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.

 

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer

The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is....


Irrelevant. Who but 'truthers' have latched onto this ridiculous notion that the steel needs to have melted? Why oh why do 'truthers' feel the need to completely ignore the elegant, tragic simplicity that heat-compromised resistance to natural gravitational forces was more than enough to complete the destruction of the WTCs.

Why the need to go all Rube Goldberg?


Originally posted by JimFetzer
If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior....


And of course you could see how the floors were not responding in the way you assert? Is there some X-ray vision technology that you're in possession of that allowed you to see behind the exterior on the day?


Originally posted by JimFetzer
The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way.


To pivot downward with the opposite side acting as fulcrum. Not quite the same as how you describe it


Originally posted by JimFetzer
So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors.


It didn't have to. It just had to exert the pressure on the floor directly below. And when that failed, the floor below that. And so on. And so on. This isn't rocket science. 'Truthers' seem to believe that the building parts should've behaved as complete, self-contained units rather than the constructs of parts they were. That's why watching Richard Gage and his cardboard box demonstration is just so sad. Either he's being disingenuous or he truly doesn't understand elementary physics.


Originally posted by JimFetzer
A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.


Then clearly he's making the same mistake of treating the sections of the WTCs as units. Good thing he isn't an architect. It's a little concerning that he's teaching physics.


Originally posted by JimFetzer
Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.


Unfortunately, you're describing the WTCs construction as being something that it wasn't. All that needed to fail were the heat-weakened attachments between the floors and the interior and exterior walls. Once those failed, how are you proposing that the attachments on the floors below are supposed to resist the sudden added load for which they were never designed?


Originally posted by JimFetzer
If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.


Which is a meaningless term if the 'point of greatest resistance' is suddenly presented with a load far in excess of its design expectations.


Originally posted by JimFetzer
Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no pancakes.


If that was her analogy, it's small wonder she's an ex-professor. Unfortunately, nothing more than mundane natural forces are required to explain the collapse. This Rube Goldbergian need to invent wildly complex responses to a relatively simple process smacks of desperation.

I mean, let's categorise all your assertions for the WTCs to have fallen.

You have 3-dimensional airplane holograms complete with sound (at least you do in the "Video Fakery" thread).
You have explosives on the WTCs that blow inward to mimic the sort of inward-directed damage that an airplane collision would cause.
You have unseen minions planting airplane bits, airplane passenger bits and replica WTC bits on streets and building tops.
You have timed, controlled explosives to collapse the building.
You have some sort of energy weapon (presumably based in Earth orbit) to make mass disappear.

or there's the OS (as 'truthers' seem to like to describe it) which relies on an airplane collision and well-understood natural forces to explain what was observed.

Which one strikes you as being more likely?




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by FDNY343

Yep, now, do the math for the kinetic energy involved in the impact, and do the math for the heat energy released by the fuel, and then the heat energy for the resulting fires.

Hell, a bullet weighs about .25 ounces. Most people weigh about 140 lbs. Which translates to 2240 ounces.

So, a bullet weighs just 1/8960th of a person, and it will kill you. I wonder, how could something so small kill us? I mean, we outweigh the bullet MANY times over. But yet, I don't think you wanna stand in front of one, do you?


Completely illogical statement.
Does a bullet, which weighs 1/8960th of a person cause all the bones in the body to break and basically cremate so the body falls down into a lard ball?
Or does a bullet cause extreme interior damage to organs, muscles, etc and cause blood loss which in turn creates death?
Or it hits the heart or brain and the failure of either one of those cause death?

Try again.




Do you have any inkling as to why your 'analogy' is wildly off the mark? Are you actually suggesting that a human body and the WTCs bear any kind of structural or internal comparisons? You do realise that the WTCs were essentially hollow just as human bodies aren't? Is this as good as 'truther' arguments get?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Let's see, you have two nearly identical buildings allegedly getting hit by two airliners at completely different locations, sustaining completely different types of damage. Are we really supposed to be stupid enough to believe that the two aforementioned separate occurrences would result in virtually identical types of failure to each structure?


Why do you think the height would make a difference to the collapse mechanism? How should they have collapsed if not in the manner they did?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
No steel structure high-rise ever collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11


No heavier-than-air aircraft flew before Kittyhawk either. Does that mean that the Wright Brothers were an inside-job? Or does it just mean that 'truthers' seem to be given to all-encompassing, meaningless assertions?


Originally posted by JimFetzer
--and, if our research is well-founded, it didn't happen on 9/11 either.


Mighty big if. Thus far, given that you don't seem to understand how a cheese grater grates cheese (and why that's analogous to the airliners striking the WTCs) not to mention if a lighter, slower aircraft striking an otherwise more redundantly-constructed building like the Empire State Building can puncture it for most of its (the B25s just so you're clear) length, why you after nearly 10 years still seem surprised that a heavier, faster aircraft didn't exhibit any problem passing into the interior of the WTC?


Originally posted by JimFetzer
I think you need to give this more thought. Have you read the points I have reiterated about the temperatures of the fires involved here?


Yet again, why this necessity for out-and-out melting? Why the avoidance of addressing the reduction of strength that is widely understood to happen (and has been for many thousands of years) when metal is heated?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
It was the resulting uncontrolled fires coupled with the structural damage that caused the collapse of the WTC Towers.

Fifty-six minutes of uncontrolled fires caused the complete and total collapse of one of the most massive steel-structured highrises ever created? Even when no other steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed due to fires burning for far longer? Even when all available evidence points to controlled demolitions like flashes, timed/synchronous booms, and ejections, none of which have ever been associated with fire-induced collapses?

You've been asked multiple times, yet you continue to ignore the request: Please show a fire-induced collapse that exhibits flashes going up, down and around the building, timed/synchronous booms, and localized/isolated ejections.



Originally posted by FDNY343
Optimal?

Yes, as in oxygen being fed directly into the fire.



Originally posted by FDNY343
I have NEVER heard of UL certifying steel for that long with no protection. Hell, most SFRM is only rated for 2,000 deg. F for 2 hours. And THAT is under ideal lab conditions.

Mr. Fetzer got his numbers mixed up, just like the "science" he's using to try to explain how the towers fell. Suffice it to say, this is from Kevin Ryan's blog about UL testing the WTC steel:


"UL tested the steel components (of all 3 WTC buildings that failed) for fire resistance. According to UL’s CEO, the company did this testing per the NYC code, which ensured that the floor assemblies would withstand a minimum of 2 hours of intense fire, and the column assemblies would withstand 3 hours of fire. On 9/11 one of the towers failed completely in less than one hour."
Source

There are many conflicts of interest with the entire 9/11 investigation. Kevin Ryan lists some of those conflicts of interest at the above link as well. Further, Kevin has since sued UL for his unjust termination.



Originally posted by FDNY343
Again, Rodriguez was in no place to give a definitive frame of reference due to the fact he was in the basement.

You don't need a frame of reference to know when an explosion happens below you, and when one happens above you. It's quite easy for most people to know when a noise comes from above and when one comes from below.



Originally posted by FDNY343
Now, tell me about this 50 ton hydraulic press. I am curious what that means.

You were explained this before. You ignored it much like you will probably ignore it again. Here's the link to the post directed at you that explains the destruction of a 50-ton hydraulic brake press, parking garage, etc.:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And your only response was:

"There are also people that say that there is a God. They can prove it as much as you can prove explosives."

So sad.



Originally posted by FDNY343
He was talking about the firefighters.

Since when do people refer to others as "it"? Larry did not say "pull them", "pull the team", "pull the firefighters", he said "pull IT", meaning pull the building.



Originally posted by FDNY343
I have bolded the part that you seem to have conveniently missed.

Just because NIST couldn't find a 30-year-old analysis, doesn't mean the analysis doesn't exist. Or are you calling the Port Authority liars? Which is it? NIST is lying, or the Port Authority is lying?

Obviously some document from the Port Authority about the analysis had to have existed for NIST to even mention the analysis. One government authority could be lying. Take your pick on which one it could be.



Originally posted by FDNY343
Fire + Structural damage - water = collapse.

The scientific method dictates that something be repeatable for there to be a scientific hypothesis to exist. Since no other steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed after burning for far longer than the towers, your analogy is flawed and moot as it has not been repeatable to this day.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Judy Wood, Ph.D.

Judy Wood has been discredited on so many levels here:

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Yet again, why this necessity for out-and-out melting?

Oh, maybe because firefighters said they saw molten steel?






The firefighters must be lying also.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Fetzer's claiming pre-collapse. Are the firefighters?

If not, this is relevant to Fetzer's argument....how?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon


Do you have any inkling as to why your 'analogy' is wildly off the mark? Are you actually suggesting that a human body and the WTCs bear any kind of structural or internal comparisons? You do realise that the WTCs were essentially hollow just as human bodies aren't? Is this as good as 'truther' arguments get?


That is pretty hilarious from the person that brought up bullets in the first place.

The plane and the building were both mostly empty space. But the plane had to fly, the building did not.

It is certainly curious that we so rarely hear that the south tower only moved 15 inches at the impact level as a result of the plane strike and then our engineering schools don't talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers. Duh, do engineering schools know about the conservation of momentum? One would think all of the schools would find this SCIENTIFICALLY FASCINATING. The extent to which they ignore it certainly UNSCIENTIFICALLY FASCINATING.

Maybe that should be psychologically fascinating. Psychology is the study of not thinking.

Because if it is IMPOSSIBLE for airliners to have done that the schools should have figured it out and have therefore advertised their gutless lack of integrity.

Oh yeah, hydrostatic shock is related to that lack of empty space in the human body.

en.wikipedia.org...

Bringing up bullets was ridiculous in the first place. Do they make turns seconds before impacting the target? NO FUEL! NO WINGS! NO EMPTY SPACE for passengers and luggage!

psik



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


I believe everyone should take a moment, and click on the highlighted portion of "JimFetzer" in the "reply to" link.....and take note of the "signature" at the bottom.

"Abe", as I recall, is (or possibly was) an ATS member, under a different username.

Same real name, and description of being a Med student, etc. I just wish I could remember that other name....dang int!!!

Point being....I think the efforts of responding to "JimFetzer" may take a different tack, with this understanding, n'est pas?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Psychology is the study of not thinking.


Really? Wow, so many things come to mind. But I'll just leave it that you have no idea about science.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon


Do you have any inkling as to why your 'analogy' is wildly off the mark? Are you actually suggesting that a human body and the WTCs bear any kind of structural or internal comparisons? You do realise that the WTCs were essentially hollow just as human bodies aren't? Is this as good as 'truther' arguments get?


That is pretty hilarious from the person that brought up bullets in the first place.


Comparatively, which had a higher density (less empty space)? Which was moving at hundreds of miles per hour? Which one was imparting energy to the other? Which one do you think is most like a bullet?


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It is certainly curious that we so rarely hear that the south tower only moved 15 inches at the impact level as a result of the plane strike and then our engineering schools don't talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers. Duh, do engineering schools know about the conservation of momentum?


Uhhhhh......why is it do you suppose that the building moved at all given the disparity in their respective masses? Do you believe as Fetzer seems to that the plane should've done a Wile E. Coyote and bounced off, all accordion-like?


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Because if it is IMPOSSIBLE for airliners to have done that the schools should have figured it out and have therefore advertised their gutless lack of integrity.


Yet nearly 10 years after the fact, 'truthers' still rely on 'I don't think it should look like that'-type of arguments, CGI, holograms, inside job assertions, silent controlled demolition and accompanying YouTube videos as their 'proof' as opposed to generating numbers and realistic supportable phenomenon.

This isn't about integrity (or lack thereof) on the part of anyone with even a passing familiarity with Newtonian physics; it's about 'truthers' with an apparent desperate need to disbelieve at any cost.


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Bringing up bullets was ridiculous in the first place. Do they make turns seconds before impacting the target? NO FUEL! NO WINGS! NO EMPTY SPACE for passengers and luggage!

psik


When the pointy end impacts something, do you now understand why the analogy might be more apt? It isn't perfect; it isn't meant to be. But it's good enough for a basic exemplar.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
No steel structure high-rise ever collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11-


No steel or concrete structure has ever been hit by a 767 traveling at a high rate of speed, and allowed to burn unabated for any length of time either.

Before 1986, no Space Shuttle had ever exploded on liftoff due to failed o-rings either.

Before 2003, no space shuttle had ever broke apart on re-entry due to damaged heat tiles either.

Do you see what I am getting at?



Originally posted by JimFetzer
-and, if our research is well-founded, it didn't happen on 9/11 either.


Well, feel free to publish your findings in any respectable journal, in any language you prefer. I'll wait.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
I think you need to give this more thought.


More thought? Thought to what? Fire + Steel - water = failure. Every. Single. Time.


Originally posted by JimFetzer
Have you read the points I have reiterated about the temperatures of the fires involved here?


Yes. Did you look at the paper I posted from the NIST about fires in houses? Guess what? More than
500 deg. F. was experienced. So, your claim that the fires could ONLY burn at 500 deg. F is incorrect.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
Because I can't see how you can use your handle if you don't know more about fires and buildings that you appear to possess in these posts.


Maybe it's because you are not listening.


Originally posted by JimFetzer
You do understand that NIST studies 236 samples of the steel from Ground Zero and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F and the other three not above 1200*F?


Yes, I do understand that. HOWEVER, do we know where those samples came from? Also, does it mean that OTHER pieces that were NOT studied showed signs of being well ABOVE 1200 deg. F?



Originally posted by JimFetzer
Do you understand what that means for your theory of the case?


Yes, it means you don't listen.


Originally posted by JimFetzer
I hope you will pay more attention to the evidence and make stronger arguments in your future posts, because provable false claims add nothing to the debate. Just go back and review the points I've made.


False claims? I claimed that hydrocarbon fires CAN and WILL reach temperatures well ABOVE 500 deg. F, (which was YOUR factless claim) and even posted a study SHOWING that! Did you not even look at the simple pdf. document?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Obviously if miniature nukes were used then there would be a radioactive signature at ground zero and in the steel carted away from the site. I dont believe that there is any such evidence (altho that doesnt mean that thermite combined with conventional demolition devices was not employed). But I say no nukes (at least on "9/11").



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Psychology is the study of not thinking.
Really? Wow, so many things come to mind. But I'll just leave it that you have no idea about science.


I remember an exact quote from my college psychology book. I laughed at it then and still find it hilarious.


Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure.


Great bit of circular logic. That tells us what we need to know about the intelligence of psychologists.

Wow, I could even find the quote.


"When I use a word, it means exactly what I mean it to mean, no more and no less." -- Humpty Dumpty

"Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure." -- Edward Boring

I'm actually surprised by how few comments have been made regarding the actual nature of intelligence in this thread. yummyfajitas' parent comment is one of those few, and he equates intelligence as we understand it with g, the hypothesized general intelligence posited by psychometricians.

news.ycombinator.com...

The Internet is SO COOL!!!

Science has often become people who think they are smart expecting to tell other people what to think. In the name of science of course. That is the absurdity of 9/11. Talking about a skyscraper collapsing without talking about the distributions of steel and concrete even though they need to be carefully determined for the structure to support itself against gravity and withstand the wind. Even Richard Gage should be laughed at. Where is that discussed on the AE911 Truth site?

People are supposed to BELIEVE because he is an ARCHITECT!

Why didn't he figure it out within SIX MONTHS of 9/11?

psik

PS - And it's in a site called Hacker News. That is funny.
edit on 14-2-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Fifty-six minutes of uncontrolled fires caused the complete and total collapse of one of the most massive steel-structured highrises ever created? Even when no other steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed due to fires burning for far longer? Even when all available evidence points to controlled demolitions like flashes, timed/synchronous booms, and ejections, none of which have ever been associated with fire-induced collapses?


Again with the "first time in history" logical fallacy.

And yet, nobody caught these huge BOOMS on video. Imagine that.

And yet, nobody caught these flashes going all around the building on video. Imagine that.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You've been asked multiple times, yet you continue to ignore the request: Please show a fire-induced collapse that exhibits flashes going up, down and around the building, timed/synchronous booms, and localized/isolated ejections.


See above.

This is a very unique collapse in that it has never happened before.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Yes, as in oxygen being fed directly into the fire.


So, you think that the fires in the WTC were "oxygen starved"? Please elaborate on this. Thanks.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Mr. Fetzer got his numbers mixed up, just like the "science" he's using to try to explain how the towers fell. Suffice it to say, this is from Kevin Ryan's blog about UL testing the WTC steel:


"UL tested the steel components (of all 3 WTC buildings that failed) for fire resistance. According to UL’s CEO, the company did this testing per the NYC code, which ensured that the floor assemblies would withstand a minimum of 2 hours of intense fire, and the column assemblies would withstand 3 hours of fire. On 9/11 one of the towers failed completely in less than one hour."
Source

There are many conflicts of interest with the entire 9/11 investigation. Kevin Ryan lists some of those conflicts of interest at the above link as well. Further, Kevin has since sued UL for his unjust termination.



Didthey take the SFRM off first? SFRM is applied to the steel in a structure like this for many reasons. Do you know why that is? Steel fails in fires.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You don't need a frame of reference to know when an explosion happens below you, and when one happens above you. It's quite easy for most people to know when a noise comes from above and when one comes from below.


Again, his claim was that he heard a boom BEFORE the plane hit. This is a problem for you that you cannot resolve.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You were explained this before. You ignored it much like you will probably ignore it again. Here's the link to the post directed at you that explains the destruction of a 50-ton hydraulic brake press, parking garage, etc.:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And your only response was:

"There are also people that say that there is a God. They can prove it as much as you can prove explosives."

So sad.


Way to quotemine my comment. Go back and read my response.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Since when do people refer to others as "it"? Larry did not say "pull them", "pull the team", "pull the firefighters", he said "pull IT", meaning pull the building.


When you're talking about loss of life, and firefighters being in/around the building in question.

"Pull it" is common speak in fire departments nationwide. Feel free to contact 10, and tell me the results.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Just because NIST couldn't find a 30-year-old analysis, doesn't mean the analysis doesn't exist. Or are you calling the Port ,Authority liars? Which is it? NIST is lying, or the Port Authority is lying?


No, I am saying that NOBODY can find this analysis. NOBODY. Not the PA, not NIST, NOBODY. Unless maybe you're hiding it.

Can you link to it? Or tell me where I can find it?



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Obviously some document from the Port Authority about the analysis had to have existed for NIST to even mention the analysis. One government authority could be lying. Take your pick on which one it could be.


Again, please show where anyone can find this analysis. Thanks.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The scientific method dictates that something be repeatable for there to be a scientific hypothesis to exist. Since no other steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed after burning for far longer than the towers, your analogy is flawed and moot as it has not been repeatable to this day.


Please show me these towers that have burned far longer, that have had severe structural damage, and were unfought by firefighters.

Thanks.

PS. Remember, no concrete core buildings allowed, as the WTC had no concrete core.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Yet again, why this necessity for out-and-out melting?

Oh, maybe because firefighters said they saw molten steel?






The firefighters must be lying also.






And how did they come to that conclusion? By sight? Can you identify a molten metal substance by sight alone? I certianly can't. Maybe you can?

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon


Do you have any inkling as to why your 'analogy' is wildly off the mark? Are you actually suggesting that a human body and the WTCs bear any kind of structural or internal comparisons? You do realise that the WTCs were essentially hollow just as human bodies aren't? Is this as good as 'truther' arguments get?


That is pretty hilarious from the person that brought up bullets in the first place.

The plane and the building were both mostly empty space. But the plane had to fly, the building did not.

It is certainly curious that we so rarely hear that the south tower only moved 15 inches at the impact level as a result of the plane strike and then our engineering schools don't talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers. Duh, do engineering schools know about the conservation of momentum? One would think all of the schools would find this SCIENTIFICALLY FASCINATING. The extent to which they ignore it certainly UNSCIENTIFICALLY FASCINATING.

Maybe that should be psychologically fascinating. Psychology is the study of not thinking.

Because if it is IMPOSSIBLE for airliners to have done that the schools should have figured it out and have therefore advertised their gutless lack of integrity.

Oh yeah, hydrostatic shock is related to that lack of empty space in the human body.

en.wikipedia.org...

Bringing up bullets was ridiculous in the first place. Do they make turns seconds before impacting the target? NO FUEL! NO WINGS! NO EMPTY SPACE for passengers and luggage!

psik


Way to miss the point, again.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343Way to miss the point, again.


So you can accuse someone of missing a point because you don't get it.

Big Deal!

Maybe it gives some people the impression that you are intelligent.

psik



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343Way to miss the point, again.


So you can accuse someone of missing a point because you don't get it.

Big Deal!

Maybe it gives some people the impression that you are intelligent.

psik


No I get it. But aparently, you missed the point.

Maybe you could explain my point? Because it seems like you have COMPLETLY missed it.



new topics




 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join