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.

 

A question for believers or 'OSers'....

page: 16
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


I am not reviewing the video I am telling you that there has to be some type of evidence left. If not, everyone would use it and there would be no evidence for any crime. Your statement as well as Mr Sullivans makes no sense.
If you're not going to look at the evidence that disproves your belief, we're done discussing this topic because you've been proved wrong but maintain your false belief.

You can have the last word on this topic because I know your ego won't allow you to admit that you are wrong.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


You proved nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Goose Egg. NO EVIDENCE is given and you will never have it because there were NO explosives. No RDX..Semtex...nano-thermite or space lasers. YOu are peddling the same garbage as the OP in stating that you do not have to have evidence to claim something as fact.

Maybe you should check this out for clues...www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'll take a royale with cheese though...

edit on 16-8-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
What the OP has learned throughout the thread:

Defenders of the official story seem to so quickly resort to personal insults and condescending attitudes. It makes the debate such an unpleasant experience I probably won't be posting about 9/11 again. The members who have contributed their honest thoughts and opinions in a mature and rational way should receive an applause. Also the members who have been consistently pointing out flaws in the OS and yet have chosen to keep their cool and debate respectfully while attempting to present their evidence should also be applauded. I have also learned that many of the things I thought to be givens in this case are not so and that there is also a lot of anti government propaganda about, this I have learned too.

Too sum up my thoughts on this thread/debate I will have to say that I am very disappointed with the hostile responses from many defenders of the OS. If you cannot debate the topic without snarling at people and trying your best to completely undermine them then you shouldn't be debating it. You should write a book on how the OS is 100 per cent correct and leave the investigation up to people who aren't so quick to come to conclusions and to openly attack other people for their questions and queries.

So to all that have contributed, thank you. Even though many members have taken sides and turned this into a slugging match of epic proportions I have still learned a lot in regards to what has happened and what questions still truly stand.

Thanks again, and in the future guys, learn to admit that sometimes we make mistakes..........



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



What is your point? First your stance was there would be evidence of wires, now you go to saying a detonation method that wouldn't require wires (which you were previously unaware of) wouldn't be used because somebody sending a text message or changing the channel might detonate it?


Forgetting that roof was festooned with all manner of antenna for cell phones, paging, wireless communication
and the big kahuna - the massive radio/TV antenna on North tower used by most of the radio and TV
stations in NYC.

Go to the site today- find signs all over the place warning to shut off radio because of blasting

Geez - had to do job at Pharmacuetical plant, had to shut off cell phones inside production areas because
of explosion threat, yet say wireless detonaters at WTC.

So why no traces, no wires, blasting caps, delay tubes, blasting mats, copper smears on columns from cutting
charges,

Nada, Zip, Zilch, Zero - only in delusions of conspiracy loons........



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_slide
What the OP has learned throughout the thread:

Too sum up my thoughts on this thread/debate I will have to say that I am very disappointed with the hostile responses from many defenders of the OS. If you cannot debate the topic without snarling at people and trying your best to completely undermine them then you shouldn't be debating it. You should write a book on how the OS is 100 per cent correct and leave the investigation up to people who aren't so quick to come to conclusions and to openly attack other people for their questions and queries.



To make discussing 911 "unpleasant" and therefore to stiffle debate might be the desired effect of those who adopt such an attitude. The best advice I can give you is to lean back and think, was his or her post a contribution or merely a rant that says nothing. If it is the latter I would ignore it and respond to posts who are a contribution to the topic at hand.

In an controlled enviroment such as an online forum it is easily done. It aint like you are in a room full of people yelling.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 
Thanks Cass, well said. There are those whose sole purpose is to confuse and obfuscate, who have no desire to pursue the truth about the events of 9/11. And then, there are people like me. I'm like a bad rash, that just won't go away. I have no expertise in explosives, but I know what an explosion looks like. What bothers me the most about the topic of 9/11 are the debunkers. It is so obvious that they are phony, and they continually harangue anyone who questions them. I have no respect for them, their snide and defamatory remarks and wish them all an untimely demise. It's one thing to feel passionately about something, but to blindly pledge allegiance to an obviously flawed premise is criminal. There can be no punishment too great for these fools.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by dilly1
 


Construction or Controlled Demolitions? Get it right dilly..It does not take a degree in mechanical engineering nor structural engineering to see that the towers collapsed without explosives. Why is this so hard. You are also correct in stating Two 116 ton jets carrying 23k gallons each cannot pulverize 1,200,000tons(included WTC7 which it did not hit so not sure why this is included) of mild steel and concrete. I am not sure who says this happened. Events led to the eventual collapse which included two planes striking the buildings, igniting fires that weakened the structure and then collapsed.

As far as blasting caps, I watched the video. I am not reviewing the video I am telling you that there has to be some type of evidence left. I do not think I said blasting caps either. You see, If not, everyone would use it and there would be no evidence for any crime. Your statement as well as Mr Sullivans makes no sense. Car bombs would be a dime a dozen if it cannot be traced with your secret technology.




Sorry "halo guy" but your ignorantly wrong(love the halo game though). Anyone with the desire to learn construction can acquire it thru hands-on training or a degree in engineering to clearly understand how a high-rise is built and how it can be pulverized/collapsed/disintegrate (however you want to call it) in one day.


So it isn't choosing construction or demolition , its understanding physics, its understand structures. Whether one decides to study construction,design or engineering you are required(one of the first requirements) to take a class called structures(I and II) . Once you take it the first thing you learn are the dynamics in gravity and matter. Since gravity is a pretty strait forward force ,high-rises have to be designed into being one complete unit(many ways of doing that depending on the budget of course) . The most obvious perception involving matter is ,If one object is smaller than the other, it cannot trump the larger mass.

The 911 floor by floor theory is a fabricated lie. Nothing more. People like you don't know construction so you would believe a theory as such. The mass above the impacted section cannot trump the "floor" below because the floor below is not supported by itself. The building is one entire unit for the simple fact a domino effect doesn't ever happen(this is a fundamental rule in structures)... Key phrase "one unit"... The concrete slabs are only 4k to 5kpsi with post tension cables. Could the slab/floor below the impacted section fail do to the beams above the fire holding the remaining floors to suddenly fail ?. Yes it is possible, the slab could fail, but that's why we use columns, and WTC had hundred and hundreds of 5 inch thick steel columns(welded together,, as one unit). And(again) if you learn construction you will see steel columns(same concept with concrete sheer walls) are welded together(obviously concrete sheer walls are not welded together) as one vertical unit. If the floor by floor theory was true then we would have seen the floors collapsing down while every vertical structural component is still standing upright.
The theory is bunk.



You clearly must not have any common sense, or maybe you do and your being paid to deflect and derail the opposing argument. I don't know..... But there is only one way to dismantle all that WTC steel within one day,,, and its not gravity or mass(cause I already debunked those too factors in the paragraph above). It can only be done by controlled demolition. I don't know and I don't care if it was explosives or thermate or both. What I do know for a fact is it was done by men who are experts in construction and demolition. The mushroom affect we all saw that day was not the slabs being pulverized by the mass above pushing down floor by floor. The mushroom affect was concrete being blown up by something artificially made by man. What you don't care to learn is there is no set in stone way in demolishing a structure. Its actually an art. Blowing # up is actually fun. And one can make the structure fall in any way or angle, its truly amazing.


You firmly believe that fire damaged the integrity of the structure ,but fire can't damage the integrity of the structure because the integrity of a structure is located in the lower half not the very top floors . Every building(this is common sense) is stronger and heavier in the lower half vs the upper half. The concrete psi is higher , the rebar is thicker , the steel is slightly thicker(or more support columns implemented),, all in the lower half of the building. The higher you go the lighter the building gets, lower the building the stronger and heavier it gets.


**Anyone disputing this is being biased and lying . Any diagrams or charts are pointless cause of there questionable authenticity. The actual blue prints now will never be accepted do to the possibility of manipulation for ones agenda. **

That's why you debunkers or people uneducated in construction, must learn how structures are built and how they are demolished. If you really , suggest you start reading


The last part of your post sounds more like ranting with no substance. I really don't know if any evidence of caps or charges were found or visible to recognize . But I do know , and you don't obviously, is people contracted by government(local,state or Fed) do not question or risk there platform from getting eliminated. And once you cross the government your done for life... And this is at any level(gov.employee or a contracted architect doesn't matter who). Of course one could make a living in the private sector but if you know any architect ,engineer or GC that is extremely well off with only private work then take a picture,,,not too many of them exist. Government work is vital for architects,engineers......and most of these professionals work in firms.. Huge firms. You think the CEO would appreciate one of his guys yapping away on the use of thermate with 911?


Bottom line your blindly believing your Government with out checking for yourself what is what. Your obviously interested cause your posting in ATS, so take the time to learn. I don't know were you live and don't care but try to observe any high-rise being built(which I doubt that's happening anywhere now with the building bubble bursting years ago).



So I'll say it again for the billionth time.

Its is impossible for two 116ton jets carrying 23k gallons of fuel CAN collapse three massive structures weighing 1,200,000tons(combined) of concrete and steel. All collapsing in one day. Its all a lie.




edit on 16-8-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

edit on Fri Aug 19 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: tag added



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Forgetting that roof was festooned with all manner of antenna for cell phones, paging, wireless communication
and the big kahuna - the massive radio/TV antenna on North tower used by most of the radio and TV
stations in NYC.

Go to the site today- find signs all over the place warning to shut off radio because of blasting
Let's see where we stand. It is a fact that the technology to wirelessly detonate explosives exists, but it is speculation that radio sources nearby could disrupt the communication.




Geez - had to do job at Pharmacuetical plant, had to shut off cell phones inside production areas because
of explosion threat, yet say wireless detonaters at WTC.
There's no guarantee that these radio sources would detonate the explosives, there is only a small chance at best.


So why no traces, no wires, blasting caps, delay tubes, blasting mats, copper smears on columns from cutting
charges,
This is why:

Well you wouldn't have found steel casings to be left in the rubble, they haven't been used for years. What we use now is RDX copper jacketed shape charges, and when they're initiated there is nothing left of those charges
I assume when Tom Sullivan says "nothing", that he means "nothing". Because if there were traces of evidence left after detonation, there wouldn't be "nothing" left, there would be "something" left, and he probably would have made that clear, don't you agree?


Nada, Zip, Zilch, Zero - only in delusions of conspiracy loons........
That's not very nice.
edit on 17-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


So many questions!

I believe that four planes crashed on 9/11/01 - two into each WTC tower, one in Shanksville, PA and one into the Pentagon. What I question is who knew what and when they knew it.

As for Mohamed Atta and his supposed actions - that's a poor example. Yes, I absolutely believe that he could have acted the way he is alleged to have - he knew he was facing certain death - why not live it up before he goes to meet his 72 whores? How many Christians do you know who sin every day? How many stories of priests, pastors, reverends, etc have we heard who are pedophiles? Using religion as a basis for defense that Atta could not have acted in that manner is very weak.

The hole in the Pentagon - I didn't measure the hole and I don't know what the measurements of a 757 are - i can't respond to that. As for the manuvering of a plane - I have two friends who are pilots and they say manuvering really isn't that hard and yes, I tend to believe them.

People mention the lack of debris in Shanksville - again, I don't know how fast the plan was traveling, but look at the little amount of debris that was found at the WTC and Pentagon - with my little knowledge of physics - it doesn't take much for me to believe that something traveling at a high spped crashing into something that is stationary will result in one object being almost obliterated.

As for the Pentagon's missle defense system - as far as I know, it does not monitor "objects" on the FAA's radar system. It's designed to pick out "missiles" (thus the name, "missile defense system"), not air planes. There would be a s*it storm if the military shot down a commercial air liner.

Building 7 - I have been to NYC numerous times and I am always amazed that ANY of the buildings in NYC are standing - the footers compared to the height of the buildings - it's mind boggling. I've dealt with construction and know how important footers are to a building. I am amazed that with the 1993 bombing, there wasn't a partial collapse of the tower. I don't think the building collapsed solely from debris falling on it, but I do think that when the towers fell, it compromised WTC7 - 110 stories of two buildings falling - it's like two earthquakes back to back - so I think it's very plausible that WTC7 sustained structural damage as a result and collapsed.

Explosions - I have read witness accounts that after the planes hit, fireballs traveled through the elevator shafts and caused explosions as a result - that makes sense. I've also seen videos of jumpers that day and the sound they made when hitting the ground was horrendous - i could easily see how people could confuse that with explosions. I've never seen videos that show "flashes" as the towers fall - I have seen puffs of smoke, debris, etc that are blowing out of windows which physicists have explained as the pressure from the above floors blowing out beneath.

I believe that almost 3,000 people died that day and no, I don't believe they or their families were willing participants, expecting some big payout. It's estimated that each of the victims families received about $3million - there is no one in my life I'd give up for a paltry $3M.

I do believe that people in government - i.e. president, CIA, FBI, sec. of defense, etc. knew an attack was imminent and they had some general info but maybe didn't know all of the ins and outs. I think Bush used the attacks as a front to go after Sadam - there was no proof he was involved. There was no reason to attack Iraq - we wasted time and money there when we could have gone after Bin Laden and captured him much sooner.

I've read extensively on various theories and nothing I've seen/read/heard has convinced me otherwise. The "no planes" theory - I watched a plane fly into the second tower on live tv that morning. Nothing will convince me that it was a missile or that the other three planes were actually missiles. I've read that not a single person died on that day - I don't believe you could pay off 3,000 people to just disappear. I've heard that the Jews were responsible - really? Haven't we gotten beyond that? How about the white supremicist did it? That would be more likely.

I've been to Ground Zero on several occasions and each time, I am overwhelmed by inexplicable greif and sadness. I did not know anyone who died that day, but my heart and soul feels as if I did.

Have you seen the beheadings of Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg or countless others who have died at the hands of Al-Qaeda? As sick as it is, I have. I have no doubt that they and extremist Muslims hate me and every other American infidel to our core and it's not hard for me to imagine at all that they could conjure up such evil and hatred as to fly planes into buildings, killing 3,000 innocent, unarmed people.

These "theories" are just that - theories with no real proof. Show me substantial proof to believe otherwise. I am an open minded person but I do need something to back it up.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


You cannot control the individual actions of the normal employees at WTC.
One may decide to bring in a high power transmitter. Such as a HAM operator. With that altitude you can get some really good DX contacts.

There could easily be an electrical failure anywhere in the building, causing an arc. This would create a high power broadband RF signal.

Either of these has the potential to set off one or more charges. Not to mention the active TV antenna next door. How would TPTB explain a one or two going off weeks before the main show?

Many of us have driven down the road and seen the blasting signs warning us to turn of two way radios. They are not kidding. And they don’t even use radio det.

Could you even find a nut to install charge after charge knowing that the odds of an erroneous detonation goes up as time goes on?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by rswalla
 


"Dealt with construction"????

You have no such knowledge of construction. If you did you wouldn't have typed that crap . You don't know, so you choose the easy way by believing crap fed to you. Your beyond out touch with reality.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


Please review your 9/11 history. If you were a real "truther" - you would know that that particular part of the Pentagon was undergoing renovations and just so happened to be the least populated area of the building.

Go to www.vaed.uscourts.gov... - it's the actual evidence list from Moussaoui's trial - there are actual photos of bodies from the Pentagon.

Were you actually there in the aftermath? How do you know that there weren't body parts spread all over? I've only seen a handful of pics from the towers and the Pentagon that show bodies/body parts. It's not because they weren't there - it's because most decent human beings who aren't associated with law enforcement or emergency services don't go around taking pictures of desecrated remains and posting them all over the internet for the world to see.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


Show me the math/diagrams that it was missile.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Apparently, you know nothing about concrete. It's a #ty product that can crumble under minimal amounts of pressure.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


So which is it, demo, construction or physics? Pick one and stay on target. To understand 9/11, one does not need to be an expert in demolitions, Structural engineering (lets call it that instead of construction) or a valedictorian at Purdue.

I have experience in structural engineering from school and also during a job I had with fabrication. I am no expert but I do know a bs artist and understand not only the concepts but the application.

As far as demolitions, I am no expert, however, I do know how to blow things up and what is involved. In order to demo the WTC, it would be an undertaking that could not be hidden. You could do it, but it would be at least 6 months to a year of empty office space and unhindered access. Any CDI expert who tells you it could be done faster is friends with Mr Sullivan.

As far as physics, they were not suspended on 9/11. They worked. All of Newtons Laws as well as some theory that I have never seen in these forums and if it is, someone starts yelling that 2 planes cannot crush two buildings. That is poor physics. Tell me what happens to the 'mass' that is created when the upper floors absorb the lower floors as they are collapsing. You have to recalculate at each impact with each floor because the mass changes.There is also the velocity change between floors with the greater mass. Mass not only from the building materials but the commercial contents.

I will ask again, where is the evidence of a CDI on 9/11. You state in your post




You clearly must not have any common sense, or maybe you do and your being paid to deflect and derail the opposing argument. I don't know..... But there is only one way to dismantle all that WTC steel within one day,,, and its not gravity or mass(cause I already debunked those too factors in the paragraph above). It can only be done by controlled demolition. I don't know and I don't care if it was explosives or thermate or both. What I do know for a fact is it was done by men who are experts in construction and demolition. The mushroom affect we all saw that day was not the slabs being pulverized by the mass above pushing down floor by floor. The mushroom affect was concrete being blown up by something artificially made by man. What you don't care to learn is there is no set in stone way in demolishing a structure. Its actually an art. Blowing # up is actually fun. And one can make the structure fall in any way or angle, its truly amazing.


The only way is controlled demolition. You also try to push away the increase in mass by stating that the mushroom puffs are from explosions but would it really matter? You statement makes no sense. You see, with a demolition you rely on those things you say were not used, such as ,gravity, mass and velocity to make sure that when you cut the correct columns to 'place' the rubble where you want it that is where it goes. For some reason you feel that once something starts to fall it can never increase in mass. That is theoretically impossible.

Also, I was born across the bridge from the towers and visited them on many occasions as well as right after they opened. I remember when it was open air and before they installed new barriers. I think many of you have no concept of them nor those who worked there with that other side conversation regarding the RF signals. Many organizations, including financial, will also block those frequencies from the outside and protect sensitive data so what would you do at that point. There are to many variables there. How many of you have ever visited NY let alone have lived there. Maybe that is where part of my passion comes from because everytime I go home it is hard to cross the bridge and not see them downtown.


edit on 17-8-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 



You cannot control the individual actions of the normal employees at WTC.
One may decide to bring in a high power transmitter. Such as a HAM operator. With that altitude you can get some really good DX contacts.

There could easily be an electrical failure anywhere in the building, causing an arc. This would create a high power broadband RF signal.

Either of these has the potential to set off one or more charges. Not to mention the active TV antenna next door. How would TPTB explain a one or two going off weeks before the main show?
Key phrase: "has the potential". OK, there might be a slim chance that this could happen, but it didn't happen!

I'm saying that there could have been radio controlled explosives in the building in order to avoid using wires. Suggesting that an event that has a small chance of actually occuring isn't enough to debunk that theory. That is a risk, not a fact. The fact on the other hand is that the technology to detonate explosive charges wirelessly exists.

While the reliability in conditions like the towers is something to consider, I'm sure those who planned the event definitely would think something like that through much more than me or you on this forum and decide what is best to use, don't you agree?


Many of us have driven down the road and seen the blasting signs warning us to turn of two way radios. They are not kidding. And they don’t even use radio det.
I'm always warned by the stewardresses to turn off my cellphone, and they aren't kidding either, but the airplane never plummets to the ground when I keep it on.


Could you even find a nut to install charge after charge knowing that the odds of an erroneous detonation goes up as time goes on?
Dude in a goverment false-flag attack, I doubt they're just going to whip out the white pages and call up a demolition crew to wire the World Trade Centers. The complexity of this thing would be much more than a demo. team walking in the front door and setting up explosives in plain sight of all of the workers.
edit on 17-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


"If you did you wouldn't have typed that crap."

Be more specific please instead of attacking me.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Tell me what happens to the 'mass' that is created when the upper floors absorb the lower floors as they are collapsing. You have to recalculate at each impact with each floor because the mass changes.There is also the velocity change between floors with the greater mass. Mass not only from the building materials but the commercial contents.


No 'mass' is created. The mass is the same as before it started collapsing. Each level must be able to hold the mass of the level above.

Here is the problem once again with your hypothesis. Equal opposite reaction law is what you keep ignoring, so no you have not addressed Newtons laws of motion. The forces on two colliding objects is the same, equal opposite reaction. So when the floors collided both impacting floors would be crushed, (they must have been crushed during the collapse, as there are not enough floors left in the footprint). So if both floors are being crush you have only 15 floors falling, 15 floors will all be crushed before 95 floors are crushed. So if there is no longer any mass left to crush the collapse will stop.


For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Floors did not simply lose their connections and drop, if they did the collapse would have arrested as there is not enough energy in 15 floors to crush 95 floors. Even if all the connections failed as you claim there would still be a pile of floors in the footprint as there is simply not enough energy available for a complete collapse.

Check your understanding esdad...


1. While driving down the road, a firefly strikes the windshield of a bus and makes a quite obvious mess in front of the face of the driver. This is a clear case of Newton's third law of motion. The firefly hit the bus and the bus hits the firefly. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the firefly or the force on the bus?

www.physicsclassroom.com...

When you understand that law, then please use it in your future claims, and explain how 15 floors can stay intact while crushing 95 floors? Thank you.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rswalla
Building 7 - I have been to NYC numerous times and I am always amazed that ANY of the buildings in NYC are standing - the footers compared to the height of the buildings - it's mind boggling. I've dealt with construction and know how important footers are to a building.


Do you understand that there is a difference between a building collapsing, and a building completely symmetrically collapsing into its own footprint?

If you do then explain how all four outer walls of a building can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building? Do you know enough to realise that can not happen from a natural collapse?

Evidence...








edit on 8/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


"If you do then explain how all four outer walls of a building can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building? Do you know enough to realise that can not happen from a natural collapse? "

No, I have not studied "building collapses" to know whether there is a difference between what the rubble looks like after a demolition and after a "natural" collapse as you call it.

One picture is not "evidence," as we well know from the events of 9/11.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join