| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| 'Steel weakened by fire to the point of collapse'; Oh really? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 23 2008, 05:41 PM (967 Views) | |
| Lidane | Apr 23 2008, 05:41 PM Post #1 |
|
Isn't that the central premise of the government's report that explains how the towers fell? That the sub-hour-long fires didn't melt the steel, but were enough to weaken the structural steel to the point of global collapse? If that is true, then why didn't these steel-framed high-rises collapse? Or any other before or after 9/11, for that matter? (see below)    Compare the infernos above raging out of control for hours on end, to the weakened state of the smoldering fire of the Twin Towers--which lasted under an hour and has nearly burned itself out by the time of collapse.  Edited by Lidane, Apr 23 2008, 05:45 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| RKOwens4 | Apr 23 2008, 11:48 PM Post #2 |
|
Hey Lidane, how many of those buildings had 767's crash into them? How many of those buildings were steel-framed buildings with unprotected steel? None of them. It's not a valid comparison. To this day I'm still literally blown away by the amount of people who compare the WTC's fires to fires in concrete buildings that suffered absolutely no structural damage from planes crashing into them. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the core tactic of the 9/11 truth movement: comparing apples to oranges. The first two photos you show are of the First Interstate Bank. This was a steel-framed building with protected steel (fireproofing typically with a 2-hour rating). The report on it states, "Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire." The WTC's fireproofing was completely blown off of the steel during the impacts and explosions, allowing the fires to attack bare steel. No plane had crashed into the First Interstate Bank. The third picture you show is of the Windsor Building in Madrid. This was a primarily concrete building with a concrete core running the full length of the building, but the top 11 floors had a steel-frame protected by fireproofing (except for the core). Even with the steel's 2-hour fireproofing intact, and even though no plane had crashed into this building, all 11 floors did collapse completely from fire alone, as was captured by multiple cameras. The concrete core and lower floors remained intact. This led to engineering trade magazines praising the safety and durability of concrete (which is naturally fire-resistant but costs more) over steel. In summary, the NIST report lists three reasons for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers (the plane impacts causing massive structural damage, the fireproofing being knocked off, and the fires) and says that if any one of these factors were not present, the buildings probably wouldn't have collapsed. IE, if a plane had hit and stripped the fireproofing but no fires broke out, the buildings would still be standing, or if no plane had hit but a fire broke out naturally and even if there was no fireproofing, the buildings wouldn't have collapsed. So it's not valid to compare the World Trade Center to an office fire with not one but TWO of these factors removed (no plane and fireproofing not removed). |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Apr 24 2008, 05:25 AM Post #3 |
|
"if no plane had hit but a fire broke out naturally and even if there was no fireproofing, the buildings wouldn't have collapsed" no plane hit WTC 7. no fireproofing was stripped from WTC 7. ...so you've proven demolition of WTC 7. Edited by Headspin, Apr 24 2008, 05:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Lidane | Apr 24 2008, 07:00 AM Post #4 |
|
What does planes crashing into a building have to do with the notion of steel being weakened by fire? Are you saying that the plane crash somehow causes the steel to be weakened by fire?? And in the absence of a plane crash, the steel would NOT be weakened to the point of collapse? Seriously, what kind of bizarre nonsense is that? 
|
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Apr 24 2008, 07:10 AM Post #5 |
|
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the core tactic of the false skeptics and Official Story defenders: accept everything in the NIST WTC Collapse Report as if it were gospel! The statement that; "the WTC's fireproofing was completely blown off of the steel during the impacts and explosions, allowing the fires to attack bare steel", is pure speculation on the part of NIST and is not founded on empirical evidence! NIST stated that it was necessary for most of the insulation to be removed in order for the fires to achieve the collapse initiation result established by their worst case scenario computer model.
The planes caused major superficial damage. The buildings stood firm and revealed no signs of instability after the impacts. In WTC1, NIST estimated that of the 47 core columns, 3 were severed and 6 were seriously damaged. The tower's builders believed would be able to withstand the loss of a complete side of perimeter columns as well as two corners and still withstand 100 mph winds. On 9/11, WTC1 had it's middle perimeter columns severed on the north (impact face). NIST has never proven, other than out of need, that extensive fireproofing was removed as a result of the aircraft impacts. NIST has never proven that the steel could have reached the temperatures necessary to weaken it sufficiently to make their worst case computer model show a collapse initiation. NIST entered into the investigation with the foregone conclusion that the collapse was due to the consequences of aircraft impact and subsequent fires. They then set out to produce a report that focused almost entirely on proving this conclusion. This unscientific foregone conclusion provided NIST with a basis for all the assumptions they used, and provided them with the false justification for declaring them to be reasonably acceptable. MM |
|
|
|
| Lidane | Apr 24 2008, 07:32 AM Post #6 |
|
Exactly! The idea of fireproofing being blown off the steel by the impact of the plane is nothing more than wild speculation. It's a case of NIST pulling yet another ridiculous story out their ass in order to fit their pre-conceived conclusion. Even if it were true, it would only effect the area of the impact zone. The 90 or so floors below still have all their fireproofing intact and are unaffected in the least by the impact of the plane. 
|
|
|
|
| TDX | Apr 24 2008, 08:17 AM Post #7 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNS2Mld9v24 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTqY_dld08g Edited by TDX, Apr 24 2008, 08:17 AM.
|
|
|
|
| mid life rethinker | Apr 24 2008, 10:30 AM Post #8 |
|
HAHA Maybe RKOWens doesn't know about WTC 7 yet. Be gentle. |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Apr 24 2008, 03:24 PM Post #9 |
|
See my first post concerning the truth movement's core tactic: comparing apples to oranges. The summary on the WTC towers is not applicable to every other building in the world. Almost 100% regardless of this glaring fact, WTC7 did suffer massive structural damage, same as the towers, from falling debris. Did either of the buildings listed in Lidane's original post have any structural damage whatsoever? No. Fires just broke out in them. So it's not valid to compare these fires to fires in buildings which had already sustained massive structural damage (whether from planes or by falling debris). Also, the fireproofing in WTC7 almost certainly would have been blown off by the two surge clouds from the collapses. This is a matter of some debate, but we know the fireproofing in the other surrounding buildings was completely stripped from its steel columns from the surge clouds, so its only logical that WTC7 would have been no different. So the two WTC towers suffered massive structural damage, had their fireproofing removed, and had fires. WTC7 suffered massive structural damage, had its fireproofing removed, and had fires. The other buildings conspiracists love to refer to had no structural damage, had their fireproofing intact or were made of concrete, and had fires. The condition of WTC7 was much closer to the condition of the towers in terms of damage and fireproofing. Again, you are fooling yourselves by believing that it's relevant to compare the WTC to these other buildings. Imagine you're a doctor. A patient comes in with a gunshot wound straight in his chest. He's also an older man in his 70s whose body has a weakened ability to withstand and heal from injury (ie, his "fireproofing" is gone). Actually let's put it like this... the man is at home, slowly bleeding out with no doctor coming to his aid (no firefighters fighting the fires), and after an hour or so, he bleeds to death and dies. Then there's a young man in his 20s, extremely healthy and robust, like a wall of concrete, and never gets shot, but somehow has an injury that causes his to start bleeding profusely. After an hour or two, he hasn't died, and doctors finally show up and help. Does this mean there must be some conspiracy with the old man who had been shot? Or should we recognize that being shot and being older are hugely critical factors, and that we shouldn't compare apples to oranges? |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Apr 24 2008, 03:37 PM Post #10 |
|
Is this a serious question, or are you just trying to be humerous? What does a plane crash have to do with anything? It has everything to do with it. Like I said, NIST states that if no plane had hit the towers and a fire had simply broken out, the towers wouldn't have collapsed. Even if their fireproofing were removed. Honestly, did you seriously just ask me if NIST or I or anyone else claims that it was the PLANE IMPACTS that caused the steel to be weakened? I don't really know how to respond to such a bizarre question, so I'll just move on. But of course the plane impacts didn't weaken the steel. Fires weaken steel by 50% at 1100 degrees F. The fires in the World Trade Center were burning at 1800 degrees F. This is the same temperature we'd expect from most other office fires, since the jet fuel had almost nothing to do with the fires (30% was burned up in the initial explosion, and the other 70% burned off within the next 10 minutes). So the bare steel, with no fireproofing, would have lost well over 50% of its strength. But this still wouldn't have caused the towers to collapse. The plane impacts had removed about 15% of the columns, which meant that the load of the floors above was redistributed to the columns which had lost over 50% of their strength. So the plane impacts had nothing to do with causing the steel to lose its strength, but it still had a lot to do with the buildings ultimately collapsing. |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Apr 24 2008, 03:43 PM Post #11 |
|
what do you mean? I thought the discussion was about the collapse of the wtc? you have me confused...old men...gunshots...surge clouds. ..what the are you talking about? |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Apr 24 2008, 03:47 PM Post #12 |
|
RKOwen's patented fireproofing
|
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Apr 24 2008, 03:51 PM Post #13 |
|
Absolutely incorrect. The missing fireproofing is supported by PICTURES of the impact zones, where we can see with our own eyes that the fireproofing was missing. The report includes many, many photos. This is one I found a copy of online. The red arrows point to bare steel: 
No, the TRUTH movement and its leaders like Steven Jones start out with an idea and then go about trying to prove it, rather than investigating the evidence objectively and letting the evidence speak for itself. Steven Jones believed that thermate had brought down the Twin Towers. Likely one day he said, "If this were the case, then there must be traces of it in the dust." and with the pre-existing belief that thermate residue must exist in the dust, went about trying to prove it. When he analyzed it, he found that elements like sulfur and iron were present, but the two main elements of thermate (barium nitrate and aluminum oxide) were not found at all, neither by the USGS or by Jones himself. And sulfur and iron, though used in thermate, were already abundant at the WTC due to its sulfur-based drywall and iron-bearing computer equipment, paint, ceramics, and practically everything else in an office building. If a reasonable scientist let the evidence speak for itself, Jones would say, "The sulfur and iron have perfectly reasonable alternative explanations, and the two main elements I was really looking for I didn't find at all, so therefore I can definitively state that thermate was not used." But Jones went about trying to twist and distort the facts, and ended up saying that the iron and sulfur alone proves his thermate theory! That's 9/11 scholarship for you. But you accuse the government agencies of doing this? |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Apr 24 2008, 04:16 PM Post #14 |
|
what a complete idiot you are. prove that wtc 7 lost its fireproofing, or at least propose a reasonable explanation prove that barium-nitrate had to be used as an oxidiser, explain to me why potassium permanganate was not used as an thermate oxidiser....otherwise stop parroting the bunk you hear from the other jrefers. Doctor Jones has found molten iron-aluminium spheres, independently confirmed. spectroscopy readings reveal presence of manganese, potassium, oxygen and sulphur. As for your sulphur in plastics and drywall, that's bunk. sulphur was found inside hollow micro-spheres. why do you speak here as if you are some sort of expert when you have not even read his paper? Its clear you have not read his work, because of the serious errors you just made. before you hand-wave it all away with your rubble-cum-cake-mix explanation - explain what melted the iron http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf explain what melted the molybdenum and vapourised lead http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf explain what turned structural steel beams into swiss cheese. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf Edited by Headspin, Apr 24 2008, 04:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
| honestjoe | Apr 24 2008, 04:51 PM Post #15 |
|
To answer your question #1. Even NIST admits that the structural damage was not enough to cause instability “The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” NIST, p. xxxviii To answer your #2. question about "How many of those buildings were steel-framed buildings with unprotected steel?" Two that I'm aware of, one of which had no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through allowing the fire to rapidly engulf over twice the total number of floors effected by fire on 9/11 and the building had NO SPRINKLER SYSTEM as there had been on 9/11, Plus at that time the office furniture was highly flammable causing the raging inferno to burn over three time as long as on 9/11, reaching much hotter temperatures than on 9/11! The fire left NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE STEEL! This raging inferno that inspired the movie " The Towering Inferno" WAS THE WTC IN 1975! Why did it not collapse? On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows (therefore cooler) and burned at most only 20 minutes in any given area according to NIST! “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179) “Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181 “None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180 "NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed! This is not surprising because NIST was using kerosene or hydrocarbon/cellulosic-based fuels. NIST WANTED high temperatures to support the idea that the structural steel was weakened by heating effects. The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation" NIST exaggerated the temperatures (1300 F), applied these temperatures for 2 hours (i.e. over twice the duration of fires known to have existed in the failure zones), striped all the fireproofing, and then doubled the height of the inward pull zone, and applied triple the weight of what the floors were known to actually be supporting to produce even a hint of bowing from fire. Which was "ONLY" 3 inches! So what does NIST do? NIST ADMITS that they exaggerated the degree of sagging used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST’s computer model showed a sagging of at least 48 inches of floor-sag-induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. So according to NIST (tweaked) computer model the trusses began to sag like an oven grill made of plastic and as they sagged they began to pull on the much stronger and thicker perimeter columns made out of 1,000,000 PSI super-strong steel. Column buckling was found to occur when an inward lateral load (pull-in) of approximately 12 kips was applied to three adjacent floor levels. (NCSTAR 1-6 p xlix para1) Column instability (buckling) was reached with a transverse load of 12.6 kips per column. (NCSTAR 1-6 p115 para2) As the trusses sagged do to the supposed oven like temp, the 5/8” ASTM A325 bolts that coonect the trusses to the perimeter columns had amazingly resisted the same high heat by some unknown miracle (NIST has not explained how) and manged to pull in the much stronger and thicker perimeter columns made out of 1,000,000 PSI super-strong steel that were designed to withstand gale force winds and a 100yr storm. NIST’s table 4-4 (NCSTAR 1-6 p75) shows that the interior seat capacity against horizontal tensile force is only 9 kips. (So does figure 4-16 NCSTAR 1-6 p78) Thus, we are 3 kips to 3.6 kips away from a working mode of failure. And if you calculate any loss of strength do to heat on the thicker "EXTERIOR" columns that same loss do to heat would be greater for the smaller 5/8" bolts because they would require less time to heat and would be more exposed to higher temperatures as they were sitting "INSIDE" the supposed oven with no place (cool side) for the heat to dissipate. I must be missing something because at this point I just see far to many contradictions in the physical tests to support NIST's tweaked (ADMITTEDLY) computer simulation. I would apreciate any who can help me understand what it is that I'm overlooking. |
|
|
|
| honestjoe | Apr 24 2008, 05:23 PM Post #16 |
|
Please correct me if I'm wrong but that photo is an area that the steel was LEAST effected by the fire as can be diminstrated by the survivers that managed to wave for help from those very locations that according to NIST the STEEL was 700 C to 1,000 C which would be seen as a bright cherry red to a bright yellow glow. After the photos of people were found NIST said its the enclosed floors ABOVE the impact zone were we are unable to see the fire that was effected by the fire enough to cause the collapse. One problem with this has been pointed out by Dr Greening who said: “NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST’s collapse theory falls apart. The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory.” Why would the insulation ABOVE the impact zone be knocked off when NIST gave 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft impacting the tower. Which by the way is not enough for the required 6,000 MJ needed to remove the insulation and that is from NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, Appendix C, and MIT who also came up with the 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft said it was consumed in damaging the aircraft and building, with no energy remaining to remove the insulation! And that was before the plans were leaked in which we discovered that the columns were much more thinker than what they were calculated to be in the impact zones. So there is absolutely no way that the floors ABOVE the impact zones lost all their insulation by a shotgun blast of flying parts from the floor BELLOW that supposedly scattered in a 360* radius on the floors ABOVE! |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Apr 24 2008, 06:08 PM Post #17 |
|
I look at the photograph and I'm amazed at how much insulation I can see that is still attached. Yes, you can see some bare iron in the area to the left, but amazingly, there is a lot of damage that shows continuous fireproofing and no sign of bare metal. This is the amount of fireproofing dislodgement to be seen at the impact zone? NIST said virtually all the fireproofing had to be stripped for their 'hot fires' hypothesis to succeed. We are expected to obediently accept the soundness of NIST's assumptions regarding the almost complete fire proofing removal, why? Would anyone expect fireproofing to become exponentially more stripped, the further away it was from the impact zone? That photo, which should show the most dramatic, as well as the maximum damage to the fireproofing. Instead, it suggests a minimum of 80% of the fireproofing was still stuck on. The interior is too dark and the photo resolution to low, to evaluate it's level of stripped fireproofing. I've seen reports attesting to the tenacity of the binding strength of the fireproofing. It is designed to stick to the steel and it would be like scraping away at intact paint trying to remove it. NIST actually used shotgun blasts on coated plywood as part of their testing. MM Edited by Miragememories, Apr 24 2008, 06:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Headspin | Apr 24 2008, 07:33 PM Post #18 |
|
The north tower failed first on the opposite side to the entry hole, so for this "bare steel/stripped fireproofing" theory to be true, the fireproofing should have been stripped more on the side opposite the plane entry side, which is ludicrous. In fact, the evidence is consistent with the fireproofing itself being a form of thermite which melted the steel. prior fireproofing work carried out over the exact floors that the planes struck. http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272 Unburned thermite has been found in the dust which resembles red paint flakes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FCqsIgCcZQ&eurl The north tower central columns were hit on the north face, but the tower tilted to the south prior to collapse, indicates that the side that was mostly undamaged failed before the damaged side. this does not support the "stripped fireproof theory", but does support the "thermite applied to columns as 'fireproofing'" theory. Edited by Headspin, Apr 24 2008, 07:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Headspin | Apr 24 2008, 08:46 PM Post #19 |
|
I want an explanation to this ridiculous statement. what "other surrounding buildings" are you talking about? without a response from you, we must conclude that you lie when you are caught out contradicting yourself. |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Apr 24 2008, 10:27 PM Post #20 |
|
HOOOOOOOOOLY God. This is one of the most amazing things I've heard from a truther. One second... and, done. This quote has just been nominated for the April 2008 Stundie Awards (the awards for the most bizarre truther quotes). So according to you, the floors below the impacted sections shouldn't have collapsed when the top section came down on them, because their fireproofing was intact? So fireproofing on their steel columns made the columns super strong? LOL. The purpose of FIREproofing is to protect against... well, I'm not going to say it. It you don't know, or can't figure it out, then I'm not going to explain it to you. But the World Trade Center's floors were designed to have the ability to withstand 11 floors being dropped onto any given floor if dropped gradually, or 6 floors if dropped suddenly (which was the case). The South Tower had 29 floors dropped onto the floors below after the collapse initiation began, and the North Tower had 12 floors dropped onto the lower floors. It didn't make any difference whatsoever whether there was fireproofing on the lower floors. How would it? |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Apr 24 2008, 10:37 PM Post #21 |
|
Oh? The collapse of WTC7 was the one "event" that I saw live on 9/11 as it happened. I tuned in just after the towers fell and clearly remember the news anchors on every channel saying that another building was on fire and the FDNY was expecting it to collapse, which is why I (like many others) watched the unfolding events closely and caught the collapse of WTC7. More people probably saw the collapse of Building 7 than the collapse of the towers. Anyway, I just find it puzzling and somewhat entertaining that truthers believe that they're the only ones who know about WTC7 and that some kind of media suppression has kept most people from knowing about it and its collapse. Even before I got involved into the whole 9/11 truthers vs. debunkers debate, I knew about Building 7. |
|
|
|
| honestjoe | Apr 24 2008, 11:23 PM Post #22 |
|
I believe what he is pointing out is that the bottom of the towers were not affected by the fire so they should have at the very least offered some kind of resistance but NIST has basically said that had the top block of 1WTC been suspended in the air next to 2WTC and it were dropped in a vacuum at the same time that 2WTC began to collapse straight through the path of MOST resistance that is also stronger (do to the lower structural steel NOT weakened by fire), greater in mass (do to both the lower core and perimeter columns being much thicker), and density (do to the first 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, having solid steel high density beams in place of trusses.), than that of the top block smashing through the much larger and stronger bottom portion of the tower. They would both hit the ground at .05 seconds apart. That’s close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air. Popular Mechanics says "Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy." The enormous energy spent ejecting several tonnes of material hundreds of feet would be equal to the enormous energy of resistance by just the air alone. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 11 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers’ former height. So shouldn't the undamaged, much larger and stronger part of the WTC buildings at least crushed floor for floor the smaller and much weaker top portion? Even two to one say one floor of the top portion was able by some magic force to crush two floors of the larger undamaged and much stronger (not softened by fire) lower portion of the tower (made of thicker columns) then at the very least shouldn't half the lower portion still be standing as the top portion would run out of floors before the bottom would even at two floors of the bottom crushed to every one of the top crushed. |
|
|
|
| Lidane | Apr 25 2008, 01:46 AM Post #23 |
|
What are you trying to say? You're not making much sense. Are you claiming the impact of the plane was the cause of the collapse, and that fire was not a factor? Because that's not what the NIST report claims. The report claims steel weakened by fire was the primary reason for the collapse. It also claims fireproofing was stripped off by the impact of the plane. Did you even bother to read the report? Edited by Lidane, Apr 25 2008, 01:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Headspin | Apr 25 2008, 06:25 AM Post #24 |
|
Bump |
|
|
|
| mid life rethinker | Apr 25 2008, 06:50 AM Post #25 |
|
Good - I'm glad. But you are an exception. Most of America still doesn't know about WTC7 I'd venture to say. I am suspect of anyone who can look at the collapse of WTC and not realize something is very amiss with the official story. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
7:01 AM Nov 29
