrorist network.


How do you know this? Because you heard it on fox news?


Terrorists can not disable the laws of physics any more than NIST can tell the truth, which they would have had to do to make the towers fall the way they did.

And oops!


As for what turned the concrete to powder - the concrete encased steel supports, when these supports snapped under the pressure of the building collapse, a wave of energy was released through them, and resonated through the steel and, shattered the concrete.
I'm also sure that massive slabs of concrete slamming into other massive slabs of concrete would powderize some of the concrete.


So you agree the concrete turned to dust, so how did it turn to dust and remain solid slabs?

Also if your, sry but laughable, theory is correct then how come we don't see the same phenomena when other buildings are collapsed?

If you have evidence that the central core columns were surrounded with concrete I'd like to know, and so would many others, cause if they were it's another nail in the coffin of the, again laughable, 'fires did it' theory.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
As for what turned the concrete to powder - the concrete encased steel supports, when these supports snapped under the pressure of the building collapse, a wave of energy was released through them, and resonated through the steel and, shattered the concrete.
I'm also sure that massive slabs of concrete slamming into other massive slabs of concrete would powderize some of the concrete.


Concrete did not encase the steel supports. At least, if it did, then FEMA and NIST lied about the structures.

The only concrete above ground-level was supposed to have been in the floors, on top of the trusses: 4"-thick concrete slabs under each floor, 5" thick under the floor in the core. This was different on the mechanical floors.

But that aside, waves of energy do not "resonate" through matter like that and cause it to immediately explode into such fine dust. At least, not from something falling on top of it. When something falls onto a concrete slab, the concrete slab busts in places, but doesn't immediately turn all to dust.



"Pancake collapse theory" was so called because floors falling one upon another leave stacks of floors. Try to find this at Ground Zero!!

Even if the uppermost floors had all of their slabs eventually turned to dust, this not only fails to explain where all the lowermost floors went, but it also creates a problem in that it takes away MUCH mass from contributing to the allegedly gravity-driven floor-by-floor failure.

An already-pulverized slab will not pulverize another slab upon the dust falling upon it! And the damage is certainly not consistent with steel trusses falling upon them, unless we are to believe the thin trays could destroy slabs so thoroughly, into micron-scale dust, before destroying itself in the process.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Concrete is made of extremely fine particles. It also takes a lot of this powder to create concrete. One cubic foot of concrete takes about nine cubic feet of powder (depending upon what type your using). It'd only take a few floors worth of concrete to create the amount and type of dust we see. Concrete also powderizes quite nicely under blunt force - especially around the edges.

The principle of resonanating energy through a conduit is still applicable to anything touching the metal. You still attempt to transfer that energy into a material that cannot accept the frequency - resulting in it shattering at the appropriate amplitude. And, yes, a steel column will begin to resonate at its resonance frequency after being struck with any object. The snapping of steel trusses would be more than enough to induce this.

Let us not also forget about the tile, drywall, and many other subsances that have a tendency to powder when placed under stress.

I'll see if I can explain this in words adequitely enough to allow your minds to envision the process.

Towers: Both colapses were pretty much the same. The area of the external mesh around the colapse began to weaken as it heated from the fires (especially after having its spray on fireproofing blown off) - eventually giving way, causing the above floors to lean slightly, shifting weight to the internal columns and the immediate outer mesh. The center column which now came under an aditional dimention of support, gave, more or less allowing the center of the building to slide down, pulling the external mesh inward as it fell.

WTC 7 was somewhat similar, only more in a reverse order. The corner of the external mesh gave way, first, shifting most of the load to the immediate mesh around it. The lower portion of the mesh began to bow from the increased weight - while some of the upper mesh was able to bear the increase in weight - as the force distributed further, it reached a point where the lower mesh was no longer acting as a support and gave way. As the structure fell, it 'pulled' on the mesh framing, causing the whole building to colapse.

The genius of a mesh structure is that it can be made incredibly strong and use relatively few materials. It provides for a very spacious interior that is not obstructed by columns. It can also take a fare amount of damage to its structure - but unlike slab-and-column designs, a colapse in any part of the structure will more than likely bring the whole structure down.


How do you know this? Because you heard it on fox news?


Because I know how covert units work. You obviously dislike our government... if you were approached and told that you could help dispell conservative power in America - and all you had to do was call a few numbers and ask a few people questions relating to how they felt about the current government - would you do it?

If you did, congratulations - you just delivered the 'signal' to commence an attack.

There are many living in this country who hate how it runs - or they sympathise with terrorist views - I know this because I've met people like this. It's not the people who, like yourself, are angry at our administration and think they're the cause of all the world's problems - it's the people who put up the front that they agree - or are just quiet about it. I know people who will be screened for Top Secret clearance because of their rate - and a few of them I hope never get it because they are a threat due to their desire to humanize war. They are the ones I see likely to view a mission plan they do not agree with, and then go 'blow the whistle'.

I don't understand how you can not see this possible.... or probable... but... history has shown a lack of logic and mental facilities when it comes to support for 9/11 conspiracies.

And I've got to go to chow now because I missed dinner last night and breakfast today - no offense, but this isn't worth going hungry over.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
It'd only take a few floors worth of concrete to create the amount and type of dust we see.


Plan on supporting this?


The principle of resonanating energy through a conduit is still applicable to anything touching the metal. You still attempt to transfer that energy into a material that cannot accept the frequency - resulting in it shattering at the appropriate amplitude.


You could serve to support this, too.

Saying that dropping a floor's worth of trusses directly onto another will cause the steel to vibrate at just the right frequency to destroy all the concrete in the building, is no less fanciful than saying a thermite reaction could naturally occur in all the right places just by the ingredients being present in various places in the building. I have a good feeling that you don't have a good grasp on what you're saying. It may be remotely possible by the most abstract theoretical work, but I promise you it would not happen in real life.

And once again, THE STEEL DID NOT GO THROUGH THE FLOOR SLABS, OR ANY OTHER CONCRETE, except on a few specially reinforced floors. Or else, the government lied about the structures of the buildings. And if those few floors somehow produced all that smoke, then where are the rest of the floor slabs? Certainly not at the bases of the towers.



Towers: Both colapses were pretty much the same. The area of the external mesh around the colapse began to weaken as it heated from the fires (especially after having its spray on fireproofing blown off) - eventually giving way, causing the above floors to lean slightly, shifting weight to the internal columns and the immediate outer mesh. The center column which now came under an aditional dimention of support, gave, more or less allowing the center of the building to slide down, pulling the external mesh inward as it fell.


Some problems:


  • The buildings didn't fall inwards, into themselves. A quick glance at their rubble piles will prove this, not to mention any collapse video.
  • The "center column" was a core structure of 47 large box columns, solidly interconnected and making up a large portion of each building's floor area.
  • There is no evidence that the impacts could have knocked all of the fireproofing off of all of the columns and all of the trusses, even if it was spray-on.
  • NIST tested bare-naked steel WTC replica trusses (weakest part of the structures, and NO fireproofing!) in 2-hour, energetic office fires, and could not produce any failures.
  • There is no evidence of widespread perimeter buckling before either collapse. And considering over-engineering, a handul of columns per floor does not equate to any significant number, when there were some 200+ on each floor, each supposed to have had a FoS of 5 (ie, could hold 5x more than its expected loads), even supposing NIST's imaging was accurate.


You might want to send your one-paragraph analysis of WTC7 to NIST, too. They've been looking for that kind of prime detective work for 5+ years on WTC7.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Because I know how covert units work. You obviously dislike our government... if you were approached and told that you could help dispell conservative power in America - and all you had to do was call a few numbers and ask a few people questions relating to how they felt about the current government - would you do it?

If you did, congratulations - you just delivered the 'signal' to commence an attack.

I don't understand how you can not see this possible.... or probable... but... history has shown a lack of logic and mental facilities when it comes to support for 9/11 conspiracies.


WTF are you talking about bro? You're post is a confused ramble. I don't dislike 'our' government, I dislike ALL governments and if you looked at the reality of what government is really for, you'd dislike governments also. But that's not the topic here...

As for the rest of your comments I'm not sure what you're getting at? An attack on who? What makes you a self confessed 'expert' on covert operations, and what are you referring to gov or 'terrorists' operations?

(I could claim to be an expert painter and use it to argue black is white. Empty claims do not impress me, sry)

And what Possible, or probable 'this' am I not seeing? For someone who knows nothing about me, you sure are making some ignorant claims about my knowledge, intelligence and beliefs.

Open your mind, rid yourself of years of social conditioning, and then look at the physics of the towers collapses (particularly the south tower tilt), and then you might see through your fog of denial.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Here is a interesting line from the NIST report stating that the planes did not cause the collapse of the building.


The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

2- People often say in here "it looked like a controlled demolition". Well, controlled demolitions require to concentrate their efforts to the lowest floors of a structure. Yes you do place charges on upper floors to facilitate breakage, maximizing control as the structure collapses...EVERY implosion ever performed follows the same rule of thumb. Take out the structural supports from the bottom floors. This "Gets the structure moving". The Twin towers were clearly collapsing were the planes struck.



so the firemen yelling at everyone to evacuate because there was a bomb inside the building was an early april fool's day joke? and if you pay attention to all the films the explosions were on diffrent floors all around the buildings.

closly examin a video of a controlled demo and compare it to the video's of the WTC towers and building 7 falling. notice how they all fall the same way (the towers fell the same way, and build 7 fell the same way the CD video did)

and here's something else. when you veiw most video's of the towers the camera is shaking because nothing is supporting that person's are to make it stay in place. BUT there are those occasional video's that weren't recorded by news that are PERFECTLY still like CCTV cameras are. Yes there are some cameras watching the streets but those are stationary cameras (CAN'T BE MOVED) so please explain why there where 5+ cameras that were staring right at the WTC buildings (not just the towers). So what do you suppose those cameras were watching? the workers look out the window wondering if it's time to go home?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by timekiller92

so the firemen yelling at everyone to evacuate because there was a bomb inside the building was an early april fool's day joke? and if you pay attention to all the films the explosions were on diffrent floors all around the buildings.

closly examin a video of a controlled demo and compare it to the video's of the WTC towers and building 7 falling. notice how they all fall the same way (the towers fell the same way, and build 7 fell the same way the CD video did)

and here's something else. when you veiw most video's of the towers the camera is shaking because nothing is supporting that person's are to make it stay in place. BUT there are those occasional video's that weren't recorded by news that are PERFECTLY still like CCTV cameras are. Yes there are some cameras watching the streets but those are stationary cameras (CAN'T BE MOVED) so please explain why there where 5+ cameras that were staring right at the WTC buildings (not just the towers). So what do you suppose those cameras were watching? the workers look out the window wondering if it's time to go home?


Do you not find it interesting that none of those firemen think there was a bomb in the building? Of course it's understandable at the time for them to think so because with all the chaos no one knew what was happening. But yet when it's over, there is not a single piece of physical evidence of any explosives at all.

now during the events, there were 1000s of events that would cause explosion sounds. What method are you using to rule out those other things? Because a real investigator would use the physical evidence. And the physical evidence backs up all the other events that cause explosion sounds, but nothing to back up the claim of explosives. So what method are you using to determine the explosive sounds were actually caused by explosive devices instead of the other many things?

I have closely examined CD videos, and there are many things that aren't the same. For one, WTC 7 took 19 seconds to collapse, the CDs were much faster. ALL CD videos are started by a long series of extremely loud charge sequences going off before hand. Yet with WTC 7 there isn't a single one going off. The only thing similar is gravity.

No idea what you are talking about in your last paragraph.

And with all the buildings we can see buldging and leaning before collapse. What CDs do you see that happen in? None what so ever. And those explosions you mention are sporadic and pretty much random, as would be expected for explosions that would happen in a fire, such as steel cracking, roofs collapsing, containers exploding, electrical equipment blowing, and many other failures, etc. Why would they set off sporadic and random charges? If one looks at any CD video as you suggest, that never happens.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
But yet when it's over, there is not a single piece of physical evidence of any explosives at all.


I wonder if that has anything to do with virtually all of the steel being disposed of before any kind of chemical (or any other) analysis was done to it whatsoever.

What do you think? Are you surprised that, when they (FEMA, NIST) weren't looking for any kind of evidence of explosives, they didn't find any?

Imagine 9/11 being an inside job in general. People would have to think about it before they did it (whoever specifically it may have been). Ok? People would have to plan it, in other words. Do you think maybe they might put some thought into what they leave behind? Especially in terms of evidence of explosives, in whatever form they may have been, do you think they might invest a little time into thinking that out, before going ahead and blowing the buildings up? At least so their own asses wouldn't be caught as soon as the CSI guys rolled up, and you can count on that much.

How it was accomplished, was actually pretty simple though: they just hauled off all the steel really quick and never tested it. Negligence, stupidity, etc., etc., whatever you want to call it. Anything but intentional, of course. But you make a pitiful argument on the grounds that nothing was found.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


I wonder if that has anything to do with virtually all of the steel being disposed of before any kind of chemical (or any other) analysis was done to it whatsoever.

What do you think? Are you surprised that, when they (FEMA, NIST) weren't looking for any kind of evidence of explosives, they didn't find any?

Imagine 9/11 being an inside job in general. People would have to think about it before they did it (whoever specifically it may have been). Ok? People would have to plan it, in other words. Do you think maybe they might put some thought into what they leave behind? Especially in terms of evidence of explosives, in whatever form they may have been, do you think they might invest a little time into thinking that out, before going ahead and blowing the buildings up? At least so their own asses wouldn't be caught as soon as the CSI guys rolled up, and you can count on that much.

How it was accomplished, was actually pretty simple though: they just hauled off all the steel really quick and never tested it. Negligence, stupidity, etc., etc., whatever you want to call it. Anything but intentional, of course. But you make a pitiful argument on the grounds that nothing was found.



Could you back up that claim that all the steel was disposed of before testing could be done? And if true, how did D Jones manage to do his testing? And if it's true, then how do you explain the hanger full of WTC steel that is still there today? How do you explain all the steel that NIST used for testing and the scrap yards of it that they sifted through to pick examples from?

NIST didn't have to look for evidence of explosives. If they were used, there wouldn't have been any way to avoid finding it. And your argument here further proves that you again have no evidence for these explosives and that it IS simply conjecture and in no way factual.

I can't imagine 9/11 being an inside job because there is nothing to even suggest it. If someone could provide something, than I would gladly consider it. But all you are doing is going by your imagination and then trying to find anything that helps your pre-determined conclusion base on your imagination. That's not research, that's a witch hunt. Real investigators look at the evidence and facts and make a determination from that, not their imagination.

And are you suggesting that someone used magical explosives that leave no traces? Seriously? I mean forget about the fact that it would be impossible in the first place with any kind of explosives. you want us to now start imagining explosives that don't even exist to us? And what is your evidence of this? Nothing. I am not on a witch hunt, I am looking for truth.

I'll take my pitiful argument based on evidence over your argument based on pure imagination any day.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Could you back up that claim that all the steel was disposed of before testing could be done?


Here:


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.


wtc.nist.gov... Emphasis mine.


NIST didn't do it. Neither did FEMA. Neither did anyone else. Ever.

Would love to be proven wrong.



And if true, how did D Jones manage to do his testing?


What do you think of his particular results? Don't even answer. Neither of us really care.



And if it's true, then how do you explain the hanger full of WTC steel that is still there today?


I don't see you testing it. Or putting up the money to have it tested. So I don't know, you tell me: what's up with it?



NIST didn't have to look for evidence of explosives.


Wow. You just abandoned your entire previous argument.



If they were used, there wouldn't have been any way to avoid finding it.


Says you. But you couldn't even tell me what kinds of devices would be used.

Really, there's no way they could find the residue, specifically because they didn't test for it (what "it" is agreed upon as being).



I can't imagine 9/11 being an inside job because there is nothing to even suggest it.


Now I would've never expected this coming from you!



And are you suggesting that someone used magical explosives that leave no traces?


No, lol. They didn't even test for explosives anyway, what in the hell are you talking about?

[edit on 7-4-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Truly amazing the towers 'both' went down in what looked like a controlled demo, including wtc7. I'd like a statistical probability expert to find out what statistical probablility of that is.
On the day norad was playing army man, Bush 1 had his saudi buddies over, and cells at 35k feet were able to contact loved ones.
I'm a 60's prodigy. More used to seeing Godzilla take down buildings at an angle than a perfect house of pancakes drop.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 7-4-2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   


Here:


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.


wtc.nist.gov... Emphasis mine.


NIST didn't do it. Neither did FEMA. Neither did anyone else. Ever.

Would love to be proven wrong.


NIST didn't test for residue because it would not be possible. There are too many materials in the construction that would make any such testing pointless. Dr Jones testing proved this. All the things he found which he claims prove thermite are all common materials found in the building. And if there had been beams cut with Thermite, there would be no way to not find them. They don't need to test for the residue because there was no evidence of beams being cut. Had they found cut beams, they would then investigate how the beams were cut. But there weren't any.




What do you think of his particular results? Don't even answer. Neither of us really care.
I don't imagine you care at all. but the results were that he found 0% barium nitrate, the largest ingredient in thermite.



I don't see you testing it. Or putting up the money to have it tested. So I don't know, you tell me: what's up with it?


Wow, that's really mature isn't it? YOU are the one claiming it was all shipped off or destroyed. How do you explain the existence of WTC steel today if it is all gone? You can't because your claim is provenly untrue.



Wow. You just abandoned your entire previous argument.


No, you just don't understand this one. If explosives were used, they wouldn't need to look for them, it would be obvious. Explosives leave identifiable signs that can't be avoided upon inspection. When an investigation is performed there isn't a separate procedure for every possibility. They investigate the remains which is what tells them what happened. Had their been explosives use, the remains would have pointed that out from the tell tale signs of explosives.



Says you. But you couldn't even tell me what kinds of devices would be used.


How can I tell you what devices would be used when there is no evidence of any devices PERIOD??????? What kind of question is that????


Really, there's no way they could find the residue, specifically because they didn't test for it (what "it" is agreed upon as being).


There's the problem. You have no understanding of how this works. They would only look for residue if there were signs of explosives. Explosives leave signatures when used, as does anything. Had their even been signatures of explosives, then they would test to find out what kind. But if the debris doesn't even show any evidence of explosives to begin with it would be pointless to test for residue of something that doesn't exist. If you think that the only way to determine explosives is by testing residue, then you have no understanding of how explosives work.




No, lol. They didn't even test for explosives anyway, what in the hell are you talking about?



Thank you for making it clear that you have no understanding of this. Try asking an accident investigator how they go about looking for these things. See if they tell you they only look for residue. I mean seriously come on. Stop pretending they didn't test for explosives. you provide us the evidence for the explosives, and then maybe someone will test the residue.

I strongly suggest you learn how these things work instead of thinking that the only way to determine if explosives were used is by testing residue. Pretend that the explosives have no effect on the steel itself, they are just magical devices that emit residue.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Truly amazing the towers 'both' went down in what looked like a controlled demo, including wtc7. I'd like a statistical probability expert to find out what statistical probablility of that is.
On the day norad was playing army man, Bush 1 had his saudi buddies over, and cells at 35k feet were able to contact loved ones.
I'm a 60's prodigy. More used to seeing Godzilla take down buildings at an angle than a perfect house of pancakes drop.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 7-4-2008 by jpm1602]


Funny because you won't find a single demolition expert that will agree with you on that.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Not asking for a demo expert, looking for a statiscal probabilites expert. I believe it would be in the realm of 10 to the 9th to one. I guess that countdown NYFP picked up was just the countdown to their 30. Brought all those bereaved helpers in without masks claiming safe days after, and half these guys and gals are either dead or can't walk a flight of stairs now without near collapse.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Not asking for a demo expert, looking for a statiscal probabilites expert. I believe it would be in the realm of 10 to the 9th to one.


Well there wouldn't be any statistics since the events in no way resembled controlled demolitions. That's the point. Would you not agree that demolition experts might know what a controlled demolition looks like? And thus when controlled demolition experts all agree that they didn't resemble controlled demolitions, that their expertise might be useful?

Don't you think they might know what they are talking about more than you?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Not here to personally duke it out snoopy. Just the synapses in my brain and 47 percent of NY's feel otherwise. Nuff' said. I am not looking for a b slap fight. And I am going to acquiesce this subject now for decorum, eight years later we are still bickering like pitbulls.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 



Since you say that there was no evidence that would lead them to want to do testing for explosives, what do you make of this?

www.youtube.com...

Horseshoe shaped I-beam with no tears on the tension side. Thousands of degrees had to produce it.

Please explain that with plane damage and office fires.

Or how about the corrosion and melting of the steel reported and documented by FEMA? Where they state that further analysis is needed?

Why were these anomalies ignored?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Snoopy I really want you to look at this link carefully before I respond to you anymore:

42 informal logical fallacies

We'll be talking about one thing, and I'll respond, and you'll respond again with something that completely contradicts what your originally said, or abandons your original point.

Here's an example:


Originally posted by snoopy
NIST didn't test for residue because it would not be possible.


You were just asking me where the evidence of explosives was, and now you say that it wouldn't really even be possible to test for them.

It's hard to really discuss anything intelligently with someone who can't remember what they just said in their last post.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join