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 )

8 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Simple Calculations Showing The Official 911 Story Is Impossible, An explanation for the intelligent layman.

SanderO
post Jun 17 2011, 06:29 PM
Post #121





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The elevator shafts were only diagrammed in a 2 D section in the link an d were only the LOCAL and Freight elevators..all the large express elevators are not shown and they were almost 50% of the elevators and more than 50% of the area of shafts.. If you examine the shafts in "3 dimensions" you will see that there was some interconnection of all the local backing up to Car #50 . Express shafts going from 1-78... for cars 12-17 were connected /open to car #50's shafts as were car 45, 46, 17 and 49. Shaft 12-17 were 900 SF alone with the shaft of car #50 and the 45,46,47 and 49 being about 440 square feet.

If fuel entered the other side at floor 79 elevator motor rms above shafts 16-23 these were also 900 SF of open shaft to floor one which connected to all the local shafts on that side.

So ALL of the 50 shafts it is possible that fuel entering on 79 could migrate to 38 other shafts. Since the local shafts were stacked up only those local shafts in the lowest to story tier would go to floor 1.. with the local shafts in the middle tier going down to floor 44 and in the upper tier to floor 78. But the only continuous vertical shafts reaching up to 79 were car #50 and 12-17.

I certainly don't know how much fuel may have gone into those shafts... or whether it was ignited or anything about its behavior. I can only describe the path that existed for liquid to flow down through the tower.

Were there reports of fuel in the stairs? They also lead from top to bottom. I have not examined the reports of people using those stairs.

I also don't know how much fuel was consumed in the flare up at the instant of the plane strike... or again how much fuel was delivered. We can only know/guess at the amount that would be in the tanks if those were the actual commercial flights... and there is good reason to believe that those were not the stated commercial flights.

I don't know much about the fuel from the planes... but it is not what I believe initiated the collapse. I do believe it could cause things in the building to explode however.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 17 2011, 06:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 17 2011, 06:55 PM
Post #122





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 17 2011, 06:06 PM) *
Because the planners wanted to drop the Towers toward the Plaza ie east side of the complex, where they had the most empty space (never mind those little buildings down there) and avoided blocking the roads around the perimeter of the complex as much as possible.



LOL.... well that is an answer.... but one I hardly can take seriously. Let me see... they planned WT2's top to fall off to the EAST not the north onto the plaza?... and only the top 32 stories and only a portion of those stories? And then went it went all wrong they pushed the abort button and blew the top up?

You're not serious are you?

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 17 2011, 07:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jun 17 2011, 07:19 PM
Post #123





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



Demolition 101:

QUOTE
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble.

How Stuff Works
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 17 2011, 07:54 PM
Post #124





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Thank DYEW... for that explanation. But it does not apply to the collapse of the twin towers.

The twin towers structure as you should know was a core of 137'x87 feet of 47 columns in a 6x8 grid with the 3rd row having only 7 columns. Then there were the 236 closely spaced (40" OC) facade columns.

To topple the twin towers one would have to destroy almost all the facade columns on the side you wanted it to topple and about 12 of the core columns on that side as well. Like cutting into the side of a tree trunk. This would leave the remaining columns on the other side trying to carry all the weight of the building with a fair amount of it cantilevered... and the bracing beams and connections were not designed to support that load as a cantilever. Bit if they could then the top might act like the top of the tree trunk above the slice and fall toward the slice... or in the case the side where all the columns were destroyed.

What we did see is that the damage... of whatever cause... did destroy columns on the east side and being a progressive redistribution of the axial load on that side to the less or undamaged side. When enough columns were no linger functioning and the remaining ones were stressed beyond their yield strength.. beyond the factor of safety.. the columns on the west side began to buckle. The east columns offered little to no resistance and so the top section began to DROP and TILT... Tilt to the side with little to no resistance... and buckle the columns on the west side... where the famous horseshoe columns and other buckled columns were from. The east side drop of a one column height of the core - 36 feet would account for about 20 of tilt of the east side's lower section as it dove in toward the core on a virtual hinge the the west side of the core... the last remaining columns to buckle. At this time the two masses were engaged in a mutual destruction... top's bottom being destroyed by colliding with bottom's top on the east side. This rapidly fractured the entire upper frame which then "poured into" / onto the top of the lower section... most of it. some of it continued straight down over the side to the east and landed no more than a hundred to two hundred feet from the east facade.

For the entire top to continue to go over... the hinge would have to support rotation (all the load of the upper 30 stories) and the entire upper 30 stories would have to remain rigid. Since he hinge location was INSIDE the tower as the west edge of the core.. a rigid rotating and supported at that hinge location would rotate INTO the lower section since the hinge was 87' + 35' or 123' from east facade which about 10 stories. So IF the impossible theoretical rotation continued the lower 10 stories would end up side ways on top of the foot print with about 20 stories or 240 feet outside the footprint. Now thus rigid block on its side having rotated 90 would then have to hinge off of something to support the mass... or else the top would continue rotating about that "rigid hinge" until the top had gone a full 180 and was not crashed through the lower section AND the hinge of course and be at about 48th floor. Of course this is impossible.

The top's initial rotation caused it to collide with and destroy the top of the lower section... it's bottom.. slow the rotation and gravity took over as the top fractured apart.

No way in hell could that top rotate over and fall off as one unit. It would have to hinge off the facade on the east.. the one which we saw with all the fire.. and the west side would have to rotate UP... we did not see that.

Look carefully at the top tilting and then disappearing "into the bottom". That's what I see.

I have created a cartoon sequence of the collapse if you want to see it... email or PM me with your email address.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 17 2011, 08:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 17 2011, 10:38 PM
Post #125



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Given all of the factors I linked to, which side of the scale would you say had more weight?

That the alleged fuel load in the scale of things would not and could not cause multiple explosions (some of them immediate), a massive fireball (esp as per WTC2), spread throughout the floors to cause more multiple explosions, dissipate into a droplet effect down shafts (immediately remember) to destroy steel doors, knock down walls and "destroy critical building mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems" (and according to NIST have enough umph to "buckle steel" and cause the collapse), cause "molten steel...like in a foundry", keep ground zero hot for months or should we just accept wild speculation (and exaggeration) fitted around a theory or do we agree that fuel fire isn't the culprit?





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
talayo
post Jun 18 2011, 01:24 AM
Post #126





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 18-November 07
Member No.: 2,492



The Richard Roth Telegram
A telegraph from the architectural firm Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, was distributed to reporters on February 14, 1965. The telegraph was in response to claims by real estate baron and Lawrence Wien that the design of the Twin Towers was unsound.

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

?????
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 18 2011, 07:18 AM
Post #127





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Richard Roth was referring specifically of the tower's design to resist wind shear. I worked for and know Richard Roth by the way from 1970... this is of no consequence. if you understand the quote he mentions "stiffness" and that the towers because they were a 209 foot vertical beam... it has nothing to do with axial loading or column strength

The twins presented a challenge to designers because of the huge wind loads they would have to resist.

The tower's design was radical because in the traditional frame tower there is an overall grid of steel... as in the Empire State Building where I also have worked in flr 74 and again of no consequence... the twins had only a core and 236 columns at the facade. The rigid grid of the typical high rise frame was replaced with lightweight composite floors which were made from manufactured assemblies off site. This provided a column free office space. The trusses would brace the facade.

The concept was that the stiff facade of 236 columns would act like a tube... a cantilevered beam anchored to the ground which was rigid on its own and did not require diagonal bracing or heavy masonry (as with the ESB) to make the facade stiff and resist the wind. Heavy means expense. The "wall" of the tube was not rigid enough and so it required the floors to stiffen it (certainly at the center).

The towers design turned out to be not sufficiently stiff however. Wind tunnel tests were performed... the first time for a high rise building and it was found that the frame would flex too much... not fall over... not fracture... but that it would flex and sway in the wind. This would also stress the thousands of connections of the steel in the frame and had to be limited and make it uncomfortable for use.

They also conducted blind tests with humans to see how much motion was noticeable and tolerable to work in. They then "tuned" the design by using the rigidity of the core to provide the stiffness that the facade alone could not provide. This was done using visco-elastic struts which connected the bottom chords of the trusses to the columns at 80"OC to the column on each side of the truss seat. If you've seen the plan you can see these as diagonal members at the facade connected to the trusses. The members would act elastically to absorb some of the energy, motion of the facade from wind... and use the stiffness of the core. They were like the shock absorbers in your car... 60 per side per floor. The core side of the trusses were supported by a continuous (spliced) beam with truss seats and then connected to the 24 perimeter core columns with beam stub outlookers of up to 32" in length.

The towers' design was radical in many ways and the most was the open office space, truss supported composite floor concept which were required to dampen the flex from wind shear. The stiffness of the material in the dampers was selected to allow the maximum allowable movement FOR COMFORT of the occupants. They had a cycle life which I don't recall, but obviously could be replaced on some sort of maintenance schedule.

The economics was a major consideration with respect to the twin towers. Traditional construction techniques were prohibitively expensive and so the "factory" assembly approach was employed. The towers were built at LOWER than costs per SF for high rises because of this and it enabled the justification of their size... which the PANYNJ would see in revenue from increased rent / occupancy per SF of the overall site.

The factory production line assembly techniques required standardization of parts to a certain extent such as the floor assemblies which were manufactured off site in only a few configurations.. 60' spans. 60 foot with diagonal cut corners, 35' spans and 35 foot spans with a transfer "girder" (trusses) to support the corner assemblies. The towers from the perimeter belt channel supporting the trusses on the core side to the facade were an "erector set" project. The facade only changed by the thickness of the wall of its columns.

The designers chose to offset the facade panel assemblies vertically which were also manufactured off site. The offset strengthened the facade's ability to resist WIND SHEAR by having no continuous horizontal joints at the facade... with only 3 column splices every 30 feet and 20 feet with no column splices. 10,20,10,20,10....

Except...

The mechanical floors were a different animal altogether. Mechanical floor facade panels DID have a continuous horizontal joint at the top and bottom of each mechanical floor's panels joining to the tenant floors. The mechanical floor facade panels then were "beefed up" in wall thickness and cross section area with heavier spandrels too... they were wider than 14" above and below to make this facade stiff without the reliance on a membrane effect that the staggered panels above and below would provide. The mechanical floors also had heavier superimposed dead loads than the tenant floors and so their floors were thicker concrete and supported on steel wide flange beams... as would be done in a traditional frame. They also had 16 columns set about 8 feet in from the facade.

The towers were described as Vierendeel trusses. "A truss consists of straight members connected at joints. Trusses are composed of triangles because of the structural stability of that shape and design. A triangle is the simplest geometric figure that will not change shape when the lengths of the sides are fixed.[1] In comparison, both the angles and the lengths of a four-sided figure must be fixed for it to retain its shape." A Virendeel truss is "a truss where the members are not triangulated but form rectangular openings, and is a frame with fixed joints that are capable of transferring and resisting bending moments. Regular trusses comprise members that are commonly assumed to have pinned joints, with the implication that no moments exist at the jointed ends. This style of truss ...is rare due to higher costs compared to a triangulated truss.

The utility of this type of truss in buildings is that a large amount of the exterior envelope remains unobstructed and can be used for fenestration and door openings. This is preferable to a braced-frame system, which would leave some areas obstructed by the diagonal braces."

So all the "stiffness" of a vierendeel truss is in the rigidity of the connections. The spandrels and the 3 column facade assemblies acted as vierdeel trusses and the core itself was a vertical virendeel truss or space frame (3 dimensional).

The take away about a truss... is that when one member is removed there is a load redistribution to the remaining truss members... and this creates "asymmetrical" loading which can lead to twisting and torquing and internal instability of the members themselves... and even progress to a global failure in some cases.

This is again were the factor of safety comes into play and why it is so critical. The towers may have been designed to be stiffer than most towers... (I doubt that claim... but they were stiff enough)... and the design DID allow punctures or partial facade destruction to not critically (fatally) affect axial load carrying capacity and wind shear to some extent because of load redistribution and the FOS.

But the towers' weakness turns out the be those composite tenant floors which were "suspended" between the core and the facade and which themselves were designed to carry only 58#/SF axial load. No one expected sufficient excess loads to manifest on a tenant floor. But the reality is they WERE the ticking time bomb which could take the towers down if a means were determined to "drop" the threshold mass on a high tenant floor. Without the floors and bracing the columns fell like pick up sticks.

A means was found and they collapsed.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 18 2011, 07:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jun 18 2011, 07:30 AM
Post #128





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE
I have created a cartoon sequence of the collapse if you want to see it... email or PM me with your email address.


Quit the excuses and get a Photobucket account.

If you know how to attack docs to email, uploading to Photobucket will be no problem.

At this point, your self imposed limitations are making it hard to believe you have anything that supposedly backs up your NIST lite claims.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 18 2011, 08:44 AM
Post #129





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I am not interested in a photo bucket web site for my work. What is your problem DYEW of providing and email? I have sent this material to many people via email... including several from PFT.

What not email if you are interested?

I don't have "NIST light" claims and I do have lots of work/research presented in drawings, charts and tables. I have produced those to assist ME in understanding the structure and the destruction. My work is ongoing and so I don't feel it makes sense to publish preliminary work and in some cases work which has not been reviewed by other engineers... although some scientists at the 9/11 free forum have seen it and no one has discredited what they saw.

I am prepared to share this preliminary work with interested parties. You seem to be intent on finding fault in my work... and I don't object to close scrutiny. But that would require you to actually LOOK at it and that is something that you refuse to do for some unstated reason and instead mis-characterize me and my work. This reflects on you, not on me or others who wish to not consider what I have to offer.

Do I care? Not really. People can choose to hold whatever beliefs they want and to be in some cases willfully ignorant when the possibility to be informed exists. Hard to explain that... but it seems to be operant.

My Factor of Safety study IS published on the Deep Politics forum 911 section - https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showth...C-Steel-Columns. You can go there down load it and produce a critique /evaluation showing the mistakes. I would welcome that. If you read that forum you can see that I have revised my estimate for the FOS from 1.54 to 1.65.

What do you think the FOS is and why? Does it matter?

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 18 2011, 08:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 18 2011, 03:50 PM
Post #130





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



Why does a dog lick his balls?

Because he can! laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Jun 20 2011, 01:18 PM
Post #131





Group: Core Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 16-June 10
From: Western Lake Erie, Ohio, Michigan, Canada
Member No.: 5,099



KP50 says:"Here's my problem with SanderO" up at the beginning of this page of posts, then lists some "reasons" for this opinion, one of which "seems" to be valid:

QUOTE
My problem is that he thinks that his theory (minimum explosives, gravity does the rest to simplify it) over-rides all the evidence that contradicts it. There is huge evidence, some of which has been posted on this thread, about explosions in the towers.


There is no doubt there were several "explosions" within the towers, some possibly initiated before the "explosive event" from the alledged aircraft impact. The primary use of explosives was to "initiate" the gravitional collapse sequence of the towers, even though there is further evidence of "explosive ejections" during the collapse. It was obvious from the beginning, that the buildings collapsed in a manner similar to a "Controlled Demolition".

It appeared as if the entire building just "suddenly EXPLODED" and turned into dust and a few pieces of steel. It is easy for most people to "reasonably assume" that the "impact" of a commercial airliner would have brought the building down, without any alledged "structural weakening" from jet fuel fires. I, myself originally "bought into" the "floor pancake" collapse theory when it was announced.

Then I heard Dr. Judy Wood on Short Wave Radio. The Government OCT guy on that program attacked her so viciously... that I figured she must be onto "something". All she asked was for people to visit her site, (http://www.drjudywood.com/) and "look at the evidence" for themselves. "Where did the buildings go", she asked. And sure enough, I could see that most of the buildings had "turned to dust", with quite a lot of "weird fires" and other stuff. She seems convinced that some secret "Directed Energy Weapon" was used to destroy the buildings. Maybe so, maybe not. Today I lean toward "probably not".

From there, I followed a link to Archeticts and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/)... where I learned from Richard Gage's professional presentation that the alledged aircraft impacts and the ensuing fires could NOT HAVE CAUSED the collapse of WTC 1,2, or 7. He provides us with credible information to "indicate" that the collapse of these buildings is "very similar" to the characteristics of a "Controlled Demolition".

In a "Controlled Demolition" he tells us that EXPLOSIVES are used to initiate the subsequent GRAVATIONAL COLLAPSE of the entire structure, by SUDDENLY REMOVING a few floors worth of its supporting columns. Once this "structural gap" is created, the upper part of the building (FALLS) is accelerated by gravity due to its "weight" (velocity and momentum) which then "crushes" the rest of the entire structure (both top and bottom parts) into its own "footprint".

Mr. Gage goes on to explain that the explosive removal of supporting columns is "usually" initiated at the lower floor levels of a building... but it doesn't have to be accomplished in this manner, as long as the "weight" of the upper part of the building is sufficient to crush the top floor remaining on the lower part. In fact, he explains that a "top down" controlled demolition would require a lot less EXPLOSIVE energy to initiate the collapse, because the upper columns are nowhere near as massive as the columns in the lower floors.

Since GRAVITY is the MAJOR FORCE acting to destroy the building, it falls straight down toward the center of the Earth, into its own footprint. In the case of WTC 7, Mr. Gage's conclusion of a "classic" Controlled Demolition is consistent with actual observations. In the case of WTC 1 and WTC 2, there are some significant differences between the actual "observed" collapse sequences, and that of the "classic" controlled demolition "promoted" by Mr. Gage. (I will provide supporting info later.)

MY PROBLEM with SanderO, goes something like this.... To explain his "concept" of the twin towers "collapse"... he will use terms and acronynisms unfamiliar to non-archeticts. He'll say something like the buildings had enough PE stored within them, that only a few explosions were necessary to increase "Static and Live floor loadings" beyond their UTS to release enough "Dynamic KE" to overcome the FOS of the supporting structure.... which may be true...(somewhat)... if you can "crack his code":
PE: Potential Energy
KE: Kinetic Energy
UTS: Ultimate Tensile Strength
FOS: Factor of Safety

Most Commercial Pilots are familiar with terms such as: Vne, Vmo, LEMAC, %of MAC, IAS, CAS, Vse, Vs1, MGTOW, CG, VOR, TACAN, Vx, Vy, TAS, Vyse, etc. etc. When we use our "lingo" in our explanations of 911 events, non-pilots have difficulty and become very FRUSTRATED while trying very hard to understand what we mean.

In addition SanderO seems to "step on his own feet" by making a few small "typos" in some of his "long winded" (I should talk?) explanations, making his ideas even more difficult to follow. Two examples from his last post:
What is your problem DYEW of providing and email?
What not email if you are interested?

Even more frustrating, from the same post, is this:
QUOTE
My work is ongoing and so I don't feel it makes sense to publish preliminary work and in some cases work which has not been reviewed by other engineers... although some scientists at the 9/11 free forum have seen it and no one has discredited what they saw.


The first statement is understandable... especially when you see all the time wasting BS on this site about Warren Stutt and Legge's "Preliminary Pentagon FDR Reports" that weren't peer reviewed. SanderO's email information is very interesting and informative.... I haven't seen his "cartoon" yet. But WTF is he referring to "at the 9/11 free forum"? [A very interesting thread "at the 9/11 free forum" can be found here: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-coll...361.html#p10288

This post is long enough already... it is not my intent to "trash" SanderO, I'm just trying to "explain" some of his "stuff". It is unfortunate that many of our "regular devoted truthers" find him obnoxious and offensive. I do not wish to become a member of "that club" (double meaning intended).

My next post will try to explain some of his stuff that may actually border on "brilliant", if one is willing to endure the process of trying to "figure it all out".... salute.gif

edits: corrected misspelling of Dr. Wood's name and added site links for her and Richard Gage.

This post has been edited by IslandPilot: Jun 20 2011, 05:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
talayo
post Jun 20 2011, 05:58 PM
Post #132





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 18-November 07
Member No.: 2,492



IslandPilot:

While your thoughts and defense of sanserso are commendable, you seem to not understand the problem with his position.

It does not matter whether he is right or wrong about the possibility of the collapse to had been driven mainly by gravitational forces.

I can flat out conceed that HE IS RIGHT.

That only proves how it could have happened, not how it happened!

All the research and effort seems to go into the architectural aspects of the towers. This is like looking at a crime scene and concentrating in the detailed design of the weapon that was used and brushing off any of the other clues and circumstances of the crime.

Once we are outside the world of architecture, what can be his research? I do not believe sanderso had any unique access to the sites, confidential documentation, etc.

He refers to his in-deapth and factual research when he is making claims for which there is not supporting evidence. For example, for many of the items to have been obliterated without recognition (practically all) the collapse would have had to act as a "blender". What is his evidence of such a behavior?

Many of the critics of the goverment narrative consistently mentioned the lack of a sufficient debris pile for a building of that size. He does not find any thing unusual about the size of the pile, based on the claim that buildings of that type are 95-96% air. Even if that is true, his assumption is that there is not a significant amount of air in a debris pile. I guess all the steel columns align themselves neetly so they present a solid pile, no air of any kind. This is simply nonsense. The peripheral columns were rectangular tubes of approximatlely 14 inches per side. Calculate the amount of "air" in these columns alone. Since, he agrees that they collapsed towards the outside it is very difficult to argue that the tubes were flattened.
It seems impossible to make any dent in his position.

I am still waiting for an explanation about the missing 100,000 tons of material that were not include in his calculations for "air".

If you want to make some of the commenters to take a different attitude towards his hypothesis, please do not return to the architectural issues. Deal with the issues that he ignores, and show us that our points are irrelevant or if they are not convince sanderso to adjust his claims to include them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jun 20 2011, 09:25 PM
Post #133



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (talayo @ Jun 21 2011, 09:58 AM) *
That only proves how it could have happened, not how it happened!

All the research and effort seems to go into the architectural aspects of the towers. This is like looking at a crime scene and concentrating in the detailed design of the weapon that was used and brushing off any of the other clues and circumstances of the crime.

Let's try an example to back up talayo's point.

You are burgled while you are away and your front door has been bashed in. However there was also a large open window which the burglar could have used to get into the house. Do you conclude that the burglar did not bash in the front door because he could have more easily climbed through the window and opened the door from the inside?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 20 2011, 09:33 PM
Post #134





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I will once again apologize to the readers of this forum for my numerous typos. I don't preview my posts and and am a terrible typists. I do occasionally go back and do an edit to remove my typos.. which often include word substitutions such -what- for -why-.. and the automated spell check misses such correctly spelled nonsense. I also type in a "stream of consciousness" and again without editing my language may be difficult to understand. I also plead guilty to occasionally using technical engineering jargon. I try to explain these phrases at some point in the discussion, but don't feel the need to do this repeatedly.

The key to understanding the WTC collapses is in accurate and technically informed observations along with thorough knowledge of the particular structure being observed and engineering.

My understanding or "theory" as some like to call it is built on observations of the collapses/destruction and a study and understanding of the structure. I believe these are consistent.

Many point out observations which they believe are not supported by a gravitational collapse. They understandably believe that these observations... if correct... imply that explosives were present during the collapse. These observations include the apparent pulverization of most of the building and contents, the size of the debris pile, the absence of steel recovered and various ejections seen emerging from the facade as it comes down. Some see the "spire" disappear and others believe that heavy steel has been ejected at speeds of 70 mph to over 600 feet from the towers. Each of these observations needs to be properly understood and "read". We certainly can ever agree on an explanation of the cause if we can't agree on the "collapse" we all observed.

Some of the observations require explanations which are well beyond my own technical expertise... such as how an avalanche could grind friable material into such fine grain debris... By the way it certainly wasn't all reduced to dust and most of it in "the pile" was more of a sand size grain size. And certainly lots of the material which was reduced to dust was carried aloft and dispersed and did not form a "debris pile". Again I don't know how much material was dispersed as dust... but the collapses spread dust up to perhaps an inch over more that 40 acres.. extending several blocks from the site. The pulverization is a fluid dynamics problem and it apparently was manifest in Bldg 7 as well. So it seems that when high rise buildings made with lightweight concrete slabs collapse from 700+ feet not much of them or the contents on them seems to survive. We don't have much of anything in the historical record to refer to... no buildings collapse with massive piles of concrete and contents.. and none of that size has ever collapsed or been CDed... with the tallest structure being 25 stories of so... completely different animals.

And of course the main thrust of the engineering analysis is that the twins were a very unique and radical design and that too has never been CDed nor has one collapsed. So whatever took them down... these were unique events. If it happened three times it could be from the same "natural" process... just easily as it could be from total demo from explosives.

The ejections seen shooting out the windows ahead of the collapse from DOES look like what we might expect from an explosion... We've all seen debris radiate away from an explosion... so it is natural to think that these ejections were coming from explosions within the towers. It seems to make perfect sense.

However we also need to consider the possibility that the collapse debris would displace the air on each floor as it raced downward inside the facade. If this scenario is what happened then the air HAD to be displaced outward. And a simple calculation can produce its speed. I did it by working backward. We know that the collapse time was about 10 seconds for the North Tower to come down from around the 93rd floor or thereabouts. And that's about 1,100 feet of drop in about 10 seconds. or about 9 stories every second or about 100 feet per second. Regardless of whether the collapse was accelerating or not... the AVERAGE speed was 100 feet per second. 60mph is 88 feet per second so the collapse was about 10% faster... so I call it 60+mph as the average speed. But all the air on each floor was dispersed in the same .1 second. And since it couldn't move IN it had to move out... and if we take the air located at the boundary between the core and the open office floor it was either 60' or 35 feet from the facade and this air was pushed to the facade in about .1 second. And the air was therefore traveling at either 60 or 35 feet in .1 seconds. This would be either 600 or 350 feet in 1 second. So you can see that the expelled air was either moving at 400+ mph or 230+ mph when it reached the facade. Both of these speeds pack enormous "destructive energy". And this is enough to destroy all the contents... the ceiling tiles, the gypsum wall board and almost anything else and send streaming out the windows after breaking them. I don't know how fast air is coming off an explosion.... but the air as described above seems to match the observations or ejections we see at the collapse front.

Could they be from explosions? Why not? But this raises the issue of complexity and coordination and timing and so forth. Air pressure from collapsing debris makes much more sense to me. Perhaps not to others.

To conclude... the first step is to get the observations correct and then look for the mechanism which science offers to explain them. Not what we think these look like... because we've seem bombs explode in the movies... but actually how "materials" behave.

I don't have a problem with everything Gage says... only some of it. And I don't expect to be 100% correct either. I've been revising and tuning my understanding over time as I drill deeper into the observations, the engineering and the science. But I can only go so far, because I am a dumb architect. And I realize that.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 20 2011, 09:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Jun 20 2011, 09:43 PM
Post #135





Group: Core Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 16-June 10
From: Western Lake Erie, Ohio, Michigan, Canada
Member No.: 5,099



Is SanderO really trying to be Obnoxious, or is he just being "assertive"... Is this "important" and does it really matter? It depends... let me try to explain "both" sides of this question:

Let's start with the proposition that it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER EXACTLY HOW the Twin Towers were destroyed, as long as it is evident that they were NOT destroyed by aircraft impacts and the jet fuel fires resulting from aircraft impacts, as claimed by the Government's NIST Building Performance Reports.

At this time, it's easy to determine, and "prove" very serious errors and "ommissions" in the NIST Documents. Whether NIST personnel were aware of the "false" information, and "intentionally" included it in their official US Government Document, to provide "misleading" information, is a "questionable" matter, still open for debate.

When NIST Personnel INTENTIONALLY REFUSED to AMMEND the "false, inaccurate, and misleading" information in their report, after several serious efforts and requests were made by others, who provided "conflicting" information, observations, and facts to NIST's initial Report... NIST Personnel became GUILTY of a FEDERAL FELONY CRIMINAL OFFENSE by "knowlingly" submitting FALSE INFORMATION on a US Government Document, paid for by taxpaying citizens. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the LAW for this CRIME.

It would be very easy for "Expert witnesses" like Dr. Judy Wood, Mr. Richard Gage, and several other "experts" in "building structures", and "explosive demolition techniques" to prove to a jury of "average laymen" in a "real Court of LAW" that the buildings were NOT destroyed in the manner described by NIST Reports. NIST's information is so "flawed", that an average High School Student, could determine how "wrong" it is, after being exposed to a few "basic" facts and observations.

Here in a "nutshell", is the most basic "proof" that the NIST BUILDING PERFORMANCE for WTC 7 is "completely wrong".

NIST claims that WTC 7 "collapsed" due to the "uncontained fires", which heated one or two floors, in an area supported by the infamous "Column 79".

Although WTC 7 appears to have the "shape" of a "regular trapazoidial prism" on the outside, it is not a "symmetrical structure", by any means. The reason for this is... that it was built "over the top of" a large existing electric "Utility substation". To do this, the "pattern" of regularly spaced supporting columns and beams had to be altered to accomodate the Electric Substation beneath WTC 7's lower floors. Several additional structural members (transfer girders, elongated trusses, and cantilevered beams) were added to provide necessary structural support for the entire building above the level of the Substation.

The end result of the altered column spacing left "Column 79" in the first row of columns behind the WIDEST face of the of the Trapazoid, as well as being one or two column rows inside of the angled face of the building. The longest floor span trusses in the entire building were connected to "Column 79". It supported the weight of more floor area than other nearby columns. Whether or not column 79 was "beefed up" compared to nearby columns, is of no consequence in the NIST "Collapse Scenerio",... but the LENGTH of the floor trusses it supported, and the "extra" distance between it and adjacent columns "WAS THE PROBLEM that "caused" Column 79 to FAIL, thus initiating the collapse of the entire building according to NIST.

The HEAT of the intense fires on one or two floors in the area of Column 79 caused more "thermal expansion" and "growth" of the long trusses connected to it, than the "thermal expansion" of the cooler and shorter trusses connected to the other side of it.

To support the weight of every floor above it, building columns must be in a perfect "straight line" alignment with all the columns above and below it. According to NIST, the thermal expansion caused by fires on one or two floors near Column 79 caused it to "shift" out of alignment with the elements of Column 79 on the floors above and below this area. This caused either the the failure of floor truss attachments, or an "off-center" loading of the column, which caused it to "buckle" and fail. Either of these failure modes, (or both) are what NIST says caused the "initiation" of the entire "collapse sequence" of WTC 7.

The NIST conclusions about "thermal floor span expansion" (if unlikely assumptions about fire intensities and durations in unobservable areas are valid) causing... a shift in column alignment,... which resulted in either floor truss attachment failure... and/or column failure due to "buckling" might be a "reasonable" explanation for how the collapse was initiated.

Unlike the NIST REPORTS for WTC 1&2, where NIST provides NO information about "global building collapse" AFTER "collapse initiation", NIST provides a computer generated simulation for some time period AFTER the "initiation" of the collapse for WTC 7... which shows no similiarity to what actually happened when Building 7 came down.


NIST spent MILLIONS of dollars to come up with a sophisticated "Computer generated "model" and "Collapse Simulation" for WTC 7 to provide the easily UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that is is COMPLETELY WRONG... and bears NO RESEMBLANCE to what actually happened when WTC 7 "collapsed to the ground", through the path of its greatest resistance, at near "free fall" speed, within its own "footprint", on the afternoon of 9/11/2001.

If "One picture is worth a thousand words", this video shows that EVERY WORD in the NIST WTC 7 REPORT supports the WRONG CONCLUSION. Check it out for yourself:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index....osition=428:428

Please note that the "actual WTC 7 collapse" on the left is presented "in SYNC" with the NIST computer generated collapse simulation on the right... and begins with the collapse of the penthouse on top of the building.
Direct UTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-nbfeGjwZU...feature=related

Here's another "valid expert criticism" of the NIST WTC 7 report, from a Canadian: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index....osition=309:309

(to be continued in a response to talayo's recent post... made while I was working here.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 20 2011, 09:51 PM
Post #136





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



KP50,

Your last post is hardly what I have been working on for the past several years. And it's not ONLY me... I just happen to be the one who is over here trying to communicate these findings (and not being well received for sure!).

It would seem to me... that someone who DID want to destroy the towers... HAD to understand the engineering, and the weak points and exploit them. After all they didn't drop a kiloton of explosives on it. It may have looked violent and it was... but it didn't look like a nuclear explosion... it looked like a collapse... It came down over 10-14 seconds... it was process which spanned an interval of time. It was not a single event. Could it be multiple "explosions"? why not.... how many would it take to produce what we saw? You tell me.

Anyone who thinks the steel "disappeared" needs to study the 17 acre site, plus West Street, Vesey Steet, Church and Liberty Streets... steel covered all that and some was lodge in buildings across Liberty, Vesey and West Streets... that's more than 30 acres of steel.

If you want to ignore the structure and just look at the debris and the "ejections" you are cutting yourself off from vital information. But by all means, be my guest. But please don't say I am ignoring "evidence"... or assert that you can identify evidence which cannot be explained by a gravitational collapse and rules it out. Iron Spheres... you might say... These certainly can be associated with what initiated the collapse as could the hot spots below the debris from weeks and months afterwards. Those don't rule out a gravitational collapse. Remember I am not stating that the fires caused by the planes caused the collapse... and I am not ruling out explosives or incendiaries at the initiation. In fact I am calling for MORE focus and research ON the initiation... because that is where the engineering was if there was any at all... and there likely was.

I don't venture into aviation issues and apply layman's logic to it. I'll leave that to aviators and aeronautical engineers... and expect them to drill deeply into the planes, their flight profiles and all sorts of stuff I don't even begin to understand. But please don't discard out of hand an engineering analysis of the twin towers... something you likely don't know too much about... or ridicule someone who is advocating such study and actually DOING it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 20 2011, 10:02 PM
Post #137





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Island Pilot,

I haven't gone into the destruction of building 7 very much and don't wish to open this one up at this time. However I would like to ask readers to consider that we don't know what happened behind the facade of bldg 7 in the few minutes before we saw the facade come down with a 2.25 period which matched G. I believe that there may have been not much left inside of bldg 7 when its collapse became apparent to the naked eye. So perhaps the main part of the collapse was actually slower before and behind the facade and what we saw was just the glass curtain wall. I am not certain of this but it is something to consider.

Also it should be noted that the most recent studies of the collapse of bldg 7 show movement BEFORE the 2.25 seconds of G acceleration... movement not seen by the naked eye. And the most recent traces of the collapse show the facade actually collapse for a brief period as GREATER than G... This would mean that it was not ONLY "falling" but some other force was pushing or pulling it down...

Unfortunately we can't see inside these buildings where apparently the collapse initiations took place. We have to induce what happened by careful observations of the exterior and knowledge of the structure... and science.

These were very complex events and we shouldn't try to simply and package them into something that every Tom, Dick and Harry can understand.. necessarily.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Jun 21 2011, 02:27 AM
Post #138





Group: Core Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 16-June 10
From: Western Lake Erie, Ohio, Michigan, Canada
Member No.: 5,099



Thanks talayo for your thoughtful and well reasoned comments:

QUOTE (talayo @ Jun 20 2011, 04:58 PM) *
IslandPilot:

While your thoughts and defense of sanserso are commendable, you seem to not understand the problem with his position.

It does not matter whether he is right or wrong about the possibility of the collapse to had been driven mainly by gravitational forces.


I will respond to many of your other comments in the nearby referenced post, without providing several "quote bubbles", to save a little time and P4T site "bandwidth" (maybe).

I probably DO understand several of our "group's" problems with his position and statements. For one thing, his "abrasive" personality may not be intentional... he "writes" with the kind of "attitude and accent" typical of "Easteners" that us "Midwesterners" "love to hate"...

his excessive "assertiveness" seems to come across as a "snobbish", "know-it-all" attitude toward the rest of us. He tried to make a "sincere apology" a little while ago... which would have been OK... if he would have stopped there, but he "ruined that" by continuing on with more "stuff" to defend his views in the same post. I understand this because I have a tendency to do the same thing myself, most of the time.

At this time, he reminds me of Lassie trying to get someone's attention by his incessant barking... "Timmy's in the WELL!" "Timmy's in the WELL!"

But there is a possibility that he is "on to something" significant as far as explaining HOW the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 actually happened, rather than how it "could" have happened. But I don't think he quite understands it yet...

Maybe "Timmy really IS in the WELL", and maybe we should go over to the well and "take a look with a good flashlight".

His "area of expertise" is architecture and it is appropriate for him to seek out "clues" to the 911 Crime in the area of architecture and building construction. I found the info he sent me by email to be very informative and "enlightening" in some ways.

Yet I also found it somewhat "dissapointing" because it made no attempt to account for ANY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT of additional HEAT or (explosive) ENERGY beyond that of gravity, to account for the complete "dustification" and "destruction" of the Twin Towers and their ENTIRE CONTENTS into very HOT "Pyroclyastic Dust" clouds which rose to heights much greater than the twin towers themselves. The "weird" fires, and "molten steel" seem impossible to "explain" by any kind of "gravitational collapse"... (or so it would seem, to most "normal people")

The "Theories" of Mini-Nukes, and "Thermite/Thermate" reactions, as well as Dr. Judy Wood's Directed Energy Weapons, and "Hutchenson Effect" seemed to "explain" some of the 911 anomalies.

Dimitri Kasalov's ideas about underground NUKES planted to "demolish" the buildings before they could be allowed to be constructed, do a VERY GOOD JOB of explaining most aspects of the 911 WTC events, including the SEQUENCE of building destruction, and WHY WTC 7 had to be Included in the "plot".
Some of this stuff actually SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE! And I can't yet eliminate these ideas entirely.

Yet as you have already mentioned, how important is it to know the PRECISE MANNER in which the buildings were made to fall down.

I can assure you that it certainly wasn't very IMPORTANT EXACTLY HOW the buildings came down to the people who planned and carried out this terrible crime. I'm sure that you and I, and SanderO have already expended more time and effort trying to figure things out, than the actual Perpetrators who caused the buildings to collapse on 911.

Once you understand the above FACT... and some "new information" provided by SanderO, it becomes much easier to explain EXACTLY HOW the Twin Towers were destroyed... including all of the other "weird" and "mysterious" "side effects" associated with the destruction of the TWIN TOWERS on 911.

The "EASIEST" and "MOST SIMPLE" solution to a problem, or a crime, is usually the BEST solution, or the one CLOSEST TO THE TRUTH. The "complex" nature of the "collapse dynamics" are difficult enough to understand and explain, but the associated "side effects" like the "high energy" pyroclyastic dust clouds, and the complete destruction of the building contents, and the presence of Iron/aluminum "microspheres", make it nearly "IMPOSSIBLE" to figure out HOW THIS CRIME WAS COMMITTED... until one realizes TWO IMPORTANT THINGS...

The "first clue" comes from your "accurate observations" and statements:
QUOTE
He refers to his in-deapth and factual research when he is making claims for which there is not supporting evidence. For example, for many of the items to have been obliterated without recognition (practically all) the collapse would have had to act as a "blender". What is his evidence of such a behavior?

SanderO has no supporting evidence for many of his claims, just yet, because, as you have observed (practically all) of it has been oblitered beyond recognition, so it "covers up" nearly all of the evidence. But the "evidence of" the near total destruction and dustification of almost "everything" is an important clue, necessary to solve this crime, if it can be adequately explained.

Once you understand that the perpetrators of this crime had no part in "planning" the "side effects" associated with the building collapses, it becomes more "obvious" that they occurred as totally "Unanticipated Consequences" which also happened to provide a "benificial" effects for the Perps.

As a matter of fact, I now believe that any "unit of average Demolitions Specialists" trained as a soldiers in today's US Army, would be able to destroy any building similar to the twin towers, and cause it to come down, in a manner like that seen on 911 with a minimum amount of explosives and technical information, with less than two days "access" to certain areas of the building.

SanderO's constant "babbling" seemed bad enough to most of you guys, until he went "over the top" with his post "challenging" Richard Gage and everyone else to explain some of the observed Twin Tower(s of Babel?) "Collapse Side Effects".

The one about the "Pyroclyastic Dust Generation" really "got my goat"... so I started trying to figure out how that "might" happen from the gravitational collapse of a tall building. This is really pretty easy to "figure out", and the "explanation" for Dustification also helps to explain the "weird fires" that were also observed in the Twin Tower area.

I will provide more extensive support for some of my "ideas" later.

it's past my bedtime, and I'd like to leave SanderO with an important clue about "beam stud outlookers", which he explained to me a long time ago. I want him to take another look at the pictures of his 70 story "core column SPIRE", just before it "Euhler Buckled" into "oblivion". What are all of those "tabs" protruding from the sides of those remaining core columns?... they sure look like "beam stub outlookers" to me. If this is true... whatever happened to all the "core perimeter channels" that were once welded to the "outlookers" and bolted to all of the inner floor trusses on every floor in the building?

HMMMMMM????? dunno.gif

I think "TIMMY'S STILL IN THE WELL!".... but maybe not for too much longer.... salute.gif


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 21 2011, 04:21 AM
Post #139





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The channels that were affixed to the beam stubs we see still connected to the columns (beam stub outlookers) or tabs as you call them... are only a portion of the beam stub outlooker by the way... the other part is welded in the factory to the channels and then the two are connected in the field by a splice plate which is then bolted and or welded.

When the floors were destroyed by the huge loads raining down on them they failed in one or multiple ways and one of them was to rip the entire channel off at the beam stub connection... the connection of the splices, belts and or welds parted at the weakest point which apparently was the splice. In fact in examining the steel debris you can see man "tabs" and outlookers which survived the collapse still welded and in many cases bent but still attached to the spandrel or column. This tells us that the part of the connection failed and which part. So those tab welds to the core columns were much stronger than the splices from the tabs to the mating side of the outlooker which was attached to the channel. If you look through the debris you can find some truss support channels (lateral- long axis bracing) which has the other side of the beam stubs attached or perhaps evidence of where the HAD been attached.

The bracing in the short axis of the core between rows 500 -600 and 900-1000 was afixed between tho columns and these did NOT carry axial (floor) loads... so these were less prone to be ripped off from debris falling on them... as they did not support any floor. The long axis braces DID also support floor loads and they were on the side of the columns and were ripped off by collapsing floor rubble. If you look at the Spire you can see the bracing running from rows 500-600 (900-1000) intact, but the channels running outside row 500 and row 600 (and 900&1000) was ripped off. Columns 501 and 601 look like a huge ladder with the bracing being the rungs. This remaining bracing was in the long axis of the column. The shorter axis.. 22" (CC 501 was 52x22) was left unbraced by the collapsing floor rubble. Note that ALL the floor loads on one entire side of the towers were connected to the 8 core columns at that side... and that all the floor loads on each floor were supported by 8 beam stub outlookers.... that's a floor area of 60' x 208' or 12,000 square feet were carried by 8 beam stub outlookers. On the short side of the core there were 6 beam stub outlookers carrying 87' x 35' which was 3,000 SF.

The debris shows clear signs that the collapse failed connections... apparently the weakest "link" in the structure. If the connection fails... the members it connects are likely to be more or less intact. This is what the steel shows in the "pile".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
talayo
post Jun 21 2011, 07:37 PM
Post #140





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 18-November 07
Member No.: 2,492



IslandPilot:

I do not find sanderso abnoxios. He is direct and assertive but that is not a problem.

I may find sanderso to be stubborn or frustrating but certainly not abnoxios.

Besides he has discovered a method to punish all of his critics.

He simply emulates Tolstoy and writes several chapters to respond to a simple question, so now you are forced to read lenghy dissertations looking for an answer to your objection. One gives up because of reading exhaustation, so he wins.

To the ones familiar with the British series "Yes, Minister", he would attract the admiration of Sir Humphrey Appleby.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th November 2019 - 11:50 PM