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.

 

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 33
274
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Wizayne
Oh, and by the way, the Perdue video you hold on to so dearly shows at 2:23 that the plane punched through the Building clear through to the other side. In fact, it did not. Period. I'll repeat that, Perdue's video shows the plane clearing completely through and out the other side of the tower when in fact it didnt bust outward through a single beam or bulge one on the opposite side. By your own logic and reasoning, your dear video is invalid.


Excuse me Mr. Expert on everything but yes it did. I really, and I do mean REALLY, hate posting the footage of the impact becuase it's the exact moment of time that the people aboard flight 175 lost their lives, but in this case it's necessary. Here's a closeup of the impact that clearly shows wreckage coming out the other side, along with at least one I beam that came off the building. This was all simulated correctly by the Perdue animation:

footage of the impact of flight 175

My goal here isn't to call you names or to make you feel bad about yourself. I'm simply here to point out how those damned fool conspiracy websites you're getting all your information from are pulling your leg. Now you've learned something.


This post is also for esdad71.

Now it's your turn to learn something.

Perdue says there was an exit hole 4 floors high and at least a 1/4 of the building wide:



Show me on these photos of tower 2 where they are accurate. All I can see are knocked loose aluminum coverings.






or on tower 1.



Now if you could show me real world pictures and not a drawing of a 4 storey hole 15 columns wide coming out the opposite side of the planes entry, i would be impressed. Admit you cant and that Perdue is not accurate and more along the lines of criminal deceit.

You have no proof to back up the story you so desperately want to believe. You take other peoples words for fact (the OS), the whole time knocking down others that do the same with other's words but have different conclusions. All you have to do is admit that you have no actual power in the form of facts, you're just good at putting people down that dont agree with you.

I've spent five years looking into this and you have devoted NOTHING. I owe you nothing and you deserve NOTHING.
You are a little kid in a world where MEN are needed to stand up and protect the helpless.


I'm through with you, please by all means try to counter point by point the Video that Tupac keeps throwing in your face. YOU CAN'T.
edit on 29-6-2011 by Wizayne because: re-fit pics




posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Yea,, a denial analysis..... All your puppet conclusions cannot explain how building 7 just dropped down. Normal fires do not melt steel and concrete. But you know that . You just cant accept it... Its ok , i was in your position. Most truthers were in your position. without you knowing the seed has been planted in your brain. trust me you will come around.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Wizayne
 


No, its not being said that the collapsed can't be explained, its been explained over and over and over again, but that because it was a complex event, the precise moment and mode of failure of the millions and billions of pieces of the structure can not be CATALOGUED with a very high degree of detail. Big difference.



Show me over and over again where there is an accurate demonstration/description/diagram of what happened between collapse initiation and thirty seconds later. Please no pancake collapse pictures. Good luck.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 

But the one thing i can say lil homie!!!! ...its my own analysis...PERIOD!
Yeah but....it's wrong. What if I started arguing that Godzilla was responsible? Would the fact that it's my own analysis justify it? What if I made the claim that invisible werewolves from the fourth dimension actually ate the core of the building, causing it to fall? What if I told you that my own analysis led me to the conclusion that mystical creatures from the Gumdrop Forest actually caused the building to collapse, and that molten metal everybody claimed to see was actually a pot of Leprechaun gold, and he hid it down there in hopes that nobody would look there, would it being my own analysis make it any better than the flawed official story because it's my analysis?




posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Yea,, a denial analysis..... All your puppet conclusions cannot explain how building 7 just dropped down. Normal fires do not melt steel and concrete. But you know that . You just cant accept it... Its ok , i was in your position. Most truthers were in your position. without you knowing the seed has been planted in your brain. trust me you will come around. [/quote
Normal fires OR FIRES OVER A MILLION DEGREES do not have to melt a damn thing when it comes to the weight of something directly in the middle OF A BUILDING. WHAT IN GODS LIFE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, STOP LETTING THEM TRICK YOUR LITTLE TINY BRAIN?

The frame of the building was built to with stand strong winds and possibly an air plane crashing into it, the building and no building in the world was designed for something 50 tons to be in the middle of the structure . WTF!!

edit on 29-6-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 

But the one thing i can say lil homie!!!! ...its my own analysis...PERIOD!
Yeah but....it's wrong. What if I started arguing that Godzilla was responsible? Would the fact that it's my own analysis justify it? What if I made the claim that invisible werewolves from the fourth dimension actually ate the core of the building, causing it to fall? What if I told you that my own analysis led me to the conclusion that mystical creatures from the Gumdrop Forest actually caused the building to collapse, and that molten metal everybody claimed to see was actually a pot of Leprechaun gold, and he hid it down there in hopes that nobody would look there, would it being my own analysis make it any better than the flawed official story because it's my analysis?



I try my best to have patients with the mortals of this world, I even waiSted 14 min on a video and talked to a human that doesn’t even believe in god...and you start talking about Dracula, Frankenstein, and lions and tigers and bears….‘OH MY’
I Think im done with this thread, have a good day ‘home fries’
edit on 29-6-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Yea,, a denial analysis..... All your puppet conclusions cannot explain how building 7 just dropped down. Normal fires do not melt steel and concrete. But you know that . You just cant accept it... Its ok , i was in your position. Most truthers were in your position. without you knowing the seed has been planted in your brain. trust me you will come around.

this is from a fresh thread just for you about building 7,now we can get off that bs.

A federal appeals court has given Con Edison, the electricity provider for most of lower Manhattan, permission to move forward with its lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York for allowing diesel fuel tanks to sit beneath one of the World Trade Center buildings that collapsed after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

In its $315 million civil action, Con Edison’s insurer, Aegis Insurance, claims that the existence of the tanks below the 7 World Trade Center fueled the fire that destroyed an electrical substation and, ultimately, the building itself.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Yea,, a denial analysis..... All your puppet conclusions cannot explain how building 7 just dropped down. Normal fires do not melt steel and concrete. But you know that . You just cant accept it... Its ok , i was in your position. Most truthers were in your position. without you knowing the seed has been planted in your brain. trust me you will come around.



In its $315 million civil action, Con Edison’s insurer, Aegis Insurance, claims that the existence of the tanks below the 7 World Trade Center fueled the fire that destroyed an electrical substation and, ultimately, the building itself.



Wow! Do me a favor and let me know how much they win and what evidence is used to prove these tanks caused the collapse. Great Find, I can't wait to hear a court actually rule on the cause of collapse!



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


This proves nothing.

Unless you have something to add?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Oh Dave...

You have such a talent for deflecting in order to confound and confuse, where to begin?



Because his statement of a plane flying over conforms to what all the hundred OTHER eyewitnesses are saying that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, as well as the photographs, as well as the evidence from the wreckage, as well as the human remains, as well as the passenger effects, as well as the black box recovered, etc etc etc. Lloyd England's account didn't happen in a vaccuum segregated off from what was happening to everyone else in the area, regardless of how much the conspiracy people want to present it that way.

So you watched the video, and after hearing him completely disavow the photographic evidence showing the location of his taxi (yes the photographic evidence taken by Jason Ingersoll the Naval Photographer) you still find him credible?

He has stated that was not where the damage came from, and yet that is where he is photographed next to the cab, again, I cannot take his testimony as credible, either way for or against an inside job.



You're targetting him because of what happened to his cab, in that it was hit by a light pole that was knocked over by flight 77.

I'm not targeting him at all, you brought him into the debate, I was simply pointing out how you should not find his testimony as credible, since he has now gone both ways with the story.



He isn't the one who took that photo- Jason Ingersoll did

Of course, I know he didn't photograph himself with Stretch Armstrong arms, that's silly and was never implied.



I'm sure you've seen that famous photo of the light pole lying on top of the cab that corroborates his account.

Now which account are you referring to, you see I'm confused by that since he has given two completely different accounts, or did you not bother watching the video where he himself, not some "conspiracy mongor", completely reversed and disputed his own account, even in the face of photographic evidence.



If what he's saying is false and the photo of the cab damage is faked, then the photo you people are using to "prove" an airplane couldn't have hit the Pentagon is likewise suspect so your whole conspiracy accusation is worthless.


I have not said it was not a plane, there are numerous reports of it being a plane, but whether or not the plane was Flight 77 has not been satisfied.

I also do not underestimate the power of suggestion and popular opinion, it is highly possible that witnesses to something different than the official account, convinced themselves that they did indeed see that exact plane because that is what the news told them, so that must have been what it was because to think different would be crazy.

The simple flaw in the Pentagon account is that the official version has the flight path south of the gas station and credible witnesses (like Sgt Lagasse) actually place it north of the gas station, it changes the maneuver necessary, shows that there is staged damage to the lightpoles and conflicts with what we are told is the truth, it simply cannot be both.



If the photos of the Pentagon showing the damage is legitimate, then the photo of the cab damage is also legitimate and what he's saying is true.

So Dave, sticking to that logic, if the photos showing the taxi are NOT legitimate, then the photos of the Pentagon are also not legitimate and what THEY are saying is NOT true.



No, he's referring "people with all the money" to be whoever he himself is referring to. He's an greying haired African American struggling to make ends meet as a cab driver, so to his point of view the "people with all the money" also includes you.

You are entitled to your interpretation of the statement, I think he is clearly talking about the movers and shakers, since he does not seem to include the documentarians in the statement.




The only thing I can say with 100% undoubting certainty is that there are a number of legitimate explanations for why the towers fell that contradict the NIST report without requiring any idiotic schemes involving lasers from outer space



So let me guess- you're one of those "the WTC was destroyed by laser beams from outer space" people.

Dave, no one in this thread has offered that silliness up as an explanation for the collapses, you seem to be obsessed with using that lame reason as some sort of way to discredit anybody that does not fall in line and sign off on the official version.

If you don't believe what the Bush administration of demonstrated liars has told you to believe then you are just some crazy conspiracy theorist that must believe in space lasers, because Bush himself said we should not be tolerated, right?

Well guess what Dave, the guy is an unintelligent fear mongoring failure of a business man, that only had anything to show for himself because of his daddy and the House of Saud's financial backing, he was no hero when he served in the Texas National Guard, he only enlisted a couple of weeks before his number was called to go to Vietnam, and his Dad made the call to bump him to the top of the list that kept him from going, while people that he passed on the list did have to end up going and died.

So when he says the grass is green, well I for one will need to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt then, because I cannot believe nor trust a damn thing he says.

When he says a Conspiracy Theory should not be entertained, that translates to me, that a Conspiracy Theory does very much need to be entertained, because he wouldn't have said anything if it was not something that would implicate his own narcissistic elitist keister, and then throw in Cheney and Rummy saying the same sorts of things, well right there is trifecta of evil absolutely trying to shift attention away from something that they did or was very complicit in.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Let's clear up some things about Leslie Robertson, and in his own words closer to the time in 2002 speaking to The Guardian.

"I know more about the project and more than anyone ever will about the design. There's no one alive today who's even close to what's stored away in my head and I've got a memory like a sieve. It's true that, following the event, a lot of people - architects and engineers - stepped up to the interview platform and had their say and, by and large, most of them spoke much too quickly and without a lot of knowledge. There's a need to understand what should be said before saying things."

His words,(in part) on the towers abilty to withstand a crash from a jet,

"I guess I thought I was a sturdier person than I am," he says now. "The thing that keeps you awake at night is the people in the building. Pretty much every night." One thing that does not keep Robertson awake at nights is the thought that the 1,350ft-tall World Trade Centre should have been built to absorb the impact of a jet airliner: it was.

The team had in mind the B-25 bomber that hit the Empire State Building in the fog in 1945, killing 14 people. But that aircraft was nothing compared to the Boeing 707 that really concerned Robertson when he was working on the twin towers in the 1960s, and the 707, in turn, had nothing on the 767s that struck on September 11.

As you can see from the above, The Guardian has summarized in its own way firstly, that Robertson did not envisage something like a B25, but indeed a 707 in his estimations. However, The Guardian then goes with journalistic license in comparing a 707 to a B25 against a 767 which is clearly not the case, and there is no need to dwell on that.

There is other stuff, John Skilling was in partnership with Robertson at the building of the towers and was the project leader and chief structural engineer. Both he and Minoru Yamasaki were both dead before 9/11, but there is no way that Skilling could not have known about any analysis of the structure being hit by a modern jet, and he may actually have instigated the analysis. Reference him and you will find that he had also mentioned a 707 impact as part of their work.

Robertson was not finished with the towers after 9/11 either, since he in his company were commissioned to 'fill in the gaps' with what turns out to be changes made to the building when work was in progress, those changes had no documentation, or if they did it did not survive. The commission came from the investigative bodies such as NIST and FEMA and the rest. Part source,

www.guardian.co.uk...

edit on 29-6-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Molten metal under Trade Center rubble could NOT have come from jet fuel Posted: October 24, 2010 by Craig McKee in 9/11, 9/11 truth, conspiracy theories Tags: 9/11, 9/11 Commission, 9/11 truth, Building 7, conspiracies, Controlled demolition, explosives, firefighters, hijacked planes, Molten metal, official story, propaganda, thermite, World Trade Center 9 Rate This By Craig McKee

When they can’t explain it, they do the next best thing. They ignore it.

The U.S. government, the 9/11 Commission, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA and the mainstream media all do the same thing. When they can’t explain something that contradicts the official version of events on 9/11, they simply pretend the questions don’t exist.

Among the most crucial examples of this are the large pools of molten metal found under the rubble of the two twin towers of the World Trade Center and Building 7. The molten metal burned under the rubble for weeks, with the final fires not being extinguished until December of 2001, three months after the disaster. The official story can’t explain this; it doesn’t even try.

That’s because the molten metal points to a controlled demolition – explosive charges combined with a material that causes a chemical reaction creating extreme heat to cut through steel beams. Molten steel pours from the 81st floor. According to Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, who has questioned the science of the official story, the most likely material to have been used to melt through the beams is thermite. Thermite devices could have been wrapped around the steel girders diagonally to cut through them. They could have contributed, along with the explosives, to bringing the structure down.

When ignited, thermite can reach temperatures of 4,500F in less than two seconds. One of the by-products of the use of thermite is molten steel. Another is aluminum oxide, which shows itself as a fine white smoke. What did we have in the wake of the towers’ collapse?



Molten steel and fine white “smoke.” There was so much of this smoke that it could be seen from the International Space Station. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, stated in its report made it that most of the jet fuel from the planes would have burned up in the initial impact or in the first minutes after impact. So what was all that smoke coming from the towers and later the wreckage of the towers? Smoke poured out of the rubble for weeks as emergency workers attempted to extinguish the molten metal fires underneath. The melting point for steel is about 2,800F while the maximum temperature that jet fuel can burn at is about 1,800F.



Experts like Jones have pointed out that the black smoke coming from the towers indicates that the fire was oxygen starved and therefore was burning at a much lower temperature even than 1,800F. How do we know the molten metal didn’t come from some underground source? We know this because there are photographs that clearly show molten metal flowing from the 81st floor of the South Tower BEFORE collapse.

Some have tried to explain this by saying that it is molten aluminum from the planes. Aluminum may glow at a high enough temperature but it’s ridiculous to suggest that aluminum burned underground for three months. Molten metal was found under Building 7, which was not hit by a plane. Those of you who refuse to consider the “demolition” possibility might want to try and explain where this molten metal came from. By the way, the existence of these “hot spots” under all three buildings was confirmed by aerial thermal images taken by NASA in the first two weeks after 9/11. As for proving that the molten steel was actually there, photographs show it, and even then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani talked about it publicly. He talked about how the boots of emergency workers would melt after a few hours of clearing rubble.

Many other witnesses reported the presence of the molten pools under the building rubble. Leslie Robertson, one of the designers of the World Trade Center, reported molten metal running under the buildings 21 days after 9/11. Public health adviser Ron Burger likened the pools to a volcano.

Other workers say it looked like a foundry or that the metal “looked like lava.” Witnesses say they saw molten steel “dripping from beams and walls” in the basement of the towers. New York firefighters referred to “rivers of molten metal” under the rubble. SOMEONE NEEDS TO EXPLAIN THIS. The FEMA report also mentions sulphur residue on the steel beams of the towers after collapse.



This also supports the controlled demolition theory because sulphur is used to lower the melting point of the steel. Sulphur combined with thermite creates thermate. This dramatically speeds up the melting of the steel. If there’s a reasonable explanation for all of this, why haven’t we heard it? And if you’re wondering if the whole controlled demolition case might all rest on this, you can be assured it’s not. It’s just the beginning.


So many in denial, so little time.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I can't wait for the truth to come out. It won't be long now. People are learning for themselves. And all the believers of the official story are going to look so stupid. I can't believe how deluded people are to think that planes actually bring down buildings. It defies physics if any of you were smart you would see this for your own eyes. And yes building 7 was demolished.

Do you know how long it takes to rig a building that big to implode? Somewhere around 2 weeks to set up.
Now if you watch the top of building 7 before it implodes, you clearly see the core give way and the top of the building sags in. definite explosion.

I can not for the life of me understand why anyone would believe the official story when you can see it for your own eyes.

Dumb much? Brainwashed much? Influenced by MSM much?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 




Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.




CUZO, Lil homey, cuzzz, BROTHER MAN, lil homie, ‘home fries’



Gemini, not only is your ignorance on complete display, but you are in danger of sounding quite racist there.



I stopped the video when he started talking about lava being bought from a volcano to put in the world trade center. I actually threw up on my cat because it was sickening to even think that some grown adult would actually believe that a troll, let alone a resident of the USA WOULD COMMIT SUCH TREASONOUS ACTS AS TO PUT A FLAMING…TROLLING VIDEO THAT UNDERMINES THIS GREAT COUNTRY.

M'Kay, Drugs are bad.


I try my best to have patients with the mortals of this world, I even waiSted 14 min on a video and talked to a human that doesn’t even believe in god...and you start talking about Dracula, Frankenstein, and lions and tigers and bears….‘OH MY’


Speaking of patients, I was not aware that they allow internet access in mental institutions.

You actually offer NOTHING to the topic, you simply throw out pseudo religious, pro neo-con, I'm immortal yet the last realist psycho babble and believe that actually proves your point of view.

Do you happen to have some shred of evidence or fact that disputes that in this reality there is no way that the impossible is possible?



And since you love the beloved Bush so much, here's some little factoids for ya.


Google Video Link



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
I can't wait for the truth to come out. It won't be long now. People are learning for themselves. And all the believers of the official story are going to look so stupid. I can't believe how deluded people are to think that planes actually bring down buildings. It defies physics if any of you were smart you would see this for your own eyes. And yes building 7 was demolished.

Do you know how long it takes to rig a building that big to implode? Somewhere around 2 weeks to set up.
Now if you watch the top of building 7 before it implodes, you clearly see the core give way and the top of the building sags in. definite explosion.

I can not for the life of me understand why anyone would believe the official story when you can see it for your own eyes.

Dumb much? Brainwashed much? Influenced by MSM much?



I just saw another thread, and I have to tell you all the OP of:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

seems to have a unique perspective. This guy is a genius, I don't want to hijack this thread but I have to tell you his logic is sound.

real quick the idea is: 911 happens....> truth'rs grow over time....> economic collapse or other breakdown....> truth regarding false flag is exposed...> momentum built for NWO due to evil elements within our government.....> order established.





Interesting stuff and a little scary.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CodexSinaiticus
 


True but could it be just a contingency plan put forth when the realization they couldn't cover it up actually hit home?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Let's face it, you're not targetting him because of what he's saying, how he's saying it, or whether the guy has body odor. You're targetting him because of what happened to his cab, in that it was hit by a light pole that was knocked over by flight 77. I'm sure you've seen that famous photo of the light pole lying on top of the cab that corroborates his account. He isn't the one who took that photo- Jason Ingersoll did, and he's the same photographer who took the photos throughout the day including the very ones showing the damage to the Pentagon wall that the conspiracy mongers refer to, to claim an airplane couldn't create that kind of damage.

GoodOlDave, please provide a link to the Ingersoll photo that shows the light pole lying on top of the cab.

I haven't seen it.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Let's face it, you're not targetting him because of what he's saying, how he's saying it, or whether the guy has body odor. You're targetting him because of what happened to his cab, in that it was hit by a light pole that was knocked over by flight 77. I'm sure you've seen that famous photo of the light pole lying on top of the cab that corroborates his account. He isn't the one who took that photo- Jason Ingersoll did, and he's the same photographer who took the photos throughout the day including the very ones showing the damage to the Pentagon wall that the conspiracy mongers refer to, to claim an airplane couldn't create that kind of damage.

GoodOlDave, please provide a link to the Ingersoll photo that shows the light pole lying on top of the cab.

I haven't seen it.

Thanks.





posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I haven't seen one either. Making it very questionable how this old man and one other dude pulled it out and WHY. I am truly interested in a photo that shows the pole in the car.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CodexSinaiticus

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Let's face it, you're not targetting him because of what he's saying, how he's saying it, or whether the guy has body odor. You're targetting him because of what happened to his cab, in that it was hit by a light pole that was knocked over by flight 77. I'm sure you've seen that famous photo of the light pole lying on top of the cab that corroborates his account. He isn't the one who took that photo- Jason Ingersoll did, and he's the same photographer who took the photos throughout the day including the very ones showing the damage to the Pentagon wall that the conspiracy mongers refer to, to claim an airplane couldn't create that kind of damage.

GoodOlDave, please provide a link to the Ingersoll photo that shows the light pole lying on top of the cab.

I haven't seen it.

Thanks.



This lightpole is not lying on the cab. It is clearly lying beside the cab.

GoodOlDave claimd that there was a picture showing the light pole on the cab.

GoodOlDave, when you login and check this thread, please provide the link to the Ingersoll picture that shows the light pole lying on the cab.

Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
274
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join