FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Top Reasons Indicating an Inside Job
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr

The point about the air was not it's negligable weight, but that 70% of the VOLUME of the building provided little or no resistance to the falling mass.

I've already showed you how to get the weight of concrete and steel for one floor, why should I have to repeat???

The 20 million gave us much more information than you are insinuating, read the reports if you are really interested in the science of the collapses, stop trying to waste my time explaining things you could find for yourself, if truth is REALLY your goal.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:44 pm    Post subject: Dont do any skyscraper design Reply with quote

Quote:
Total weight of the concrete on one floor of WTC 1 = 627 tons.

In addition, the mass of structural steel on one floor is estimated to be 1000 tons(average per floor taking total steel and dividing by 110) Higher floors had slightly less, lower floors slightly more by about 20-30% either way from the 55 floor.

All the values used to do this calculation were gleaned from the study of navstar1-1. As to exactly where each of these values are in that document, find them yourself, the exercise will do your brain some good.


The WTC towers were 116 stories tall. The NIST report has a spot where it says some steel at the bottom was 7" thick. Other sources say the box columns were made of 5" and 3" steel. At the top floors it was down to 1/4". I bet there was more structural steel in the six basement level than in the top 20. I don't buy a linear distribution for a minute. So the clowns at NIST need to compute and all of the architects and structural engineers in the country should be demanding it.

They had to figure this type of stuff out for the Empire State Building. What kinds of computers did they have then?

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There were SIX BASEMENT LEVELS!

They had to have steel too. There were technical floors with machinery for elevators. They did not have NORMAL flooring.

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2872
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan's analysis on the mass of the twin towers, as compared to the size, from top to bottom:



Nothing linear about it, when you consider the materials used.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr

Quote:
I don't buy a linear distribution for a minute.


The floor weights, other than the three mechanical floors, were identical for every floor. The only differences from one floor to another was the varying thickness of the steel the frame and core columns were made from.







This is the base of the largest corner core columns, with specs.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Fintan's analysis on the mass of the twin towers, as compared to the size, from top to bottom:



Nothing linear about it, when you consider the materials used.


Hard to imagine a pancake effect when you look at it like that.
I think the "experts" are being sent in to BS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aAzzAa

Quote:
Hard to imagine a pancake effect when you look at it like that.


Hard to imagine anything, when you know so little about it.

Quote:
I think the "experts" are being sent in to BS.


No, you just don't have the ability to think at all. Who sent you???

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:
aAzzAa

Quote:
Hard to imagine a pancake effect when you look at it like that.


Hard to imagine anything, when you know so little about it.

Quote:
I think the "experts" are being sent in to BS.


No, you just don't have the ability to think at all. Who sent you???

Grumpy Cool


Sorry Grumpy, my comment was in reference to experts, not you.
But if you must know, the merry men sent me to have a good laugh at those so sure like you.

The difference between you and I, from what I see, is that I am prepared to listen to more than just one side of an argument. Knowing about physics does not lead to knowing about the cause that led such physics to unfold.

The NIST report has many grey areas. They admit it themselves, which is why I made comment about your mediocrity.

From the beginning NIST make statements like " the outputs of the four step simulations was subject to uncertainties in the as-built condition of the towers, the interior layout and furnishings, the aircraft impact, the internal damage to the towers (especially the thermal insulation for fire protection of the structural steel......). Once again they have to rely on visual evidence from the outside and eye witness accounts. With regards the thermal insulation they say that the WTC towers likely would not have collapsed if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged. Where is the evidence that the thermal insulation was widely dislodged? I am not suggesting it wasn't, I am referring to their admission that the whole area is filled with uncertainty (their word)

Based on this uncertianty, NIST also say that there was no corroborating evidence for the use of explosives. You mean no visual evidence from cameras, and no eye witness accounts? Well, I've not watched much but I have seen a few videos of witnesses giving accounts of explosives. Now that I know that visual evidence and eye witness accounts is the main gist of the theory I will certainly go on the lookout for more evidence regarding explosives.

It's just the way I am Grumpy, open minded. If you are happy with your obnoxious insulting methods to hang onto your own over-surety, then so be it. But that's all you are, an overconfident physicist with a blind streak and an obnoxious resentment for anyone challenging your theory. You should have stayed selling pantomime tickets.

Not all scientists are happy with the NIST report. I can see why to some extent. Mediocre mentalities like yours can then come along and call all the "experts" that are not happy with the report "fools" and not scientists. If you are not already, why not get yourself some extra money working as some agent whose job it is to stop challenges to the NIST report from gaining momentum?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aAzzAa

Quote:
Not all scientists are happy with the NIST report.


Just the ones with nothing to sell, like Jones, Ryan and Wood. There are a few who think various point were not given sufficient emphasis, some who wanted NIST to describe the events of the collapses in detail, but there are very few who would claim that the conclusions are wrong. And like all groups, there are always a few on the lunatic fringe, even among Physicists.

And YOU still don't know what you're talking about.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Fintan's analysis on the mass of the twin towers, as compared to the size, from top to bottom: Nothing linear about it, when you consider the materials used.


Those gray bands are the TECHNICAL FLOORS. Those floors had beams instead of trusses. They had to be a lot heavier, So they would have to bulge outward for that picture to be representative of their weight.

The slanted sides look like a linear increase but since the area of each floor is going to be the square of the side it would be more than that. I would still prefer a table or a graph.

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:
aAzzAa

Quote:
Not all scientists are happy with the NIST report.


Just the ones with nothing to sell, like Jones, Ryan and Wood. There are a few who think various point were not given sufficient emphasis, some who wanted NIST to describe the events of the collapses in detail, but there are very few who would claim that the conclusions are wrong. And like all groups, there are always a few on the lunatic fringe, even among Physicists.

And YOU still don't know what you're talking about.

Grumpy Cool


And you still side stepped the whole issue. Doesn't look good on you actually.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy Poo, I can suggest a better reason to not look for evidence of explosives. Can you imagine the kind of signal it would have sent out if the government asked for the experts to search for evidence of explosives? It was a non starter. Alternatively, what was very much on the agenda was to try to make things fit into a theory where the planes were seen as the cause. Now, you may not question the conclusions of such a report, but here are the grounds their report was built on:

Quote:
" the outputs of the four step simulations was subject to uncertainties in the as-built condition of the towers, the interior layout and furnishings, the aircraft impact, the internal damage to the towers (especially the thermal insulation for fire protection of the structural steel......).


You're not honestly telling me an effort was made to even look for an explosive are you? For NIST to say they found no evidence is an outright lie. They could never have instigated any search, it would have been unthinkable under the circumstances. We were supposed to have been hit without warning by a bunch of blood thirsty terrorists.

Screw your fake surety.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aAzzAa

Quote:
Screw your fake surety.


Screw your genuine idiocy.

Quote:
You're not honestly telling me an effort was made to even look for an explosive are you?


The first agencies on scene were the FBI, ATF and FEMA. Bomb sniffing dogs were brought in as well to protect the firefighters and police as they did their rescues. After no hint of explosives were found, the bomb sniffing dogs were withdrawn and cadaver dogs replaced them. NIST was not charged with investigation until later the next year, well after it had been determined that no explosives were present or had been used. Detection of explosives is part of the Jobs of both the FBI and the ATF, if you are really interested in their procedures ask them, I don't have the time or inclination to waste my time on such foolishness, but it is right up your alley.

Quote:
For NIST to say they found no evidence is an outright lie.


What is an outright lie is for you to claim to know anything about the subject. NIST, being the pros, knew how to conduct the investigation, they do it all the time(long before 911), if they say no evidence of explosives were found, no evidence for explosives were found. 200+ scientists trump your stupidity every time, dumbass.

Quote:
They could never have instigated any search, it would have been unthinkable under the circumstances.


After 1993, they could have done nothing else BUT to look for explosives. Stop being so stupid.

Quote:
Can you imagine the kind of signal it would have sent out if the government asked for the experts to search for evidence of explosives?


Can you imagine if they DIDN'T??? A big part of the cleanup was conducted by professional Controlled Demo companies, are you saying they would OVERLOOK such obvious signs??? If so, what reason do you call these American(as well as the firefighters, police and others) traitors to their country??? I would not recommend doing that where they can see and hear you, wouldn't be a healthy exercise.

Quote:
Now, you may not question the conclusions of such a report, but here are the grounds their report was built on:


The output of these simulations was subject to uncertainties in the as-built condition of the towers, the
interior layout and furnishings, the aircraft impact, the internal damage to the towers (especially the
thermal insulation for fire protection of the structural steel, which is colloquially referred to as
fireproofing), the redistribution of the combustibles, and the response of the building structural
components to the heat from the fires. To increase confidence in the simulation results, NIST used the
visual evidence, eyewitness accounts from inside and outside the buildings, laboratory tests involving
large fires and the heating of structural components, and formal statistical methods to identify influential
parameters and quantify the variability in analysis results.

The whole statement, quoted in context.

Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of
the aircraft.
The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal
structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers
withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged
insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires. The robustness of the perimeter
frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact.
The structural system redistributed loads without collapsing in places of aircraft impact,
avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was
intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In
each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural
components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.
In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the
building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their
capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became
overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the
south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the
south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.
In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the
east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side
of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter
columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring
columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of
the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft
impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the
perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC
2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building
core and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the
aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.
The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft
impact damage and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been
widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

The tragic consequences of the September 11, 2001, attacks were directly attributable to the fact that
terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers.
Buildings for use by the
general population are not designed to withstand attacks of such severity; building codes do not require
building designs to consider aircraft impact. In our cities, there has been no experience with a disaster of
such magnitude, nor has there been any in which the total collapse of a high-rise building occurred so
rapidly and with little warning.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf.

So fuck off, dumbass.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The first agencies on scene were the FBI, ATF and FEMA. Bomb sniffing dogs were brought in as well to protect the firefighters and police as they did their rescues. After no hint of explosives were found, the bomb sniffing dogs were withdrawn and cadaver dogs replaced them. NIST was not charged with investigation until later the next year, well after it had been determined that no explosives were present or had been used. Detection of explosives is part of the Jobs of both the FBI and the ATF, if you are really interested in their procedures ask them, I don't have the time or inclination to waste my time on such foolishness, but it is right up your alley.


You're such a cretin! So did the FBI write out a report about their procedures for determining whether explosives could have been the cause of the collapse of the towers that day? Where is this report?


Quote:
For NIST to say they found no evidence is an outright lie.


Quote:
What is an outright lie is for you to claim to know anything about the subject. NIST, being the pros, knew how to conduct the investigation, they do it all the time(long before 911), if they say no evidence of explosives were found, no evidence for explosives were found. 200+ scientists trump your stupidity every time, dumbass.


You're such a silly moron.

It isn't a defense for you to say I can't question the experts, and if 200 say this and that then it is that way. You can stick that reasoning up your ass. Your defense is the kind of thing I'd expect from a regime like the Chinese government trying to defend their human rights record.



Quote:
Can you imagine if they DIDN'T??? A big part of the cleanup was conducted by professional Controlled Demo companies, are you saying they would OVERLOOK such obvious signs??? If so, what reason do you call these American(as well as the firefighters, police and others) traitors to their country??? I would not recommend doing that where they can see and hear you, wouldn't be a healthy exercise.


You love to use the emotional blackmail card. After watching the videos on the NIST site, I'd say 99% of those involved are just looking forward to their next cigerette break, and are just doing what their team leader is commanding. If we're living in an age where people in democracies can't question those in authority, then I'd say the masses are ready for a dictatorship.


Quote:
The output of these simulations was subject to uncertainties in the as-built condition of the towers, the
interior layout and furnishings, the aircraft impact, the internal damage to the towers (especially the
thermal insulation for fire protection of the structural steel, which is colloquially referred to as
fireproofing), the redistribution of the combustibles, and the response of the building structural
components to the heat from the fires. To increase confidence in the simulation results, NIST used the
visual evidence, eyewitness accounts from inside and outside the buildings, laboratory tests involving
large fires and the heating of structural components, and formal statistical methods to identify influential
parameters and quantify the variability in analysis results.

The whole statement, quoted in context.


Dumbass, I mentioned the fact that they had to rely on evidence from eye witnesses and video the first time I sent the quote in. I had to send it in a second time to make sure you responded. And if anyone is interested and has the inclination, the rest of it is in the NIST report.


Quote:
Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of
the aircraft.
The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal
structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers
withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged
insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires. The robustness of the perimeter
frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact.
The structural system redistributed loads without collapsing in places of aircraft impact,
avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was
intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In
each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural
components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.
In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the
building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their
capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became
overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the
south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the
south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.
In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the
east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side
of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter
columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring
columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of
the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft
impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the
perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC
2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building
core and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the
aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.
The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft
impact damage and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been
widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

The tragic consequences of the September 11, 2001, attacks were directly attributable to the fact that
terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers.
Buildings for use by the
general population are not designed to withstand attacks of such severity; building codes do not require
building designs to consider aircraft impact. In our cities, there has been no experience with a disaster of
such magnitude, nor has there been any in which the total collapse of a high-rise building occurred so
rapidly and with little warning.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf.



Stop pretending it is all clear cut, IDIOT. Read the bit about uncertainty. it leaves room for other explanations, and I can guarentee you it wasn't on the agenda to conclude anything else but what had to be concluding in an official report. I know you are desperate to take down religion, but you've lost your rationale here Grump-Bot. You say you care about poo-free evidence, and yet can't see the massive cow-pat blocking one of your eyes.

Quote:

So fuck off, dumbass.


Whatever, you silly sausage. Nothing has changed, the NIST report admits it has had a lot of uncertainties to work with.

And just for you Grump-BOT, I don't believe you, or your science or the conclusions you are trying to say speak for themselves. There is room to doubt the report, and I'm choosing that option, especially since people like you can offer no vital substance to my believing it, except unquestioned allegiance to authority. America would have descended toward corruption centuries ago with attitudes like yours. It's taken that long to produce such blind specimins as you. Authorty has to be put through the mincer, because power corrupts and absolute power.....
And we all know the strength of distrust toward world leaders and other authorities nowadays.

Quantity of knowledge versus quality of charachter. Poor Grumpy, made the wrong choice. What will your quantitive approach really answer? Hardly anything of what really matters in life.
It answers for the trajectory of a bullet and the mechanism of the gun, but says nothing about the person about to pull the trigger, or who may be paying him to pull it, or who may be paying them to pay him.

Live in your make believe science world old man. Leave reality to those that aren't so easily satisfied by baby food explanations.

To summerize, you really haven't a clue about what led to the collapse of those towers. You bark, but I think you need a dentist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aAzzAa

Quote:
So did the FBI write out a report about their procedures for determining whether explosives could have been the cause of the collapse of the towers that day?


Ask them.

Quote:
It isn't a defense for you to say I can't question the experts, and if 200 say this and that then it is that way.


The science doesn't need my defense. I was just pointing out that one stupid individual's OPINION means absolutely nothing when compared to the evidenced work of over 200 real scientists.

Quote:
After watching the videos on the NIST site, I'd say 99% of those involved are just looking forward to their next cigerette break, and are just doing what their team leader is commanding.


I REALLY hope that you will convey that directly to the men and women who were there searching for their fallen comrades and other victims of the attack, say next September 11. I'll even provide the bullhorn(I'll make it a small one, so it doesn't hurt so bad when they surgically remove it from your ass. While they are at it, maybe they will remove your head from there as well).

Quote:
Stop pretending it is all clear cut, IDIOT.


I'm not pretending, dumbass.

Quote:
Read the bit about uncertainty. it leaves room for other explanations,


No, it does not. Real scientist must give the range of error, but explosives are well outside that range, as the reports say.

Quote:
I know you are desperate to take down religion


Believe what you like, but you will be held accountable for your ACTIONS.

Quote:
I don't believe you, or your science or the conclusions you are trying to say speak for themselves.


Yeah, I noticed your problem with science when we were discussing your book, Merkaba boy. It hasn't changed even though the topic has. You haven't got a clue what real evidence is.

Quote:
To summerize, I'm a complete and hopeless idiot.


Why yes, yes you are. Acceptance is the start of recovery. Terminal Stupidity is a terrible way to go.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.