9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stupid said:
I think you understand my analogy..."bird soft/aluminum hard"....."aluminum soft/steel hard"......both poke through.

​
(edited recently)....(aluminum (or composite) corrugated panel in this case.....even stronger than just plain Al skin.)
Click to expand...


Good point. My sympathies are with tthe bird and any remaining family. He was just going about his daily business when....blam!...out of nowhere came an idiot doing some high speed advertising. The idiot then says, when interviewed afterwards, that 'the bird strike put me off a bit'. Put him off what? Being overpaid to advertise something useless in a ridiculously facile way?

That aside, you're almost right when you say

"bird soft/aluminum hard"
Click to expand...

if you'd said 'bird soft - aluminium soft too', you'd have been more right.

If that plane was made of steel it wouldn't be in the air, but if it was and it hit that bird, there would be barely a scratch on it, let alone a hole in it. What do you think?
 
lee h oswald said:
If that plane was made of steel it wouldn't be in the air, but if it was and it hit that bird, there would be barely a scratch on it, let alone a hole in it. What do you think?
Click to expand...

If the plane was made of aluminum alloy at the same mass that steel would have to be have the same strength as the original aluminum alloy, then there would be even less of a scratch, seeing as aircraft grade aluminum alloy is stronger than steel.

A few tons of super-strong aluminum alloy hitting a girder at 500mph is going to do something to the girder.
 
Mick said:
You are talking about the thin (4 inches) concrete floors, which were on top of the trusses. The NIST study of those floors showed that when the trusses were heated to the point of failure, the floors sagged. NIST did their tests with the steel reinforcement in the concrete.

Of course it will "make a difference" to the calculations. But the basic point is that the floors still sag, they still pull the exterior columns inwards, transferring load to the damaged core, which collapses.
Click to expand...

There you go again, presenting yoursef as an expert. You have no experience of working with these materials, do you?

You begin with describing the floors as 'thin' - how thick, in your considerable experience of these things, should they have been?

They weren't on top of the trusses as you say; they were above the trusses, obviously. What they were 'on top of' was the corrugated steel decking they were poured into, actually. The trusses come underneath the decking. So, strictly (and scientifically) speaking - you are wrong.

The NIST study? If you want to go another thirty pages full of equivocation and not knowing - let's go. You'll never wear this one down.

the basic point is that the floors still sag, they still pull the exterior columns inwards, transferring load to the damaged core, which collapses
Click to expand...

And you base this on? NIST?
 
Mick said:
If the plane was made of aluminum alloy at the same mass that steel would have to be have the same strength as the original aluminum alloy, then there would be even less of a scratch, seeing as aircraft grade aluminum alloy is stronger than steel.
Click to expand...

lol
 
lee h oswald said:
There you go again, presenting yoursef as an expert. You have no experience of working with these materials, do you?

You begin with describing the floors as 'thin' - how thick, in your considerable experience of these things, should they have been?
Click to expand...

I imagine they were the right thickness for the task. The structural support came from the truss.

They weren't on top of the trusses as you say; they were above the trusses, obviously. What they were 'on top of' was the corrugated steel decking they were poured into, actually. The trusses come underneath the decking. So, strictly (and scientifically) speaking - you are wrong.
Click to expand...

They were supported by the trusses.

The NIST study? If you want to go another thirty pages full of equivocation and not knowing - let's go. You'll never wear this one down.

And you base this on? NIST?
Click to expand...

Yes. And the fact that nobody in the world has shown the NIST tests to be in any way inaccurate. Plus it matches what was observed, with with the wall bowing inwards just before collapse.

Do you have some alternative explanation?
 
But since you want to talk about sounds of explosions. Why was there no recording of these sounds? Why do they not show up on the audio of videos of the collapse? Even the Jules Naudet who was right there the whole time in the buildings did not record any sound of explosions, just a very loud rumble.

​

Even this video that proports to show the sounds of explosions obviosuly shows nothing like it:

​
 
Mick said:
Do you think it could have broken some core columns?
Click to expand...

we've been here before - it's deja vu all over again...

An engine might have broken one, or three at a push. The rest is fiction. Damage? - obviously, I never said there wouldn't be.
 
it's the fact that 3 buildings, two in one fashion and one in its own unique (for the day) fashion went down perpendicular, plumb, straight down after allegedly asymmetric damage. Like the good Lt Col Phd who was present at the Pentagon on the day said - it defies the laws of physics and of probability. And she was right.
 
Mick said:
But since you want to talk about sounds of explosions. Why was there no recording of these sounds? Why do they not show up on the audio of videos of the collapse? Even the Jules Naudet who was right there the whole time in the buildings did not record any sound of explosions, just a very loud rumble.



Even this video that proports to show the sounds of explosions obviosuly shows nothing like it:
Click to expand...



I've seen plenty of videos with explosion sounds in the past - take your earplugs out?
 
lee h oswald said:
it's the fact that 3 buildings, two in one fashion and one in its own unique (for the day) fashion went down perpendicular, plumb, straight down after allegedly asymmetric damage. Like the good Lt Col Phd who was present at the Pentagon on the day said - it defies the laws of physics and of probability. And she was right.
Click to expand...

If that were true it should be trivially easy to demonstrate.

So why has it not?
 
'Show me one'
Click to expand...
says Mick. And when he is shown one, he goes all quiet. Why is that? Do you think the sound was Giuliani dropping his wallet?


As you've been keen to offer up other arguments which you consider similar to mine, perhaps I might show one that seems remarkably similar to yours. This guy was introduced as 'Fox freelancer' Mark Walsh, by Fox reporter Rick Leventhal - Fox's johnny on the spot on 9/11/01. 'Walsh' is introduced as an eyewitness to the events and although he may have learned his lines ok, he's struggling a bit with making the delivery seem natural. He actually appears quite jolly considering what he's just supposed to have witnessed. The best bit - and where he and you are clearly in agreement - comes at about 1:30 to 1:40, when 'Walsh' tells the world that the towers collapsed, 'mostly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense'. Amazing! Wasn't it lucky that Fox had this guy on hand? Not only a 'Fox freelancer', but a structural and fire expert who diagnosed the whole deal within a couple of hours of the attacks! What a guy!

​

This is an example of planting of the official mantra early in the piece. It's critical that first impressions are driven in early. Essentially, the official story has not changed from 'the towers collapsed, mostly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense'. Who gave 'Walsh' his script? The guy in the black suit who hovers around and then gets right in shot and eyeballs 'Walsh' as he delivers his lines (and to the obvious annoyance of Leventhal)? Nah, likely that guy was just his minder. There's another MIB in the report, and there are indications that Leventhal, 'Walsh' and MIB 1 and 2 are known to each other, possibly that they even have the same info coming through their earpieces. Leventhal tries to bluff (that they are not known to each other) by asking one MIB a question - 'What's your role here?' MIB's body language is telling. He wasn't expecting it, he ain't happy and it shows. Leventhal clearly says something to this MIB after covering his mouth with his hand just before he asks this question, but we can't hear what he says.
Just as 'Walsh' comes to the end of his account, MIB is standing right in shot between 'Walsh' and Leventhal and says something, possibly in agreement with 'Walsh' (does he say 'yup', or is it the word 'enough'?). Throughout the piece Leventhal is moving around like he has ants in his pants, maybe he was trying to shake the bullshit off his ankles?
Anyway, you and 'Walsh' certainly have a lot in common in terms of the official mantra; he got there just ahead of you though, and he didn't even need to read any of those pesky official reports. I wonder what he's doing now?
 
Mark Walsh? The radio comedian who was working as a freelance cameraman for Fox at the time?

​

Are these guys part of the conspiracy?
​

Someone makes a roughly correct assessment about the cause of the collapse, and it's all part of the conspiracy? A man in the financial district has a black suit - hence suspicious? Guy is too glib - hence suspicious? Guy in face mask is flustered when reporter asks him a question on live TV during 9/11 - hence suspicious?

Maybe we'd better stick to the physical evidence.
 
Mick said:
That was an explosion hours AFTER the towers had collapsed. Things go bang in major fires.

Where are the explosions that cause the towers to collapse?
Click to expand...


After 5 days of silence you need a little chivvy-up to get you going again. Did you need a rest? Maybe, after all that time, you've forgotten what the deal was? Let me refresh your memory: I said I'd seen lots of videos in the past with explosion sounds. You said: show me one. So I did. Remember?
Now, as usual, you want to reframe the argument in a futile attempt to diffuse and dilute the discussion. Bravo!
 
Sorry I was not more specific. I meant: show me a recording of audio of explosions that you think caused or otherwise contributed to the collapse of the WTC1 or WTC2.
 
Mick said:
Mark Walsh? The radio comedian who was working as a freelance cameraman for Fox at the time? Someone makes a roughly correct assessment about the cause of the collapse, and it's all part of the conspiracy? A man in the financial district has a black suit - hence suspicious? Guy is too glib - hence suspicious? Guy in face mask is flustered when reporter asks him a question on live TV during 9/11 - hence suspicious? Maybe we'd better stick to the physical evidence.
Click to expand...

What's a good word to generally describe your site, metabunk? I pick 'moribund'. You? Why do think it is 'moribund'? (add to that my difficulties in posting a single reply - is it just me?)

The one good thing is that any people passing through are getting to see some real argument around your somewhat anal attempt to back up any official story with your own brand of thick-skinned bloody-minded defence of what is indefensible. I think it's going to be pretty clear to anyone without a pre-conceived idea about the events of the day to see that there are some rather large holes in your version.

I've shown that evidence you hold up as valid (Purdue 'simulation' - they got that right!) is deeply flawed; that you present yourself as an expert in the construction of the towers when you really don't know the detail on how they were built and that you very obviously don't have any experience in this area whatsoever; that you can't tell the difference between a half-full fuel tank and a full one, even though it's in front of you; that you have misrepresented my views on many separate occasions; that you have not been truthful about which official reports you have read; that you think the incomplete NIST report is 'reasonable'....and now what?

If anyone actually watches this video, they can see that what I am saying about it is correct. It's very simple - just watch the video. Comments like: A man in the financial district has a black suit - hence suspicious?
No, that in itself is obviously not suspicious, and it's not what I said, is it? Likewise the rest of Mick's 'response'. Do correct me if I'm wrong - at the risk of pointing out that you made something up again and you should retract it...I encourage anyone to watch the video, and it's obvious. What's obvious? It's obvious that what I'm saying is correct, and that what Mick is saying is called a 'straw man' argument. He likes those. Who and what are you defending Mick? Logic and Reason and 'the scientific method'? Course you are. What's in it for you? Truth or Faith? Or is this your job?
Anyone with an open mind would be at the least interested in this and what it apparently shows. Not 'Mick the sceptic' though. Why is that Mick? Maybe you need a new dictionary? Was yours written by SAIC?

Mick says:
Maybe we'd better stick to the physical evidence
Click to expand...
which is almost funny.
What about the physically missing piece of physical evidence that NIST won't let anyone see (that is: the input data into their computer - pfff, who needs it? says Mick, 'it's still reasonable'. Blimey!) because it 'might jeopardize public safety'?

The more you show, the more your position is taken apart. As a rather good English rugby player once said (and I concur): it's not the winning, it's the taking apart. Keep going pal.
 
[video linked above]

This is an example of planting of the official mantra early in the piece. It's critical that first impressions are driven in early. Essentially, the official story has not changed from 'the towers collapsed, mostly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense'. Who gave 'Walsh' his script? The guy in the black suit who hovers around and then gets right in shot and eyeballs 'Walsh' as he delivers his lines (and to the obvious annoyance of Leventhal)? Nah, likely that guy was just his minder. There's another MIB in the report, and there are indications that Leventhal, 'Walsh' and MIB 1 and 2 are known to each other, possibly that they even have the same info coming through their earpieces. Leventhal tries to bluff (that they are not known to each other) by asking one MIB a question - 'What's your role here?' MIB's body language is telling. He wasn't expecting it, he ain't happy and it shows. Leventhal clearly says something to this MIB after covering his mouth with his hand just before he asks this question, but we can't hear what he says.
Just as 'Walsh' comes to the end of his account, MIB is standing right in shot between 'Walsh' and Leventhal and says something, possibly in agreement with 'Walsh' (does he say 'yup', or is it the word 'enough'?). Throughout the piece Leventhal is moving around like he has ants in his pants, maybe he was trying to shake the bullshit off his ankles?
Anyway, you and 'Walsh' certainly have a lot in common in terms of the official mantra; he got there just ahead of you though, and he didn't even need to read any of those pesky official reports. I wonder what he's doing now?
Click to expand...

You can go through the video like we did the Purdue Roadrunner cartoon, deconstruct it a bit - you can show me where I'm wrong and how there couldn't possibly be a conspiracy, because that would involve real people! Oy vay!
 
Wrong about what? You basically said it looks staged to you. It does not look staged to me. The person in the interview denies it was staged, and it looks like he's just a regular guy (a radio comedian).

First you said I didn't want to talk about reports of explosions - so I do, and I ask you to provide audio recordings of explosions that might have contributed to the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, and then you go off on this tangent, and will no-doubt find it significant that I don't want to discuss that.

Stick to the evidence. Why were there no loud bangs directly before or during the towers' collapse? Does that not indicate it was just a progressive collapse? Or do you think it was some kind of quiet explosive?
 
Oh, and let's not forget that Purdue got their money from the Dept of Homeland Security for delivering the goods - and that the head of the Uni was given a seat on the board of SAIC, a military contractor with strong ties to NIST. But you don't want to talk about that, do you? It's all so cosy, ain't it?
Click to expand...


Mick said:
Let's talk about that then. You imply the simulation is part of some kind of deliberate cover-up. That it contains deliberate falsifications. That would mean that the following real people would be part of this conspiracy:



...I'm still a little bamboozled as to WHAT you think is being covered up? What do you think an "accurate" simulation would show?
Click to expand...

Oh alright then, let's talk about it.

No.1 on the list, Mete Sozen Civil Engineering (CE). Mete Sozen was one of the volunteer American Society of Civil Engineers who entered the 'Ground Zero' site in New York on 14th sept 2001. His colleagues on that day were named Corley, Thornton and Mlaker plus other 'volunteers'. Seven years later he is again at the centre of the official version of the events of 911 as leader (?) of the Purdue North Tower impact simulation project in respect of the civil engineering aspect, at least.
Mete's cv says that after the 19 April 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, he was also a member of the investigation team for that event. The joint investigation (as it was to become) between the ASCE and FEMA produced a report at the end of their investigation. They stated that the building collapsed, with the loss of 168 lives, due to a 'progressive collapse' caused by structural damage to the building by the Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO) bomb, allegedly parked by Timothy McVeigh and housed in a Ryder rental truck outside the building. The report's authors were: Mete Sozen plus messrs. Corley, Thornton and Mlaker.

Mete Sozen.
 
lee h oswald said:
Oh alright then, let's talk about it.

No.1 on the list, Mete Sozen Civil Engineering (CE). Mete Sozen was one of the volunteer American Society of Civil Engineers who entered the 'Ground Zero' site in New York on 14th sept 2001. His colleagues on that day were named Corley, Thornton and Mlaker plus other 'volunteers'. Seven years later he is again at the centre of the official version of the events of 911 as leader (?) of the Purdue North Tower impact simulation project in respect of the civil engineering aspect, at least.
Mete's cv says that after the 19 April 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, he was also a member of the investigation team for that event. The joint investigation (as it was to become) between the ASCE and FEMA produced a report at the end of their investigation. They stated that the building collapsed, with the loss of 168 lives, due to a 'progressive collapse' caused by structural damage to the building by the Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO) bomb, allegedly parked by Timothy McVeigh and housed in a Ryder rental truck outside the building. The report's authors were: Mete Sozen plus messrs. Corley, Thornton and Mlaker.

Mete Sozen.
Click to expand...


Sorry. I thought that when you said
Let's talk about that then
Click to expand...
that you wanted to talk about that then. Do you not want to talk about that then?
 
lee h oswald said:
Qualified? For what?
Click to expand...

He's a distinguished professor of civil engineering, and he's got experience with the WTC (via the bombing investigation) and progressive collapse (via Oklahoma).

To any non-conspiracy theorist, that seems like excellent qualifications to take part in a study of the impact and collapse.

To a suspicious minded conspiracy theorist, obviously they would just think he's been covering things up for decades.

Here he is "covering up" the small hole in the pentagon with a suspiciously reasonable explanation (segment in German, but his interview in English)

​
 
Mick said:
He's a distinguished professor of civil engineering, and he's got experience with the WTC (via the bombing investigation) and progressive collapse (via Oklahoma).

To any non-conspiracy theorist, that seems like excellent qualifications to take part in a study of the impact and collapse.

To a suspicious minded conspiracy theorist, obviously they would just think he's been covering things up for decades.

Here he is "covering up" the small hole in the pentagon with a suspiciously reasonable explanation (segment in German, but his interview in English)
Click to expand...

Ooh, the 'conspiracy theorists' are out in numbers today.

The video is almost inaudible - whatever he's saying it is probably only 'reasonable' in the fact that you can't hear what lie he is telling. I can't see that that backs up any point at all; because it doesn't.

You say: He's a distinguished professor of civil engineering, and he's got experience with the WTC (via the bombing investigation) and progressive collapse (via Oklahoma).

But what he and his three musketeers at Ground Zero, Corley, Thornton and Mlaker wrote in their ASCE/FEMA report on OK City bombing was fundamentally wrong (deja-vu!). They stated that the building collapsed, with the loss of 168 lives, due to a 'progressive collapse' caused by structural damage to the building by the Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO) bomb, allegedly parked by Timothy McVeigh and housed in a Ryder rental truck outside the building.
The questions are similar to 911 - how did the plane impacts and the fires do so much damage so quickly to cause the 'progressive collapse' of the buildings/how did a truck bomb parked outside a steel reinforced concrete building cause that building to 'progressively collapse' and in the fashion it did? Multiple witnesses ignored by the federal investigation/multiple witnesses ignored by the federal investigation. Etc etc.

So, what was it about his experience in doing what he did (wrong) at OK City that could be considered useful to the 911 investigation? In what way is he 'distinguished'? What distinguishes him to be the right man for this job?
 
"Distinguished professor" is an official title that universities give to the top few percent of their faculty.

There's a detailed description of the Murrah collapse here:

http://failures.wikispaces.com/Murrah+Federal+Building

Don't you think a professor of structural engineering would be the right man for the job? If not him, then who?

And I'm not sure what point you are making is it that he's unqualified, or that he's qualified but deliberately covering something up?

Here's a bio:

Dr. Mete A. Sozen is the Karl H. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering at Purdue University. He received his undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering at Bogazici University, Istanbul, and his graduate degrees at the University of Illinois, Urbana. From 1957 to 1992 he taught at the University of Illinois until he joined the Purdue faculty.

He has made extensive contributions to the fields of prestressed and reinforced concrete structures. In particular, for the past thirty years, he has been active in research on structural response to earthquakes, specializing in concrete structures. Dr. Sozen has written some 130 technical publications and has been a consultant to more than 40 engineering firms plus national and international governmental agencies. His pioneering work on the shear strength of prestressed and reinforced concrete beams is reflected in the American Concrete Institute Building Code as well as the European Concrete Code.


He is currently a member of the Veterans Administration Committee on Structural Safety and Chair of the Committee on Analysis and Design of the American Concrete Institute Building Code. Dr. Sozen has received the Research Prize, the Reese Prize (1971 and 1994), the Moisseiff Award and the Howard Award from the American Society of Civil Engineers. The American Concrete Institute has honored him with the Kelly, Bloem and Lindau Awards.


Dr. Sozen has been named honorary member of the Turkish Association of Engineers and the American Society of Civil Engineers. He has received an honorary doctorate from Bogazici University. He was elected to membership in the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences.
Content from External Source
 
Mick said:
"Distinguished professor" is an official title that universities give to the top few percent of their faculty.

There's a detailed description of the Murrah collapse here:

http://failures.wikispaces.com/Murrah+Federal+Building

Don't you think a professor of structural engineering would be the right man for the job? If not him, then who?

And I'm not sure what point you are making is it that he's unqualified, or that he's qualified but deliberately covering something up?

Here's a bio:

Dr. Mete A. Sozen is the Karl H. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering at Purdue University. He received his undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering at Bogazici University, Istanbul, and his graduate degrees at the University of Illinois, Urbana. From 1957 to 1992 he taught at the University of Illinois until he joined the Purdue faculty.

He has made extensive contributions to the fields of prestressed and reinforced concrete structures. In particular, for the past thirty years, he has been active in research on structural response to earthquakes, specializing in concrete structures. Dr. Sozen has written some 130 technical publications and has been a consultant to more than 40 engineering firms plus national and international governmental agencies. His pioneering work on the shear strength of prestressed and reinforced concrete beams is reflected in the American Concrete Institute Building Code as well as the European Concrete Code.


He is currently a member of the Veterans Administration Committee on Structural Safety and Chair of the Committee on Analysis and Design of the American Concrete Institute Building Code. Dr. Sozen has received the Research Prize, the Reese Prize (1971 and 1994), the Moisseiff Award and the Howard Award from the American Society of Civil Engineers. The American Concrete Institute has honored him with the Kelly, Bloem and Lindau Awards.


Dr. Sozen has been named honorary member of the Turkish Association of Engineers and the American Society of Civil Engineers. He has received an honorary doctorate from Bogazici University. He was elected to membership in the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences.
Content from External Source
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of his title. I asked some direct questions which you didn't answer again.

Look, if you suck satan's cock for long enough, you get lots of little niblets thrown your way; honorary doctorate (pff - dj's get 'honorary doctorates'), membership of 'the academy'...for what? Services to concrete, apparently...

He has made extensive contributions to the fields of prestressed and reinforced concrete structures. ....specializing in concrete structures. Dr. Sozen has written some 130 technical publications and has been a consultant to more than 40 engineering firms plus national and international governmental agencies...pioneering work on the shear strength of prestressed and reinforced concrete ...reflected in the American Concrete Institute Building Code as well as the European Concrete Code.
Click to expand...

But what about the concrete in the Murrah building? Sozen appears to be well enough qualified to recognise that what he presented in his report was badly wrong - if this is his expertise...
 
To qualify: some might need context on 'sucking satan's cock' - here's a crash course...

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv2qLOiioPc[/video]
 
Mick said:
What questions didn't I answer?
Click to expand...


Pretty much all of them. If 'answer' conveys any kind of validity or completeness - none of them.
Anyway, pas de soucis, I'm well used to that.


If Sozen was a super-hero, he'd be Concrete Man, no? So, given that he is Concrete Man...and like I said before:
what about the concrete in the Murrah building? Sozen appears to be well enough qualified to recognise that what he presented in his report was badly wrong - if this is his expertise...
Click to expand...

So after getting that one badly wrong he was considered to be the perfect man for the 911 job? How could that be? Unless ofcourse he has other areas of 'expertise' useful in such situations?
 
Mick said:
What exactly did he get wrong about the Murrah building? Can you give an actual reference?
Click to expand...

Well, as a part of the same four man team who plodded about at Ground Zero, also under the 'leadership' of Corley, he was, presumably, an integral part of the joint report created by FEMA and ASCE which began with an incorrect assumption and went from there.

The FEMA/ASCE Report was entitled: The Oklahoma City Bombing: Improving Building Performance through Multi-Hazard Mitigation (FEMA 277)



 
Mick said:
What exactly did he get wrong about the Murrah building? Can you give an actual reference?
Click to expand...

If you're going to make a genuine attempt to 'multi-hazard mitigate', then it might be an idea to get the facts straight and not go about your work labouring under false assumptions. Wouldn't you say?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Debunked: Bazant papers are the only evidence for Twin Towers progressive collsose
Replies
1
Views
1K
econ41
econ41
Oystein
Debunked: Bobby McIlvaine died at 8:46 while entering the North Tower
Replies
2
Views
2K
Oystein
Oystein
Giddierone
UFO Photo: Project Blue Book #AF632255 (Parachutes?)
Replies
27
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel
Oystein
Ivan Němec et al (2018): Derivation of Simple Formulas for Collapse Upper Speed and Acceleration
Replies
5
Views
2K
econ41
econ41
S
Can Someone help me figure out what these lights were in the sky over CO?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel

Latest posts

Back
Top