IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Do The Mini-nukes In The Underground Still Exist ?

Saheike
post Sep 21 2014, 04:30 AM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 20-January 13
Member No.: 7,186



Hi,
it was told, that under every skyscraper must be placed a mini-nuke to bring it down in case of demolitian plans.
My question is if the Towers went down by airplanes and jet fuel are those nukes still in the underground and intact ? So they can be used for a new desastre in the middle of Manhattan in the future or are they gone ?

Would be nice if someone can answer those questions.


This post has been edited by Saheike: Sep 21 2014, 04:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 21 2014, 09:13 AM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (Saheike @ Sep 21 2014, 04:30 AM) *
Hi,
it was told, that under every skyscraper must be placed a mini-nuke to bring it down in case of demolitian plans.
My question is if the Towers went down by airplanes and jet fuel are those nukes still in the underground and intact ? So they can be used for a new desastre in the middle of Manhattan in the future or are they gone ?

Would be nice if someone can answer those questions.


Nuclear devices, along with nano-thermite, were used to bring down the towers. The evidence is ample.

Jeff Prager has an ebook online which is excellent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kozer1
post Sep 21 2014, 09:53 AM
Post #3





Group: Core Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 2-March 14
Member No.: 7,724



QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 21 2014, 08:13 AM) *
Nuclear devices, along with nano-thermite, were used to bring down the towers. The evidence is ample.

Jeff Prager has an ebook online which is excellent.


That's why they named it "Ground Zero". Then, they changed the definition of GROUND ZERO in dictionary and encyclopedia printings since 2002. Dimitri Khalezov- WTC Nuclear Demolition, is the fascinating Youtube video featuring ex officer of Soviet Nuclear Intelligence who explains the process and evidence. I wonder myself about the Sears Tower in Chicago...? Is it "armed" as well? D. Kozeruba
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pablo
post Sep 21 2014, 11:46 AM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 29
Joined: 26-March 11
Member No.: 5,760



THE TWINS & #7: THE LOWEST-TECH (POSSIBLE) DESTRUCTION COMBINED WITH "SALTING" OF "EVIDENCE" OF M-U-L-T-I-P-L-E (FALSE) DESTRUCTIVE MATERIALS

I'm not primarily an investigator (I think of myself much more as an organizer (starting some 50 years ago for students rights and against the Vietnam War) (and within that: a synthesizer of other people's research / writing.))

Given that, I do NOT have a strong position about what actually brought the Twins down. I have, in the past, felt at least somewhat strongly that it was due to any number of things: standard CD explosives, more-exotic ones like thermitics or (mini)nukes or DEW).

My current hunch on the Twin Tower's destruction:

1) The Twins were: "hollow", "gutted" and "empty" (credit here to LetsRollForums)
a) "hollow" (decidedly not-completely constructed to begin with; then further significantly de-constructed in the years leading up to 911);
b) "gutted" (virtually ALL internal/moveable stuff (office-type stuff, etc.) was pre-911 removed - this is CD SOP);
c) "empty" (the perps had every interest in absolutely minimizing the actual death/injury toll: they didn't want to hurt "their own" or have THEM & their families) fight back post-911);

so
2) The Twins' Destruction had been prepped;
requiring the least-possible quantity & quality of destructive materials;
In other words, the perps would use whatever material or combination of materials would most efficiently bring the Twins (and #7) down;

but
3) The perps SALTED the site(s) with "evidence" of MULTIPLE means of destruction.
THEY would KNOW in advance that we'd build a 911-Truth Movement. Anticipating us, they prepped the site with "evidence" of all kinds of things (thermitics, (mini-)nukes, DEW's, etc.).
The perps might include:
a) just enough "salted" materials to splinterize the 911-Truth Movement along the lines of the multiple lines of "evidence";

b) as little as possible so that as to do as little "extra" damage to the Hollywood Special Effects scenario so as to result in both the least actual physical damage and human-casualties;

c) whatever was, in fact, the main (combination) weapon of destruction used would be AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE for us to pin down amidst their multi-pronged dis-info (and MSM-driven) propaganda campaign.


The result?
The 911-Truth Movement, seeing the (non-standard-CD) explosive destruction of the Twins and the "standard-CD" implosive destruction of #7 (and assuming the Twins were full of: steel, concrete, office stuff and people)
we went looking for evidence of the means for such explosive destruction.

And We've Found Such "Evidence" In Spades!
AND, we're MAXIMALLY (for the perps) SPLIT UP into (relatively- , or absolutely-) antagonistic sub-divisions, each with its own (partial) explanation.

P.S. Looking for a way that would be maximum-effective in fighting the Big Lies Of 911; I've joined:
http://911crashtest.org/

My reasons: (intentionally by the perps) virtually every aspect of 911/Anthrax has been super-difficult to both figure out AND mobilize/unite people around.

Perhaps we should (also) "go back to the scene of the crime" and ask the obvious (but mostly, so far, unanswered) question:

CAN ALUMINUM PLANES CUT THRU HEAVY-DUTY STEEL LIKE KNIVES THRU BUTTER?

(I call this phenomenon: "The Preposterously Penetrating Planes Of 911". and also (like the JFK "Magic Bullet"): "Aluminum, The Magic Metal Of 911; Able That One Day, To Cut Thru Anything (Heavy-Duty Steel, Heavily-Reinforced-Against-Airplanes Pentagon Walls, and "Infinitely"-Deep Dirt at Shanksville, PA)".
Please check it out.

This post has been edited by Pablo: Sep 21 2014, 11:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hanky
post Sep 21 2014, 03:26 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 23
Joined: 17-July 11
Member No.: 6,076



Of course it is true!! And everyone, at birth, has a an even minier nuke installed in their rectum, to be used when it it is time for the demolitian(sic)
Neither of these, buildings or buttocks, emit radiation because it would be inconvenient and possibly harmful to the spread of impotent daydreams.
The truly relevant question here is, " What is the technical, as well as practical, difference between an idiot, a moron, or an imbecile"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Sep 21 2014, 05:48 PM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Pablo @ Sep 21 2014, 10:46 AM) *
My current hunch on the Twin Tower's destruction:

1) The Twins were: "hollow", "gutted" and "empty" (credit here to LetsRollForums)
a) "hollow" (decidedly not-completely constructed to begin with; then further significantly de-constructed in the years leading up to 911);
b) "gutted" (virtually ALL internal/moveable stuff (office-type stuff, etc.) was pre-911 removed - this is CD SOP);
c) "empty" (the perps had every interest in absolutely minimizing the actual death/injury toll: they didn't want to hurt "their own" or have THEM & their families) fight back post-911);


I must concede that this is one area that I agree with LRF.
However I don't go to the extreme that they do.

They believe the entire building was gutted (save for the WOW restaurant at the top).
That is, virtually no interior furnishings and no office workers in the building on 9/11 (except for WOW).

In other words, they believe there were no (zero) jumpers!
Their position is that a small crew set themselves up inside the building and put on a show.
What was the show? Throwing out hundreds of cadavers/mannequins from the twin towers to make them look like jumpers. Turning on smoke machines mounted on the exterior panels of the towers to make it look like real smoke!

Then, just before the towers came down, this crew quickly ran down 100 flights of stairs to safety. smile.gif

QUOTE
2) The Twins' Destruction had been prepped;
requiring the least-possible quantity & quality of destructive materials;
In other words, the perps would use whatever material or combination of materials would most efficiently bring the Twins (and #7) down;


I agree.

QUOTE
but
3) The perps SALTED the site(s) with "evidence" of MULTIPLE means of destruction.
THEY would KNOW in advance that we'd build a 911-Truth Movement. Anticipating us, they prepped the site with "evidence" of all kinds of things (thermitics, (mini-)nukes, DEW's, etc.).


I don't agree here. They weren't thinking of this.

QUOTE
The perps might include:
a) just enough "salted" materials to splinterize the 911-Truth Movement along the lines of the multiple lines of "evidence";


I don't agree. The truth movement doesn't care what methods were used to bring down the towers!
Everyone in the truth movement wants justice that's all.

QUOTE
b) as little as possible so that as to do as little "extra" damage to the Hollywood Special Effects scenario so as to result in both the least actual physical damage and human-casualties;


I agree.

QUOTE
c) whatever was, in fact, the main (combination) weapon of destruction used would be AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE for us to pin down amidst their multi-pronged dis-info (and MSM-driven) propaganda campaign.


I wouldn't go that far. They were simply hoping that nothing obvious stood out.


QUOTE
And We've Found Such "Evidence" In Spades!
AND, we're MAXIMALLY (for the perps) SPLIT UP into (relatively- , or absolutely-) antagonistic sub-divisions, each with its own (partial) explanation.


Not important. See above.

QUOTE
P.S. Looking for a way that would be maximum-effective in fighting the Big Lies Of 911; I've joined:
http://911crashtest.org/


Perhaps we should (also) "go back to the scene of the crime" and ask the obvious (but mostly, so far, unanswered) question:

CAN ALUMINUM PLANES CUT THRU HEAVY-DUTY STEEL LIKE KNIVES THRU BUTTER?

(I call this phenomenon: "The Preposterously Penetrating Planes Of 911". "Aluminum, The Magic Metal Of 911; Able That One Day, To Cut Thru Anything (Heavy-Duty Steel, Heavily-Reinforced-Against-Airplanes Pentagon Walls, and "Infinitely"-Deep Dirt at Shanksville, PA)".
Please check it out.


As I mentioned to Steve in another thread, it is commendable for signing up to support the crash test, but
not for the reasons expected.

If run properly, the test will simply show that an aluminum airplane wing can't cut through steel beams.

That won't be sufficient to prove anything that occurred or didn't occur on 9/11!

Officials and the media will be quick to point out that the planes DID NOT cut through any steel beams on 9/11.
The planes simply pushed the steel beams into the towers, snapping at the bolts holding them together.

I haven't seen any photo from 9/11 showing a steel beam that was sliced in two!



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Sep 21 2014, 06:19 PM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Kozer1 @ Sep 21 2014, 08:53 AM) *
Dimitri Khalezov- WTC Nuclear Demolition, is the fascinating Youtube video featuring ex officer of Soviet Nuclear Intelligence who explains the process and evidence.


Dimitri certainly is a charming man.

I agree that mini-nukes were most likely used on 9/11, however Dimitri's explanation as to where the nukes were planted and how they brought down the towers doesn't work for me.

His theory is that they were installed underground, underneath the towers, decades in advance of 9/11.

I ask you a simple question.
When you watch the floors explode one by one, from top to bottom, does it look like a nuclear bomb exploding underneath the building?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rorymcfizz
post Jan 20 2015, 07:56 AM
Post #8





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 25-November 14
Member No.: 7,998



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Sep 21 2014, 10:19 PM) *
Dimitri certainly is a charming man.

I agree that mini-nukes were most likely used on 9/11, however Dimitri's explanation as to where the nukes were planted and how they brought down the towers doesn't work for me.

His theory is that they were installed underground, underneath the towers, decades in advance of 9/11.

I ask you a simple question.
When you watch the floors explode one by one, from top to bottom, does it look like a nuclear bomb exploding underneath the building?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rorymcfizz
post Jan 20 2015, 08:15 AM
Post #9





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 25-November 14
Member No.: 7,998



well i have wached every video and read most books and the more i see these images over and over i cannot eccept that the towers were controlled by thirmite or anny exsplosive ,the towers disintegrated from top to bottom not bottom to top ,i have been in construction industry most my working life steel dose not disapear nor dose it fail at such low impact ,a tin can of an eroplane hitting a building wich was constructed to take impact of bigger planes and two per building ,and physicly impossible speeds at low altitude ,but back to the towers i cannot get the image out my head the bulding was desolving from top to bottom as far as i am concernd somthing else was used but unfortunatly peaple cannot think out side of the mass conspirisist continuing to sell thirmite ,i say open your eyes the buliding desolved and this cannot be done by thirmite or anny explosives ,it feels rong looks rong ,now befor you shoot me ,if we can not exspress opinuions with out offending as i hope you see this as my thoughts and on the back of that has anny one put a leagle paper into challage the NIST report i cannot remember seing annything from truthers pushing there thirmite or nuke theriory s up against the nist report,? let truth be the light and peace be the way rorymcfizz
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Jan 22 2015, 12:08 PM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



QUOTE
1) The Twins were: "hollow", "gutted" and "empty" (credit here to LetsRollForums)
a) "hollow" (decidedly not-completely constructed to begin with; then further significantly de-constructed in the years leading up to 911);
b) "gutted" (virtually ALL internal/moveable stuff (office-type stuff, etc.) was pre-911 removed - this is CD SOP);
c) "empty" (the perps had every interest in absolutely minimizing the actual death/injury toll: they didn't want to hurt "their own" or have THEM & their families) fight back post-911);


I go along with you on that. No nukes or Judy Wood death rays. WTC was prepped well in advance, imho. All for our viewing pleasure that morning. WTC 7 controlled demolition as well. cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Jan 22 2015, 01:52 PM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



QUOTE (Saheike @ Sep 21 2014, 03:30 AM) *
Hi,
it was told, that under every skyscraper must be placed a mini-nuke to bring it down in case of demolitian plans.
My question is if the Towers went down by airplanes and jet fuel are those nukes still in the underground and intact ? So they can be used for a new desastre in the middle of Manhattan in the future or are they gone ?

Would be nice if someone can answer those questions.


It wasn't told, it was opinionated. Big difference. Do some research on your own on radiation output from mini-nukes. Go and do research on the history of the towers from planning to construction to eventual collapse. Weigh all opinions, then develop one for yourself. But also be prepared to alter your opinion as any new info may arise. I am on my 12th year on 911 research and I have had to change intial opinions a few times. So will you in time. Check out every so-called 911 expert on what brought down towers. One thing legitimate researchers agree on is jet fuel had nothing to deal with weakening of towers. Welcome to the forums. One other thing, don't rely on others to give you answers. You have to do it on your own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Jan 23 2015, 04:01 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



This is from boat on the Hudson. Not sure if this has been posted on this forum.




This post has been edited by Truthissweet: Jan 23 2015, 04:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 24 2015, 11:54 AM
Post #13





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Sep 21 2014, 06:19 PM) *
Dimitri certainly is a charming man.

I agree that mini-nukes were most likely used on 9/11, however Dimitri's explanation as to where the nukes were planted and how they brought down the towers doesn't work for me.

His theory is that they were installed underground, underneath the towers, decades in advance of 9/11.

I ask you a simple question.
When you watch the floors explode one by one, from top to bottom, does it look like a nuclear bomb exploding underneath the building?


The US has been conducting nuclear R&D since before 1945. My guess is that the technology for nuclear weapons has been refined at least as much as the technology for turbine engines and satellite navigation.

Point is, when assessing what we saw and measured at WTC, one must not be trapped into thinking that only 1945 technology was employed in 2001.

If one considers the epidemiology involved with those working at Ground Zero, the employment of that term by government and the mainstream media, the last picture from the Hudson shown on this thread, the testimony of Willy Rodriguez regarding a massive explosion in the basements BEFORE the airplane struck, then YES, it does look like nuclear devices were employed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 25 2015, 05:48 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 24 2015, 10:54 AM) *
...Point is, when assessing what we saw and measured at WTC, one must not be trapped into thinking that only 1945 technology was employed in 2001.

If one considers the epidemiology involved with those working at Ground Zero, the employment of that term by government and the mainstream media, the last picture from the Hudson shown on this thread, the testimony of Willy Rodriguez regarding a massive explosion in the basements BEFORE the airplane struck, then YES, it does look like nuclear devices were employed.


I agree that technology does not stand still. Advances are made almost on a daily basis.

What I have a hard time believing, is that devices were planted decades before 9/11 and used on 9/11 to bring down the buildings.

Would you take a chance on the reliability of explosive devices (any part of it, the triggers, the bombs, etc.) that were decades old, in one of the greatest false flag events in history?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 30 2015, 09:35 AM
Post #15





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 25 2015, 05:48 PM) *
I agree that technology does not stand still. Advances are made almost on a daily basis.

What I have a hard time believing, is that devices were planted decades before 9/11 and used on 9/11 to bring down the buildings.

Would you take a chance on the reliability of explosive devices (any part of it, the triggers, the bombs, etc.) that were decades old, in one of the greatest false flag events in history?


Most likely the devices/charges and thermite were placed in the months before, probably since Silverstein acquired the property.

There were all sorts of "construction projects" going on there, by I think Ace or Acme elevator company. Also, we know that tenants were advised that on the weekend before, the towers would be powered down, and then powered back up.

It was an inside job, and it was prepared for months.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 30 2015, 04:20 PM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 30 2015, 08:35 AM) *
Most likely the devices/charges and thermite were placed in the months before, probably since Silverstein acquired the property.

There were all sorts of "construction projects" going on there, by I think Ace or Acme elevator company. Also, we know that tenants were advised that on the weekend before, the towers would be powered down, and then powered back up.

It was an inside job, and it was prepared for months.



I agree on all the points above.

I just can't buy the nukes prepared decades before AND subsequently used on 9/11 theory.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 7 2015, 09:22 AM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 30 2015, 04:20 PM) *
I agree on all the points above.

I just can't buy the nukes prepared decades before AND subsequently used on 9/11 theory.


I'll be gone for a week, but just curious as to why you think, or who is claiming, that the nukes were prepared decades before?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 7 2015, 02:37 PM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 7 2015, 08:22 AM) *
I'll be gone for a week, but just curious as to why you think, or who is claiming, that the nukes were prepared decades before?



It is Dimitri Khalezov who is claiming the nukes were prepared decades before.
He talks with conviction and confidence about all things 9/11.
There may well have been nukes prepared decades before 9/11.

However on 9/11, the underground nukes that he has described were not used to bring the buildings down.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 16 2015, 11:34 AM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 7 2015, 02:37 PM) *
It is Dimitri Khalezov who is claiming the nukes were prepared decades before.
He talks with conviction and confidence about all things 9/11.
There may well have been nukes prepared decades before 9/11.

However on 9/11, the underground nukes that he has described were not used to bring the buildings down.


I suspect that the explosion described by Willy Rodriguez was nuclear, and I suspect it was perhaps the same blast described by Jim Gartenberg in phone calls to his wife while he was in his office on the 86th floor. He described blasts coming from within the elevator shafts, with the explosive force coming from below and inside the elevator shafts.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SKYDRIFTER
post Mar 7 2015, 10:10 PM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 32
Joined: 16-August 06
From: SEATTLE
Member No.: 9



QUOTE (Saheike @ Sep 21 2014, 08:30 AM) *
Hi,
it was told, that under every skyscraper must be placed a mini-nuke to bring it down in case of demolitian plans.
My question is if the Towers went down by airplanes and jet fuel are those nukes still in the underground and intact ? So they can be used for a new desastre in the middle of Manhattan in the future or are they gone ?

Would be nice if someone can answer those questions.



Two key questions stare history in the face:

1. How can anyone explain the extended temperatures beneath the WTC buildings; as molten steel would have 'ordinarily' cooled to a darkened state very quickly.

2. How did the massive volume of the WTC towers collapse into their supposed "basement?"

The real head-scratcher is that if anything 'traditionally' nuclear was used, there should have been some 'leftover' evidence of nuclear radiation.

However "nanothermite" IS described as being 'explosive' in nature - and certainly far hotter than traditional Thermite. While difficult to prove, it's at least debatable that an initial nanothermite charge was detonated either at the lowest basement location or under the buildings, accounting for the early explosion reports of such as Rodriguez.

Among other details, some of the 'removed' steel from the WTC towers showed a diagonal cut; visually suggesting the use of a cutting torch. It stands to reason that there would be no practical reason for a 'recovery' worker welder to do a diagonal cut; versus a straight-across cut. However, it would be highly reasonable for a 'saboteur' to effect a diagonal cut, so as to ensure/control the free-fall of the vertical steel members. And, the temperature of nanothermite would easily create the illusion of the use of a cutting torch.

The associated question goes to the "thermal persistence" of nanothermite - or its thermal 'effect.' is it possible for nanothermite to do a "slow cook;" thus accounting for the otherwise bizarre 'thermal persistence; as recorded by satellite imagery - and the images of molten steel being picked up by the construction equipment?

While proof is obviously lacking, for the moment, my thinking is oriented around the use of nanothermite at the WTC - and the collapse of the massive concrete columns at the Pentagon. Surviving columns show massive amounts of missing concrete; with the steel re-bar intact & bent. High temperatures will cause concrete to essentially flake and/or powder.

That's my take on the subject.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th October 2019 - 12:56 AM