9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

Status
Not open for further replies.
911 myths.com...your great source of truth. You really like them - what's the deal? I think you might have a dose of skeptopathy - a psychological disorder denying ability to see past anything official. Your idea of debunking something is simply to reinforce it in your own mind regardless the truth. There is no way to really apply the scientific method to this, the empiric; it's only by Reason, inductive or deductive, we can assemble the facts, create axioms, discern (hopefully, at least an approximation if not the entire detail) truth. Please show me by this method, how you come to your erroneous conclusion. Wouldn't you like to understand where your reasoning went wrong?

I refer to this
 
I'm sure, if I could be bothered to read it, I'd find plenty wrong. Almost all your sources are unreliable, why should I bother? Why don't you answer some of those questions rather than spamming crappy links?

I read your links. But you don't read mine because they are unreliable. Hmm, don't you think that means you are missing out on half the conversation?

Let's focus on the Surface to Air Missiles at the Pentagon. Do you think that's important?
 
I read your links. But you don't read mine because they are unreliable. Hmm, don't you think that means you are missing out on half the conversation?

Let's focus on the Surface to Air Missiles at the Pentagon. Do you think that's important?

As you well know, I've read your links and looked at your video evidence and it only reinforces what I've said. It is clear that a great crime was perpetrated. It is equally clear that a full and proper investigation did not take place. You know, like any good policeman....who had the means, who had the motive, who had the most to gain....? Those sort of questions get results for a critical thinker. The scene was a crime scene and it was never subjected to the forensic rules of such an investigation. It was immediately flagged as an act of war and you accept that assertion from the outset and you continue to, for psychological (or possibly political) reasons. The fact that war commenced in Afghanistan just two weeks later doesn't ring any alarm bells for you; it was already arranged, all they needed was a pretext. 9/11 was that pretext, it was later admitted to be irrelevant. Iraq followed - another bloodbath, another illegal war of aggression. In itself a 'war crime'. 9/11 used again as pretext together with 'weapons of mass destruction', two lies. How much evidence do you need for criminality before you agree to a full and proper investigation? Building 7 wtc wasn't even mentioned in the Commission report - so how can you say that it's a reasonable account of what happened?
 
So what then, are you are retracting your statements about the SAMs? Don't you want to discuss them? Why did you bring them up?

Look, I know you are convinced that it was an inside job - but don't you still have a responsibility to argue in an honest manner? Actually back up your points rather than scatter-bomb and run?

You brought up SAMs, I linked to a page that explains why that's a non-issue. You ignored it. Do you want to discuss it or not?
 
Scatter bomb? Run? What?!

So what then, are you are retracting your statements about the SAMs? Don't you want to discuss them? Why did you bring them up?

Look, I know you are convinced that it was an inside job - but don't you still have a responsibility to argue in an honest manner? Actually back up your points rather than scatter-bomb and run?

You brought up SAMs, I linked to a page that explains why that's a non-issue. You ignored it. Do you want to discuss it or not?

No, I'm not interested in 911 myths.com. Sorry.

You 'know' I am convinced it was an inside job? Do you? How do you know?

You presume to lecture me on responsibility in honest discussion?
 
And if you want my opinion on the broader picture, I'm pretty much in line with Matt Taibbi:
“They hate our freedoms” was possibly the dumbest, most insulting piece of bullshit ever to escape the lips of an American president. As an explanation for the appalling tragedy of 9/11, which was the culmination of decades of escalating tension between the Arab world and the West, it was insufficient even as a calculated effort to snow an uneducated public—it was too stupid even to hold up as that. And yet when he said it, Bush was not savaged by the mainstream media for blowing off the biggest security question of our time. The Washington press corps did not line up to pelt him with mushy pineapples for insulting their intelligence. Instead, he was cheered as a hero by members of both parties and virtually all the country’s commercial media, which engaged in a kind of frantic race to see who could more enthusiastically compare Bush’s speechmaking to that of Winston Churchill. Worse still, the mainstream media followed Bush’s lead by coming up with its own, more verbose, versions of Bush’s analysis.

“THEY HATE OUR FREEDOMS” was only one of a number of preposterous lies mainstream society was expected to embrace after 9/11. The Iraq invasion and the reasons for it were only the most obvious. By 2003 or 2004 any American with even half a brain could only assess the performance of his government via a careful weighing of its various lies and contradictions. An educated person understood that the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) business was a canard and that there had to be some other reason for the invasion of Iraq; indeed, even in the weeks before the war began, commentators across the country were already judging (and in some cases supporting) the war plan based entirely on what they guessed the real reasons for the invasion were. A classic example was Tom Friedman of the New York Times, who even as he boosted the war never took the WMD business seriously, imagining instead

that Iraq had always been a kind of geopolitical Hail Mary, designed to transform the region. But President Bush was a man on a mission. He had been convinced by a tiny group of advisers that throwing “the long bomb”—attempting to transform the most dangerous Arab state—is a geopolitical game-changer. It is not a good sign when even your supporters don’t even bother to take your cover story seriously. And yet that was the position the Bush administration was in by 2003–4. No one except his most dug-in Republican loyalists took anything his people said or did at face value. When the administration submitted its “Clear Skies” plan to Congress, who among us didn’t automatically know that it was a giveaway to polluters? Or that “Healthy Forests” was somehow going to result in more trees being cut down? America by the early years of this century was a confusing kaleidoscope of transparent, invidious bullshit, a place where politicians hired consultants to teach them to “straight talk,” where debates were decided by inadvertent coughs and smiles and elections were resolved via competing smear campaigns, and where network news programs—subsidized by advertisements for bogus alchemist potions like Enzyte that supposedly made your dick grow by magic—could feature as a lead story newly released photos of the Tom Cruise love child, at a time when young American men and women were dying every day in the deserts of the Middle East.


Taibbi, Matt (2008). The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire (pp. 188-189). Spiegel & Grau. Kindle Edition.
 
No, I'm not interested in 911 myths.com. Sorry.

So you are not interested in detailed and well-sourced refutations of your theories?

There were no automated SAMs at the Pentagon. Because it's next to an airport, and planes fly over the Pentagon all the time.
 
Here's another amusing excerpt, Cheny and his inner circle are discussing how to arrange for a pretext to invade Iraq:

April 1999, World Trade Center building 7, New York, NY. A secret meeting of the Project for the New American Century. In attendance are Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Irv Kristol, and…others. Cheney, standing at the head of the table and glaring downward, addresses the group:


[after some initial banter]

CHENEY: Absolutely. No, I think the way to go is to cook up some kind of justification. Something that will really get the public behind the invasion.

FEITH: I know! We go to the UN, show bogus photos of Saddam’s secret store of chemical and biological weapons, evidence of his nuclear weapons program. Tell the world he’s planning to attack.

CHENEY: No. Not emotional enough. I mean something really hot.

KRISTOL: It could be a human-rights thing. Some emergency, like he’s gassing Kurds again or something. That worked for Clinton in Kosovo. I mean, who gave a shit about Albanians, right? I wouldn’t know an Albanian if I caught one in bed with my wife. But that whole rape-camp thing was good enough by a mile to start that war.

CHENEY: No, no, that’s not vivid enough, not Band of Brothers enough. We need the people all lathered up, their mouths full of spittle, howling for blood, like pit bulls. You guys need to think to scale, think big, think like Michael Bay.

FEITH: Michael Bay, Jesus. Okay, okay, what then?

CHENEY: We attack the World Trade Center.

KRISTOL: Perfect! And blame it on Saddam!

CHENEY: No, we bomb the World Trade Center and blame it on Osama bin Laden.

FEITH: Oh. How?

CHENEY: Easy. First, we cultivate nineteen suicidal Muslim patsies from a variety of Middle Eastern countries, I’d say mostly from Saudi Arabia. We bring them to the U.S., train them at U.S. flight schools. They should be high-profile terrorist suspects who are magically given free rein by the security agencies to travel back and forth to various terrorist training camps to study passenger jet piloting. Actually, that process is already under way now. Our friends in the Clinton administration are seeing to it that four groups of Arab men are being brought along by the FBI and the CIA.

WOLFOWITZ: How is it that the Clinton administration is already helping us with this, when we haven’t even planned this yet?

CHENEY: They just are. Okay?

WOLFOWITZ: Okay, fine. And what do we do with these hijackers?

CHENEY: We sit idly by while they plot to hijack a series of passenger jet planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House.

WOLFOWITZ: And how do we get them to do that?

CHENEY: We just do. You see, we worked with these people back in the old mujahideen days in Afghanistan. So naturally we’re still thick as thieves with them.

FEITH: Oh, of course. So we get them to fly into these buildings. And the impact from the planes will bring down the World Trade Center.

CHENEY: No, Doug, dammit, you’re not following me. The impact from the planes most certainly won’t be sufficient to knock down the towers. We know this because we’ve privately conducted studies that show that the towers will easily be able to withstand impact by two jets loaded to the gills with jet fuel. That said, the jets will likely cause skyscraper fires hot enough to kill everyone above the point of impact; we’re going to have to assume, of course, that the exits from the higher floors to the lower floors will be mostly blocked after the collisions. So assuming we crash the planes about two-thirds of the way up each of the towers early on a business day, we’re looking at trapping and killing a good three, four, maybe even five thousand people on the upper floors.

FEITH: Fantastic. I love killing people in the finance industry. It’s too bad the people on the lower floors will get to escape.

CHENEY: It is too bad—especially since we’re going to blow up the rest of the building complex anyway.

FEITH: We are?

CHENEY: Yes. You see, the way I see it, our best course of action is to first crash planes into each of the towers, trapping and killing those thousands on the upper floors of each building. After the impact, of course, the people on the lower floors will find their way out of the building and onto the street, where they will achieve relative safety—at which point we’ll finally detonate the massive network of explosive charges we’ve secretly hidden in the buildings in the weeks and months prior to the attacks.

FEITH: Wait, why did we do that again?

CHENEY: Because the buildings wouldn’t have fallen down unless we did.

WOLFOWITZ: But why do we need the buildings to fall down?

CHENEY: Because the events of the day will be insufficiently horrifying and impactful without the building collapses.

FEITH: So why don’t we detonate the charges earlier, so that we can kill the people on the lower floors, too?

CHENEY: That’s a good question. At some point we have to sacrifice effect for believability. You see, if the planes crash into the buildings and the buildings collapse immediately, everyone will be suspicious and they’ll be onto the presence of the explosives. So what we have to do is let the planes crash into the building, give the jet fuel time to start fires that will “soften” the building core, and then we detonate the charges. Afterward, we’ll be able to argue that the fires coupled with the impact actually caused the buildings to collapse.

FEITH: Why will we be able to argue that? Didn’t our studies show that impact and fire alone wouldn’t have caused the buildings to collapse?

CHENEY: Those were our secret, far-more-advanced studies, done with secret, far-more-advanced military technology. The vast majority of the world’s civilian structural engineers, however, can be counted on after the incident to conclude that the buildings collapsed due to a combination of fire, impact, and the knocking off of fireproofing from the building beams.

FEITH: Why can they be counted on to conclude that?

CHENEY: Because that’s what our secret research shows their not-secret research will show! Jesus Christ, work with me on this, will you?

WOLFOWITZ: I think I get it. We crash the planes, kill everyone above the impact of the planes, let the people underneath the impact out to safety, then collapse the buildings about an hour or so later using the explosives that we pointlessly incurred months’ and weeks’ worth of career-and life-threatening risk to covertly plant in a building complex visited by hundreds of thousands of people every week.

CHENEY: Exactly! The actual deaths will mostly be caused by the planes. But we’ll incur the massive additional risk simply to destroy the building for effect, because it will look cool and scary on television.

FEITH: I’m still confused about the our-studies and their-studies thing.

CHENEY (sighing): What’s the matter, Doug?

FEITH: If we know the planes won’t collapse the buildings, isn’t it possible that other people after the accident will figure out that the planes didn’t collapse the buildings?

CHENEY: Yes. But those other people will be a tiny minority of mostly nonscientists who’ll deduce the whole plan by researching the matter on the Internet. But we can count on their groundbreaking, visionary research being ignored by the mainstream scientific community, which will continue to insist the planes caused the collapses.


Taibbi, Matt (2008). The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire (pp. 220-224). Spiegel & Grau. Kindle Edition.
There's more. The book is a good read, if a little bleak, and somewhat gonzo.
 
One more, while I'm looking at it:

The irony of the moment was overwhelming. Seeing these people consume this commercial entertainment as a canonical revolutionary tract to me underscored everything the Truther Movement was about. The 9/11 Truth Movement, no matter what its leaders claim, isn’t a grassroots phenomenon. It didn’t grow out of a local dispute at a factory or in the fields of an avocado plantation. It wasn’t a reaction to an injustice suffered by a specific person in some specific place. Instead it was something that a group of people constructed by assembling bits and pieces plucked surgically from the mass-media landscape—TV news reports, newspaper articles, Internet sites. The conspiracy is not something anyone in the movement even claims to have seen with his own eyes. It is something deduced from the very sources the movement is telling its followers to reject.

This has always been one of the key features of the 9/11 Truth Movement. When the left finally found something to revolt over, it turned out to be something entirely fictional, something that not a single person had seen with his own eyes, or felt directly in his bank account, in his workplace, in his home. No one here was revolting over the corrupt medical insurance system, the disappearance of the manufacturing economy, the exploding prison population, the predatory credit industry, the takeover of electoral politics by financial interests. None of the people in this room were bound together by a common problem. What they had in common was a similar response to a national media phenomenon. At some level, this wasn’t even a movement—it was a demographic.


Taibbi, Matt (2008). The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire (p. 269). Spiegel & Grau. Kindle Edition.

What particularly struck me about those paragraphs was the list of ACTUAL conspiracies that people had passed over in favor of this fake one:

the corrupt medical insurance system, the disappearance of the manufacturing economy, the exploding prison population, the predatory credit industry, the takeover of electoral politics by financial interests
Those are the real problems. Chemtrails, 9/11, Fluoride, Moon Landings - that's all just a distraction.
 
I mean that the things that the commission report says are reasonable. The NIST reports give more details, and includes WTC 7 in considerable depth.

Are you trying to change the subject? Given up on SAMs? Why bring things up, and then refuse to discuss them?

Few people doubt that corruption exists in high places. But that does not then mean you should believe every arbitrary detail claimed in every conspiracy theory. One should be analytical, not gullible.
 
One more, while I'm looking at it:



What particularly struck me about those paragraphs was the list of ACTUAL conspiracies that people had passed over in favor of this fake one:



the corrupt medical insurance system, the disappearance of the manufacturing economy, the exploding prison population, the predatory credit industry, the takeover of electoral politics by financial interests




Those are the real problems. Chemtrails, 9/11, Fluoride, Moon Landings - that's all just a distraction.

Actually fluoride was a big worry to the Manhattan project - they were more worried about illness being brought on by the constant contact with fluorides than with the radioactive stuff. It is highly toxic.

That excuse you give above about 'real conspiracies' and this 'fake' one is an insult to intelligence. That list is frequently trotted out by people like you who have a psychological difficulty in seeing what is plainly evident. You've done ok out of things the 'way they are' so you're reluctant to see how things really are. Your reasoning can only go so far with your comfort at stake. And, by the way, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful, wrongful or subversive act. The events of 9/11 were the result of a conspiracy, whichever way you look at it. The word conspiracy is not perjorative just because people like you use it incorrectly. Ditto, theory. Perhaps you should censor perjorative language like that, thus 'debunking' it for what it is: false, rather than hiding your co-debunker's ridiculous comments by editing them?

The events of 9/11 go directly to the root of many problems in the world today, and those based on lies - but you hype other 'problems' as more pressing. I think that when a crime is committed of such savagery and magnitude, and so many more crimes have flowed from that event, it should be investigated properly. Like any crime. You seem to say: forget it, there's more important things....like what? Being able to do a webpage on how to make a table?
 
Here's another amusing excerpt, Cheny and his inner circle are discussing how to arrange for a pretext to invade Iraq:


There's more. The book is a good read, if a little bleak, and somewhat gonzo.

Gonzo? Hunter Thompson would likely puke at the thought. This is your argument, reduced to fiction. And bad fiction at that. It seems so apposite
 
I will be honest and say I did not read the entire 11 pages prior of this thread...so, my apologies if this has been discussed before...

But isn't/wasn't the fuel for the airplanes stored in the wings...and as such wouldn't/didn't that create a very different set up circumstance for impact with the building as opposed to just hollow aluminum wings.

I know from experience (belly flops) that liquid makes for a pretty hard impact at first blow...
 
SR1419, indeed, the fuel tanks account for a significant amount of the total kinetic energy, and int he simulation are shown to have severed some of the central columns (although of course that's just a simulation).

It's like an empty beer keg at 500 mph vs. a full beer keg at 500 mph. This all was hashed out a bit beforehand, but lee seems fixated on steel being stronger than aluminum as the only variable here.
 
lee, the fictional excerpt above is just a small part of the book. But it does illustrate some of the problems with forming a reasonable alternative narrative. The book overall is an interesting read.
 
I will be honest and say I did not read the entire 11 pages prior of this thread...so, my apologies if this has been discussed before...

But isn't/wasn't the fuel for the airplanes stored in the wings...and as such wouldn't/didn't that create a very different set up circumstance for impact with the building as opposed to just hollow aluminum wings.

I know from experience (belly flops) that liquid makes for a pretty hard impact at first blow...

Fuel in the wings? Yes it was, not all of it though - and we've been over this 'beer barrel' stuff earlier - I wish I could say which page, but early on, I think. You're right - a vessel such as a fuel tank full of liquid has more mass than one without liquid and would certainly pack a punch - the kinetic energy has nothing to do with it actually - what is important is the force and the mass and that if one object exerts a force on another then the other will exert the same force in opposite direction on the one. This is Newton's 3rd law of motion. The point is this: those fuel tanks would have lost most of their mass instantaneously on contact with the steel and concrete structure of the building; they would have ruptured and the contents released.
 
The mass would have kept moving tho - into the building - both the metal and the fuel.

This building is not a olid concrete block - the metal columns around the exterior were rlatively widely spaced, and relastively thin - the aircraft structure was perfectly capable of stretching them to breaking point as it impacted, wrecking the aircraft in the process, and then continuing into teh building interior.
 
the fuel tanks... in the simulation are shown to have severed some of the central columns (although of course that's just a simulation).

It's like an empty beer keg at 500 mph vs. a full beer keg at 500 mph. This all was hashed out a bit beforehand, but lee seems fixated on steel being stronger than aluminum as the only variable here.

Yes. It is a simulation.

It's like an empty beer can v a full one hitting Mick on the steel plated part of his skull
 
"the contents released" is not actually a sensible concept at 500 mph. Consider what happens if you drop a .50 slug into a tub of water. There's a splash, and the slug sinks to the bottom. But if you actually SHOOT a .50 slug into a tub of water, then the slug will shatter into pieces. The water does not have time to move away, and as it's incompressible, it acts more like a solid at that speed.



Kinetic energy IS very important here. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The kinetic energy has to go somewhere. Note in the above video they discuss energy.
 
some visual detail on the towers' structure

What was that about how far apart the exterior columns were? And the plane was destroyed doing this you say? Then how did it still have the mass to destroy enough central core columns to collapse the building as the official narrative tells us it did?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, it's very strong. You can see how people would be somewhat incredulous about it collapsing, unless they actually did the math.

The official narrative (i.e. science) tells us that the plane only expended 5% of it's kinetic energy in penetrating the exterior wall.
 
kinetic energy is not relevant to this discussion. much more relevant than that is this: get a hammer, an aircraft nose cone and a rigid steel bar - a lamp post might do. If you take the hammer and hit the aircraft nose hard as you can, I reckon you'll feel ok. Now try that on the steel. How do you think your wrist, shoulder, elbow and hand feel? How's the nose cone? How's the steel? How's the steel hammer? It's quite simple to begin with.
 
Yes, it's very strong. You can see how people would be somewhat incredulous about it collapsing, unless they actually did the math.

The official narrative (i.e. science) tells us that the plane only expended 5% of it's kinetic energy in penetrating the exterior wall.

The official narrative, science? lol
 
You can't just make a claim that that's relevant. All the scientist who talk about such things (event he few truther scientists) discuss kinetic energy.

Because what is relevant is F=ma in which velocity or speed are not required knowns, and action = negative reaction

You are saying the speed is not a factor? The exact same things would happen at 1 mph? or 1,000,000 mph?

If the plane hit the building at 1mph, it would bounce off with minor damage. If it hit at 1,000,000 mph, then the plane and the top of the building would be reduced to plasma. Clearly velocity is a factor.
 
You can't just make a claim that that's relevant. All the scientist who talk about such things (event he few truther scientists) discuss kinetic energy.



You are saying the speed is not a factor? The exact same things would happen at 1 mph? or 1,000,000 mph?

If the plane hit the building at 1mph, it would bounce off with minor damage. If it hit at 1,000,000 mph, then the plane and the top of the building would be reduced to plasma. Clearly velocity is a factor.

No, I said:

F=ma
for this to be correct, which it is, it is not necessary to know the values

if one object exerts a force on another, the other exerts the same force in opposite direction on the one Sir Isaac Newton
 
No, I said:

F=ma
for this to be correct, which it is, it is not necessary to know the values

if one object exerts a force on another, the other exerts the same force in opposite direction on the one Sir Isaac Newton

The question then becomes: which of one or the other was best equipped to deal with the blow?
 
No, I said:

F=ma
for this to be correct, which it is, it is not necessary to know the values

if one object exerts a force on another, the other exerts the same force in opposite direction on the one Sir Isaac Newton

How can you calculate F, if you don't know m or a?
 
F=ma
for this to be correct, which it is, it is not necessary to know the values


I just don't think it's that hard to understand
 
If you want to calculate the force, you need to know the mass, and the acceleration.

Otherwise, you might as well say someone hit the WTC with a feather.

Clearly there was action and reaction, the plane was totally destroyed, so there should have been an equivalent reaction in the WTC (to grossly simply things there, as of course the actual impact was very complex).

Now you are obviously not saying that the building should have been undamaged. So where does F = ma play into how much damage the building received?
 
Did you know that aircraft grade aluminum alloy is actually stronger than structural grade steel?

The steel is heavier and softer.

To revisit your hammer analogy, take a steel hammer, and hit a lead block with it.

Now take an aircraft aluminum alloy hammer, and hit a structural steel block with it.

Same thing.
 
Mick: "Yes I've read it. I think it's a very reasonable account of what happened that day."

I must say that I'm pretty disappointed to read a statement like this here. You think it's a reasonable account even though we know they didn't consider building 7, that some of the testimony was obtained using torture, that Bush wouldn't testify alone or under oath, that some of the testimony was destroyed, that numerous commission members including the Senior Council have concluded that their own report is based on government lies? That the largest crime scene in American history was immediately cleaned-up instead of roped off and guarded so they could perform a thorough investigation? The examples of cover-up are many, which begs the question: what exactly are they covering up and why? I have my personal suspicions, but I don't know exactly what happened. All I know is there is a cover-up on some level and we have not been told the complete truth. Whether that truth shows that "9/11 was an inside job" or that our government was simply completely inept, in the end the truth needs to come out.


I've just read through this entire thread, and felt I had to chime in here. It is very disappointing to see this statement: "Yes I've read it. I think it's a very reasonable account of what happened that day." in regards to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, on a forum that is supposed to promote empirical deduction and debunking. Is this a statement made by someone that has any real interest in solving a problem? The problem being that we were told exactly what happened that day by authorities, but are unable to verify most if not any of the elements for ourselves. Really, you may as well say: "I don't know what happened but I believe what my government and media networks told me." Basically the same statement.

I'm pretty amazed that Oswald continued the debate after that statement was made, but maybe he wanted some exercise...

And I will also add, that I agree that the videos of the mostly-aluminum plane entering the WTC building, specifically the Hezarkhani "amateur" video is nothing short of a joke. That has been explained in this thread repeatedly. But you really don't need an expert knowledge of physics to understand this. Just look at it with your own eyes. It's a joke.

I don't know what really happened on 9/11. I don't even know if anyone actually died, but I do know a digital cartoon plane insertion when I see one. When the plane shown in a video completely ignores any physical influence of what it makes contact with, that is usually a big hint of its non-existence. I think the implications of this are too problematic for many people to deal with, hence the belief that somehow it was possible for the plane to behave this way even though it can not be explained in any rational cohesive way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top