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.

 

Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

page: 15
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You said "I'm just trying to point out that there is no way an aluminium plane is going to be both destroyed BY the steel AND destroy the steel at the same time. You keep arguing nonsense."

Anok, your brain is addled. You really don't understand much about this, do you? Check out the photos and videos of the WTC. Note how the steel columns are sheared. The plane was striking the towers at 700+ fps and, given its mass, would easily shear the steel as it was being destroyed.

You said: "As for your not understanding acceleration at impact, that's your problem. When objects collide there is equal force but unequal backward acceleration. The larger mass has the LEAST backwards acceleration. Equal and opposite forces that govern all collisions between objects. Unequal mass, unequal acceleration. "

You are confused. Next year when you are a high school junior and take physics, you will learn about elastic and inelastic collisions. Your days at the pool hall have only given you experience in the former but when you wreck your daddy's car, you'll get experence in the latter.

You said: "It's the law of momentum conservation...Maybe instead of going around in circles you go talk to a professor."

No wonder you are dizzy. All those circles. All that concentrated cluelessness in one Anok.

You said: "Go take your 4 pound steel hammer and wack the crap out of some aluminium, you really seriously can't believe the steel would ever fail first?
Then when you've done that put it into context with an airplane and massive steel columns...."

You are still confused and still can't read. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Since you have an affinity for videos, check out a few railgun shots on youtube. The projectile is aluminum and can barely make it down the track much less damage anything.




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Why would they need the attacks to accomplish any of these?




They did not need the attacks to accomplish any of this. They needed the attacks to justify it. Doing it is one thing. Then when that party gets voted out because everyone hates them for it, it is a wash. But, just imagine, if we can pull this off all while convincing the people that it is in their best interest, muah ha ha ha ha ha.

Luckily, we did not fall for it.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
i find it truley amazing how some of the posters on here go on and on with what they think is apples to apples comparisons,seriously look at the length of some of these posts man.you can pile up crap as high as you like but that doesnt make it smell better.sorry.all im sayin is to be fair about this show me you tube vides of jetliners carrying TONS of highly flamable fuel into other buildings and then well compare.the way i see it all the info on controlled demolitions is fun to watch but not a completely fair baseline



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


1 ok for one do you realize how utterly foolish you sound ?

2 have you even read the laws of physics or thermal dynamics ??

if you truely have read it you wouldnt have made this post

here ill make it real easy for you. try reading it for a change
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

you can not have it both ways you cant have the plane slice through the steel then bounce back .
where did this majical energy come from ??

this is what you said

"When objects collide there is equal force but unequal backward acceleration. The larger mass has the LEAST backwards acceleration. Equal and opposite forces that govern all collisions between objects. Unequal mass, unequal acceleration. "

REALLY ???? are you really serious i mean really??
with the law is right there you are going to say somthing so ridiculous as that ?? you are spitting nothing but BS out the side of your neck. dude just read the law man your making stuff up agin. unequal mass dosnt matter agin read the law
www.grc.nasa.gov...

READ the frigging laws dude for goodness sake, you sound like a fool

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

where did the majical energy that stoped the top of the building from continueing on its path??
show us with facts from scientific data that says objects in motion will change course with no other force applied????

911research.wtc7.net...







911research.wtc7.net...



[edit on 22-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Source for demo company that disagrees with you:
www.jod911.com...


Please point out the actual section that you think disagrees with me.


Any section which states that the building was clearly not brought down by CD. Look specifically under assertion #2 where they explain how the buildings DID follow the path of least resistance.


Originally posted by ANOK

I understand the physics just fine, which is why I recommended that you discuss your thoughts with a physics professor. Specifically, your thoughts on the "path of least resistance".


You THINK you do, but I've already shown you where you're wrong, you just don't know enough to know that you're wrong.


You've shown me where you think i am wrong. This is why I recommended that you discuss it with a physics professor who will show you that you are mistaken.


Originally posted by ANOK
You have yet to show me where I'm wrong on the path of LEAST resistance.
I even supplied proof of what the path of least resistance is. This is not rocket science, the path of LEAST resistance means exactly what it says, if an object hits resistance it will try to take a path of LEAST resistance. If it can't take that alternate path it either stops or slows down, depending on the resistance met. When two objects of unequal mass collide the greater mass will have the least acceleration, and the smaller mass more, which is why the bigger object will not be overwhelmed by the smaller one.

You CANNOT have a crushing motion from that situation.


I agree, but we're not talking about 2 objects, we're talking about buildings which consist of MILLIONS of objects.


Originally posted by ANOK
You seriously need a source for a basic physical truth? This just shows how little you understand. YOU need to go talk to a physics prof.


This: " You could completely sever ALL the columns around it's circumference and the top would still NOT fall through the rest of the building. " Is your opinion....it is not a "basic physical truth".


Originally posted by ANOK
Again this is an obvious observation from years of known physics. If you need a source then I can't help you sorry.


So, like your other claims, this is just your opinion, you have no sources.


Originally posted by ANOK

What "hammer example?" None of your prior posts in this thread mentioned hammers. If your'e referring to your question about "what would happen if you drop an object onto another object of equal mass" I answered your question already.


No you didn't.


Yes I did(www.abovetopsecret.com...)


Originally posted by ANOK
OK the hammer analogy might have been another thread, but I did repeat the analogy here also, so you're just playing ignorant.


Don't call me ignorant for not answering a question that you failed to post.


Originally posted by ANOK
Again one more time. Take a steel hammer and hit, as hard as you want, a sheet of aluminium, until one or the other fails from fatigue. Which would fail first?


If I had to guess I would say the aluminum sheet.


Originally posted by ANOK
Isn't it obvious the aluminium would fail first?


Not when we don't know all of the variables.


Originally posted by ANOK
Please explain, without sources to 9/11 sites, how am I wrong on this? I want YOUR answer, not someone elses.


? I never claimed you were wrong on your "hammer example".

Perhaps you could explain how it relates to the discussion at hand?

[edit on 22-1-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Really? I still have the VHS tapes that my wife threw in the VCR and recorded from the reports of the first impact to the collapse of WTC 7 that day.........


I'm quite interested in knowing how this relates to what Spreston said about the media? Or is your wife a part of the media?

BTW, this is exactly how we know they have changed their archived news casts. From people like you who have the originals.

[edit on 1/22/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 1/22/2009 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Mass does matter. The site you linked to even explains that momentum is defined as a mass times its velocity. Those are the terms used for collisions, etc.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

hey einstein reread it, i said unequal mass, i didnt say mass it self didnt matter geeez read

but regardless there should be no backwards motion in an Inelastic collisions

which what was the type on 9/11 the unequal mass and backward motion dosnt matter on 9/11 it was an Inelastic collisions

en.wikipedia.org...

Now suppose one of the masses, say m2, was at rest. In that case after the collision the moving body, m1, will come to rest and the body that was at rest, m2, will start moving with the velocity that m1 had before the collision.

en.wikipedia.org...

his thinking dosent work in our situation that day only 1 body was in motion on 9/11 the plane and the WTC where staionary

so unequal mass dosnt effect outcome there should not be any backward motion

en.wikipedia.org...

just shows that the plane was like a car slamming into a stationary heavier

object such as a Bridge pilon what would win that ??

its the exact same thing
(9/11 plane weighs 150 tons building weighs 500,000 tons ) the WTC buildings where 3333 time greater in mass

just think about that and then read the laws agin and agin till it sinks in



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


LOL this really just shows your lack of understanding.

Nowhere in that article section 2 does it explain anything. It just waffles on about nothing. It claims it's impossible for the towers to tip over because the base area was too large?

Then why did the top of WTC 2 start to tip over? And then mysteriously lose it's angular momentum? Where is the explanation for that?

It claims because, 'a few relatively small amounts of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers footprints', it makes this event dissimilar to a controlled demo? Can YOU explain to me why this had to be a 'conventional demo' to have been purposely demolished at all?

And where is the explanation of WTC 7, who's debris DID land in it's own footprint and DID collapse from the bottom like a conventional demo?

It has always been our claim that the towers were NOT a conventional controlled demolition. So any claims that it could not have been demolished on purpose, because it was not a conventional collapse, are garbage. The towers were not a conventional demolition, WTC 7 was.

It has always been known that the towers were too tall to demolish conventionally. Too tall and too SMALL of a base would not allow the outer walls to fall inwards, that's why they would have had to be taken down by hand. The way it collapsed was exactly why they were going to do it by hand, because there is no way they call fall into their own footprints. Even a conventional demo would have caused debris to fall outside of their footprints.

Where is the PHYSICS in that paper that explain the change of 'angular momentum' in WTC 2, or the lack of Resistance in all 3 collapses.

It talks about the debris that was seen that had hit WTC 7, AND OTHER BUILDINGS, so I ask again how does ASYMMETRICAL damage become a SYMMETRICAL global collapse? Why was WTC 7 the ONLY building to globally collapse after being hit be debris from the towers?

You like that paper because it says what YOU want to hear, those of us who are not blinded by hollywood science can clearly see it explains NOTHING. In fact it contradicts itself in its reasoning.

But I can clearly see why you would want to believe it explains everything, so you don't have to THINK for yourself. You should try it sometime, but then again maybe you have vested interests in supporting the official story?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Mass does matter. The site you linked to even explains that momentum is defined as a mass times its velocity. Those are the terms used for collisions, etc.


Also force equals mass times acceleration or F=ma

Given that any force applied has an equal and opposite force, then the more mass, the less acceleration.

So, what Anok said was correct. As an example:

Say we have 2 kg accelerating at 1 m/s^2 we get a force of 2 Newtons.

Now say this 2 kg hits a 1 kg object and transfers the force.

2 N = 1kg x a

a (acceleration) then becomes 2 m/s^2.

So, when Anok says that the more mass, the less acceleration, he is correct. This is if all force is conserved and not lost due to friction etc.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
WTC7.

Free fall acceleration measured for roughly 2 seconds and admitted by NIST.

For freefall speed to happen it means all of the gravitational force/potential energy is being converted into a downwards force accelerating the building. If it were crushing beams and concrete into tiny bits of dust like you see then there is energy being used to do this. When you have (for example) 2000J of total energy and it uses it all to fall at 9.8ms-2 then there is NO spare energy to crush and break the structure. When that energy is used from that total 2000J then it will simply take more time to collapse, and not at 9.8ms-2.
It's simple physics to debunk the government conspiracy.

What I am trying to say is there is additional energy coming into that building to collapse it at 9.8ms-2 and it is not gravity. If it were gravity it would simply not free fall, it would take much more force over time to break beams and concrete providing resistance to falling mass/aka supporting the building. With gravity exerting roughly 9.8ms-2 acceleration on any object in most places on earth you can measure the force it will apply on a structure of x weight. And therefore the energy it has as gravitational potential energy.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Can someone explain how it is possible to have a freefall collapse using physics on a large building crushing and pulverizing materials, without breaking the laws of physics please? You can't.

You can't! The extra energy needed to disperse the structure which should be providing resistance to the falling mass (as it should have in WTC1 and 2 - check out the close to free fall collapse time on them too...) means that the collapse takes longer.

Either you have a long collapse time as it actually 'collapses' and 'gravitational potential energy/force' is used to destroy a building or you have a short one which requires a ridiculous amount of energy to disperse the materials, in which there is simply not enough energy in the amount of time collapse takes, supplied by gravitational force.



Here is an investigation that doesn't break the laws of physics which looks into energy needed to make dust clouds present at the WTC complex.
911research.wtc7.net...

Conclusion is


The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.


Funny how they reached the same conclusion as me on a different but related subject.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Please, you don't know what you're talking about.

Please provide evidence of the planes shearing columns. For petes sake I have spent this whole thread trying to explain to you how this scenario is impossible. That is one of the NIST assumptions I talked about earlier (maybe another thread, but you were their too).

But instead of researching this for yourself, you continue to appeal to authority. Authority with a vested interest in supporting the official story.

Once again ALUMINIUM and STEEL, I don't care who says what, ALUMINIUM cannot cause STEEL to fail.

I have even suggested how you can discover this amazing fact for yourself.
Do you know how to use a hammer? Can you find some aluminium? Can you hit the aluminium with your hammer? Cab you make that hammer fail and leave the aluminium intact, if you hit it hard enough? Can you make BOTH fail, if you hit it even harder? Please do yourself a favour and go research this and come back with YOUR answer, not some bogus paper you find on the web that you think explains it.

Do that and then we'll debate some more...



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


i totaly agree with anok you (griff) but regardless of mass the collision was an Inelastic collisions and there shouldnt have been any bacwards aceleration

right or wrong ?? according to the law of Inelastic collisions they either should have bondend together or one should have exploded but still no backwards aceleration



[edit on 22-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 22-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


All objects when they collide bounce back away from each other, that is the backwards acceleration.

Tall buildings are designed to sway, do you think the towers didn't move when impacted by the planes? And the elastic nature of the steel wouldn't have caused backwards acceleration of the plane? Remember the more mass the less acceleration, so the plane really wouldn't be causing much acceleration on the steel, most of the acceleration would be on the plane, and all impact forces being equal the plane will LOSE, not the steel.

Remember also the acceleration is a subtle force, not discernible with the human eye, but a very important one in collisions.


Certain collisions are referred to as elastic collisions. Elastic collisions are collisions in which both momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. The total system kinetic energy before the collision equals the total system kinetic energy after the collision. If total kinetic energy is not conserved, then the collision is referred to as an inelastic collision...
...In the collision between the truck and the car, total system momentum is conserved. Before the collision, the momentum of the [moving] car is 20000 kg*m/s and the momentum of the [stationary] truck is 0 kg*m/s; the total system momentum is 20000 kg*m/s. After the collision, the momentum of the car is -10000 kg*m/s and the momentum of the truck is +30000 kg*m/s; the total system momentum is 20000 kg*m/s. The total system momentum is conserved. The momentum lost by the car (30000 kg*m/s) is gained by the truck....

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Exchange truck for building and car for airplane, same result.


Elastic Collision, Massive Target
In a .-on elastic collision between a small projectile and a much more massive target, the projectile will bounce back with essentially the same speed and the massive target will be given a very small velocity. One example is a ball bouncing back from the Earth when we throw it down.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
First


Posted by ANOK
Then why did the top of WTC 2 start to tip over? And then mysteriously lose it's angular momentum? Where is the explanation for that?


Mysteriously? Try to think of this, out of box, and humor me....There are 4 corners to a building. 1 is damaged. 30 floors are above it, and in assistance of the initial strike which destroyed needed support along with fire caused the top to slide. Once it slides far enough there is not enough support underneath BASED on the structural design. Therefore, the resistance it SHOULD encounter is not there and the only thing stopping it is gravity. It starts to fall toward the damaged corner.....

Second, so, now the explained theory is WTC 1 and 2 were bought down with unconventional CD explosives and WTC 7 was a conventoinal CD? Is this correct? So, now we have 2 separate evidenciary pieces to explore. Two types of explosives and not one cap or remote trigger.

Don't worry, with Obama in office I am sure full disclosure is only days or weeks away.


Also, telling someone to test a theory of aluminum vs steel with a hammer is about as good as Stephen Jones and his pot of thermite...


[edit on 22-1-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
There are 4 corners to a building. 1 is damaged. 30 floors are above it, and in assistance of the initial strike which destroyed needed support along with fire caused the top to slide.


Unsubstantiated assumption.


Once it slides far enough there is not enough support underneath BASED on the structural design. Therefore, the resistance it SHOULD encounter is not there and the only thing stopping it is gravity. It starts to fall toward the damaged corner.....


Which is what happened, it's called 'angular momentum'. Except the gravity stopping it, what does that mean lol?

But you have not finished explaining this. How does that cause a symmetrical global collapse of the rest of the building?

According to the law of 'angular momentum' it should have continued unless it met an outside force (resistance). What force caused it to stop its momentum? The only thing it could have done is continue falling off the side, if the pivot point failed it would have fallen faster, not suddenly decide to fall straight down through the path of most resistance. The only way that could happen is if the bottom collapsed independently of the top.


Second, so, now the explained theory is WTC 1 and 2 were bought down with unconventional CD explosives and WTC 7 was a conventoinal CD? ....


Huh, you just realising this? You can't see the difference between the two collapses? I'm not interested in explosives, just the visual physical evidence and what it points to.


Don't worry, with Obama in office I am sure full disclosure is only days or weeks away.


Who cares about Obama, I'm a libertarian socialist, I support no politician.


Also, telling someone to test a theory of aluminum vs steel with a hammer is about as good as Stephen Jones and his pot of thermite...


You have obviously NEVER done any scientific research have you. If you can't see the point of that analogy then that just shows how much you really understand...
Or care....

I guess you think the water balloon analogy was better?


[edit on 1/22/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 
i totaly agree with what you are say about that law and your are talking about this and yes it applies to moving objects if both are moving

im talkin about this en.wikipedia.org...



www.physicsclassroom.com...
www.physicsclassroom.com...://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/momentum/crete.cfm
www.physicsclassroom.com...
www.physicsclassroom.com...
www.physicsclassroom.com...

dude i agree with the physics but we cant have it both ways according to him this is not directed to you anok it was an Inelastic Collision
was it not ????? didnt the plane keep going through building in all videos ???? so that being the case no matter what we could not have had any backward acceleration

only if the plane bounced off the building could we have backward acceleration true or false ?? was this not what we had that day (cough) www.physicsclassroom.com...

did the plane not continue forward and supposedly sever the core columns ???

if so then we absolutely coulnd not have had any backward acceleration

it cant do both continue forward and also go backwards now can it ???

and look at V in the figures it is cut by 75%

so the spped once it contacted the building lost 75% of its V so that makes it what 125mph??





[edit on 22-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by esdad71
There are 4 corners to a building. 1 is damaged. 30 floors are above it, and in assistance of the initial strike which destroyed needed support along with fire caused the top to slide.


Unsubstantiated assumption.


Once it slides far enough there is not enough support underneath BASED on the structural design. Therefore, the resistance it SHOULD encounter is not there and the only thing stopping it is gravity. It starts to fall toward the damaged corner.....


Which is what happened, it's called 'angular momentum'. Except the gravity stopping it, what does that mean lol?

But you have not finished explaining this. How does that cause a symmetrical global collapse of the rest of the building?

According to the law of 'angular momentum' it should have continued unless it met an outside force (resistance). What force caused it to stop its momentum? The only thing it could have done is continue falling off the side, if the pivot point failed it would have fallen faster, not suddenly decide to fall straight down through the path of most resistance. The only way that could happen is if the bottom collapsed independently of the top.


Second, so, now the explained theory is WTC 1 and 2 were bought down with unconventional CD explosives and WTC 7 was a conventoinal CD? ....


Huh, you just realising this? You can't see the difference between the two collapses? I'm not interested in explosives, just the visual physical evidence and what it points to.


Don't worry, with Obama in office I am sure full disclosure is only days or weeks away.


Who cares about Obama, I'm a libertarian socialist, I support no politician.


Also, telling someone to test a theory of aluminum vs steel with a hammer is about as good as Stephen Jones and his pot of thermite...


You have obviously NEVER done any scientific research have you. If you can't see the point of that analogy then that just shows how much you really understand...
Or care....

I guess you think the water balloon analogy was better?


[edit on 1/22/2009 by ANOK]


First, there is no assumption. There are videos and pictures to prove this happened.

There was not symmetrical collapse. This is incorrect. Once again you are applying what you think happened. The force that caused the momentum to continue was the loss of support by the lower floors based on the structural design. It was designed to hold up the upper floors and without support, from the damaged corner and key colums, perimeter and interior, it will collapse. If anything, on descent, it was shearing a portion of the tower which put part of it within its own footprint and the rest ejected from the site. You assumption of the only way it failing is from the bottom independently collapsing from the top has no basis and is bull#. This is just fitting your CD theory.

Can't I see the difference? I was just trying to make sure I am understanding what you mean. A man can dress up like a chick but it does not make her a woman. They appeared to look like CD but I you have no evidence...this fits your scientific theory off hammering aluminum with a steel hammer. I mean, I know what an analogy is and that is not an analogy but a was a dig at the other poster. Nothing else.

Just so I know, it may help me to understand your train of thought. What do you do for a living. Not the company, just a title....





[edit on 22-1-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum
reply to post by ANOK
 
i totaly agree with what you are say about that law and your are talking about this and yes it applies to moving objects if both are moving

im talkin about this en.wikipedia.org...


Both objects do not need to be moving. A collision of two objects is always an elastic collision, but can be different degrees. Not all collisions are pure elastic collisions. But in the case of a plane and a building it is an elastic collision.


didnt the plane keep going through building in all videos ???? so that being the case no matter what we could not have had any backward acceleration


Parts of the plane did yes, but what did collide directly with the steel would be elastic collisions. The plane as a whole did not keep going through, if it did it wasn't a plane (i know the pic of the 'planes' nose coming out of the tower but I don't think that was a plane, but for the sake of this argument I'll assume it was).


only if the plane bounced off the building could we have backward acceleration true or false ?? was this not what we had that day (cough)


This is the main misconception of elastic collisions. You are not necessarily going to see the acceleration, but its there. Just because nothing was seen to 'bounce off' the law still applies, it still effects the final outcome and the damage sustained by the objects.


did the plane not continue forward and supposedly sever the core columns ???


No it could not have done that. As I said two objects of unequal mass will not destroy each other, the objects with less mass will lose. The plane obviously lost, so it could not have also caused the steel to fail, or be severed. If that is the case then a whole plane should have flown out the other side.

it cant do both continue forward and also go backwards now can it ???

Again parts that hit steel would have experienced backwards acceleration. This does not mean the pieces literally MOVED backwards. They just met resistance they could not overcome and all forward acceleration stopped, which often causes the (exaggerated) 'bounce back' you see when cars collide for example.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


but did it not lose its V by 75 %??

so any items of the plane would have been reduced to 125 mph or some where near there according to the law right???? or is the math of the law wrong ???

what is closer to what happend that day ???

this www.physicsclassroom.com... ???

or this www.physicsclassroom.com... ???

it makes a huge diference on the out come is why im asking



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join