aintforever Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 I'm quite happy (if that's the right word) with the explanation that the fuel from the aircraft started fires on several floors which then weakened the steel-framed structure which then allowed the weight of the floors above to collapse the whole building. The fuel itself would apparently have burned off within a few minutes but the fires continued for another hour or so. Later studies have indicated that a widespread fire extending over three or more floors would have been enough to bring the buildings down. The steel wasn't melted, just softened enough to distort and collapse. The concrete was pulverised during the descent and spread over the city. You won't find stories of paraffin fires causing similar collapses because there have been no comparable incidents. Exactly. Plus there is the fact that the structure was weakened by the plane slicing through almost a quarter of the exterior structure (much of the strength in the WTC buildings was in the external walls), numerous interior beams, and damaging the central core. On top of that you have the blast damage from the explosions. Truthers bang on about fire bringing them down but the real truth is plain to see to anyone with half a brain, fire was only part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Ok then, so if jet fuel didn't burn for very long, what fuelled the fires to the point where they were able to melt steel? Office furniture? The steel columns didn't melt though. The collapse was caused by the failure of the steel structure due to a loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire (it loses strength before it "melts" - which it doesn't do anyway) and the loss of any structural integrity as a result of the distortion to the steel from non-uniform temperatures of the fire. If a steel column (lightweight in this case) has different temperature fires on opposing sides, it will produce different stresses which will result in failure of the column (it expands differently) i.e. buckling of the column. Once a number of failures occur, then the integrity of the structure is compromised and the whole design fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 The steel columns didn't melt though. The collapse was caused by the failure of the steel structure due to a loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire (it loses strength before it "melts" - which it doesn't do anyway) and the loss of any structural integrity as a result of the distortion to the steel from non-uniform temperatures of the fire. If a steel column (lightweight in this case) has different temperature fires on opposing sides, it will produce different stresses which will result in failure of the column (it expands differently) i.e. buckling of the column. Once a number of failures occur, then the integrity of the structure is compromised and the whole design fails. Ah, the old "people design skyscrapers so they go down like a house of cards" theory Good luck explaining the bottom floors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 The steel columns didn't melt though. The collapse was caused by the failure of the steel structure due to a loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire (it loses strength before it "melts" - which it doesn't do anyway) and the loss of any structural integrity as a result of the distortion to the steel from non-uniform temperatures of the fire. If a steel column (lightweight in this case) has different temperature fires on opposing sides, it will produce different stresses which will result in failure of the column (it expands differently) i.e. buckling of the column. Once a number of failures occur, then the integrity of the structure is compromised and the whole design fails. Please don't post credible explanations opposing one of one of paps "Theories" - Its ruins all the fun. Just leave him be until he gets into full swing and they he will PROVE to you as FACT how he is right. It's pure comedy gold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Ok then, so if jet fuel didn't burn for very long, what fuelled the fires to the point where they were able to melt steel? Office furniture?if it was a nucleur bomb as per an earlier post, how come there were any survivors on the floors who had to jump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevvy Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 What amazes me is that both Building came Straight down, they didnt topple over or anything just straight down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Please don't post credible explanations opposing one of one of paps "Theories" - Its ruins all the fun. Just leave him be until he gets into full swing and they he will PROVE to you as FACT how he is right. It's pure comedy gold Credible? Still haven't got an explanation for the "super fuel" which turned entire buildings into dust. It's not paraffin and it isn't office furniture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Ok then, so if jet fuel didn't burn for very long, what fuelled the fires to the point where they were able to melt steel? Office furniture? I might have missed it, but if the planes weren't responsible for the collapse of the towers, what was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Ah, the old "people design skyscrapers so they go down like a house of cards" theory Good luck explaining the bottom floors. I find it remarkable that people with some intelligence can see how such a major crime could be covered up when many people who would have to have helped and then stayed silent. ok if it was a one bloke with an umbrella who spiked another with poison then i could believe, if it was Dr Kelly being murdered instead of committing suicide again, but flying aircraft into buildings (missiles) and placing bombs then i find that impossible. Oh and what happened to all the passengers and staff of the aircraft that the famillies still mourn....oh all actors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Credible? Still haven't got an explanation for the "super fuel" which turned entire buildings into dust. It's not paraffin and it isn't office furniture I think you will find it was the type of material that under pressure crumbles, the weight of the building above would be tremendous and downward pressure pushed the sides out as it collapsed. Mine is not a scientific approach of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 I find it remarkable that people with some intelligence can see how such a major crime could be covered up when many people who would have to have helped and then stayed silent. ok if it was a one bloke with an umbrella who spiked another with poison then i could believe, if it was Dr Kelly being murdered instead of committing suicide again, but flying aircraft into buildings (missiles) and placing bombs then i find that impossible. Oh and what happened to all the passengers and staff of the aircraft that the famillies still mourn....oh all actors How do you think the military works? Or intelligence services? They conduct covert operations, do they not? The reason they're able to do so without widespread publication of their activities is down to a culture of secrecy and a hierarchical command structure. Besides, your entire post is predicated on the assumption that no-one has ever come forward to dispute the official account. They have. 9/11 has been an immutable fairy tale from the start. The 9/11 Commission was a whitewash - two commissioners quit in disgust. So ingrained was the narrative, that they did not even bother to update the number of hijackers for the Commission report, years after the event, despite at least six being alive. If they can't even get that one basic fact corrected, you have to wonder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 I think you will find it was the type of material that under pressure crumbles, the weight of the building above would be tremendous and downward pressure pushed the sides out as it collapsed. Mine is not a scientific approach of course Hypothetical question. Out of the two, which would be more likely to crush you at freefall speed? 1) A 100kg block of concrete 2) 100kg of concrete dust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Hypothetical question. Out of the two, which would be more likely to crush you at freefall speed? 1) A 100kg block of concrete 2) 100kg of concrete dust I assume the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 What the **** killed all my work colleagues then certainly looked like a couple of planes to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 I'm off to get a decent bottle of something and a bag of popcorn. This has the makings of an epic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 I assume the same You'd assume wrong. The intact mass will kill you. The dust will disperse. Drop an intact bag of sugar on a tall glass, and the glass will probably break. Just drop the sugar itself, and it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 I'm off to get a decent bottle of something and a bag of popcorn. This has the makings of an epic. Get your notebook out. It's junior science time at the minute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Ah, the old "people design skyscrapers so they go down like a house of cards" theory Good luck explaining the bottom floors. It's quite simple really. The weak points in the design (within allowable design parameters, it has to be said) were the angle clips which held the floor joists to the columns at the perimeter of the building and the core structure in the centre. As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them fell. There were about ten floors above with a combined weight of approx 45,000t which came crashing down on the structure below and the angle clips gave way, causing a domino effect collapse. As for the "straight down" collapse of the building, there are a number of point to consider. The building is not solid hence can implode on itself, there was no lateral loading on the structure at the point of collapse and also had no time for the collapse to "incur" any lateral velocity, so a structure of that size and weight has too much inertia to fall any other way than straight down. Also worth considering that the building would contain a number of services which will use a multitude of fuels and chemicals, not to mention the 90,000lt of jet fuel that were present in the aircraft. Steel loses half it's strength at about 650 deg C, which is entirely consistent with the expected temperatures of the fire within the WTC. The fire was caused by the jet fuel mixing with oxygen causing a "diffuse" flame which is a fuel rich flame, the fuel molecules that do not fully burn turn to soot, evidenced by the billowing black clouds coming out from the structure. This in itself is enough to raise the temperature of the fire by decreasing the radiative heat loss. It was expected that the temperature of the fire inside the WTC was about 800 deg C which, as stated above will cause steelwork to lose well over half its integral strength. It's not very difficult to understand, really, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 It's quite simple really. The weak points in the design (within allowable design parameters, it has to be said) were the angle clips which held the floor joists to the columns at the perimeter of the building and the core structure in the centre. As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them fell. There were about ten floors above with a combined weight of approx 45,000t which came crashing down on the structure below and the angle clips gave way, causing a domino effect collapse. As for the "straight down" collapse of the building, there are a number of point to consider. The building is not solid hence can implode on itself, there was no lateral loading on the structure at the point of collapse and also had no time for the collapse to "incur" any lateral velocity, so a structure of that size and weight has too much inertia to fall any other way than straight down. Also worth considering that the building would contain a number of services which will use a multitude of fuels and chemicals, not to mention the 90,000lt of jet fuel that were present in the aircraft. Steel loses half it's strength at about 650 deg C, which is entirely consistent with the expected temperatures of the fire within the WTC. The fire was caused by the jet fuel mixing with oxygen causing a "diffuse" flame which is a fuel rich flame, the fuel molecules that do not fully burn turn to soot, evidenced by the billowing black clouds coming out from the structure. This in itself is enough to raise the temperature of the fire by decreasing the radiative heat loss. It was expected that the temperature of the fire inside the WTC was about 800 deg C which, as stated above will cause steelwork to lose well over half its integral strength. It's not very difficult to understand, really, it's not. If you suspend the laws of physics, yes. You still have the bag of sugar condundrum to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 I might have missed it, but if the planes weren't responsible for the collapse of the towers, what was? Good question. I don't know, and the 9/11 community has been in paralysis arguing over the toss. Major theories include controlled demolition and directed energy weapons. The latter was scoffed at for many years, but now that directed energy weapons are actual line items of actual US Defense (sic) budget submissions, it has gained a bit of traction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 (edited) Hypothetical question. Out of the two, which would be more likely to crush you at freefall speed? 1) A 100kg block of concrete 2) 100kg of concrete dust Fatuous comparison - the towers didn't crumble to dust, they broke into lumps of solid rubble, notwithstanding the steelwork that was also crashing down. Edited 22 May, 2014 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 OK - if the hijacked planes didn't hit the towers, where did they go ? Are they with flight MH-370 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 OK - if the hijacked planes didn't hit the towers, where did they go ? Are they with flight MH-370 ? Fatuous comparison - the towers didn't crumble to dust, they broke into lumps of solid rubble, notwithstanding the steelwork that was also crashing down. Not much left, is there? Unsurprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 In the mighty struggle between Pap and Special K, Special K is winning (imho). Pap, you need to stop deflecting and need to start disputing the facts/opinions put across by Special K as you are following a little bit of a Barry S way of debating at the moment. All still to win though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Fatuous comparison - the towers didn't crumble to dust, they broke into lumps of solid rubble, notwithstanding the steelwork that was also crashing down. It was planted at the scene - didn't you know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Not much left, is there? They removed over 130,000 tons of rubble and steel from the site in the first 4 weeks after the attack. I think that's probably enough to have broken the glass in your analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Well they look like ******* big lumps to me. Pap - Have you got any orange videos that could pull the scores back to one one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 I watched a cracking program on NG the other night about the 9/11 truthers. Now I have a very open mind about the Pentagon attack and and really don't buy the offical version of events but listening to the truthers was laughable. They were banging on about a controlled demolition but when a number of demolition firms kicked that theory into touch the truthers argument turned to "they are in on it too." Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igsey Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 I am constantly amazed by some of the characters out there in the world - I genuinely didn't know that there were actual people that missed the massive f*cking plane crashing into a tower captured live from about 20 different camera angles and seen by multiple thousands of people. I suppose climate change is a myth too, Pap? The Americans never landed on the moon? Or the Moon-folk came to us and started farming us and leaving crop circles and brainwashing our governments? Don't look now, but there's a translucent man with an axe standing behind you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 They removed over 130,000 tons of rubble and steel from the site in the first 4 weeks after the attack. I think that's probably enough to have broken the glass in your analogy. No, no, no, it was dust they removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 (edited) No, no, no, it was dust they removed. They then poured the dust over a massive glass or something and it didn't break...or sumink like that. Edited 22 May, 2014 by Unbelievable Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igsey Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 They removed over 130,000 tons of rubble and steel from the site in the first 4 weeks after the attack. I think that's probably enough to have broken the glass in your analogy. Only because some of that was the remains of the nuke (seriously??!?!) they used because it was an INSIDE JOB YEAH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Stickman Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 They then poured the dust over a massive glass or something and it didn't break...or sumink like that. Keep up U Jeff – it was bloody sugar ffs! God, I’ve missed this place these past few weeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Keep up U Jeff – it was bloody sugar ffs! God, I’ve missed this place these past few weeks Nuke sugar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 You'd assume wrong. The intact mass will kill you. The dust will disperse. Drop an intact bag of sugar on a tall glass, and the glass will probably break. Just drop the sugar itself, and it won't. but it depends from what height, if you said it was from height the answer is different but if 100kg of dust hit me on the head it would kill me the same as a lump of concrete. Is your point that thev whole building was dust as soon as it started the freefall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Ok then, so if jet fuel didn't burn for very long, what fuelled the fires to the point where they were able to melt steel? Office furniture? You say that as if it would take a lot for a steel frame building to loose it's structural integrity.....Lemme tell you it doesn't.....That's the very reason every piece of structural steel installed in buildings in the US, EU and elsewhere, needs to be at least 1 hour fire protected, usually by wrapping with dry wall or vermiculite......What would be the anticipated fuel source of a fire in most buildings to warrant this protection?...yup, office furniture, carpet etc. Without the fire protection a steel frame building would likely loose its structural integrity within 30 mins or so and that's in a 'normal' fire.....Now are you going to tell me all that the dry wall fire protection remained perfectly in place after a 767 flew through it.....Let's not even mention the thousands of gallons of aviation fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 You say that as if it would take a lot for a steel frame building to loose it's structural integrity.....Lemme tell you it doesn't.....That's the very reason every piece of structural steel installed in buildings in the US, EU and elsewhere, needs to be at least 1 hour fire protected, usually by wrapping with dry wall or vermiculite......What would be the anticipated fuel source of a fire in most buildings to warrant this protection?...yup, office furniture, carpet etc. Without the fire protection a steel frame building would likely loose its structural integrity within 30 mins or so and that's in a 'normal' fire.....Now are you going to tell me all that the dry wall fire protection remained perfectly in place after a 767 flew through it.....Let's not even mention the thousands of gallons of aviation fuel. im not sure when the building was built but i suspect the fire regs were different then. I think I saw that also it was stated that some of the columns cladding had deteriorated and left exposed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 but it depends from what height, if you said it was from height the answer is different but if 100kg of dust hit me on the head it would kill me the same as a lump of concrete. Is your point that thev whole building was dust as soon as it started the freefall? That is of course, the amusing thing. The weight that was "dropped" was actually part of the thing it dropped onto, and had been since the buildings were constructed. So, to clarify - the official line is that the bottom of the building was crushed by the weight of its own top floors after they'd been rendered into dust. Sorry, but that's not remotely feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 That is of course, the amusing thing. The weight that was "dropped" was actually part of the thing it dropped onto, and had been since the buildings were constructed. So, to clarify - the official line is that the bottom of the building was crushed by the weight of its own top floors after they'd been rendered into dust. Sorry, but that's not remotely feasible. i dont get that you believe the whole turned to dust, there would be no doubt some would. As for the weight being there all along drop something of half your weight onto your shoulders and see what happens, your knees will buckle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Nuke sugar. Nuclear sugar. F U C K. There's one for the Daily Mail. Bet that's got to be worse for you than those trans-fats... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 You say that as if it would take a lot for a steel frame building to loose it's structural integrity.....Lemme tell you it doesn't.....That's the very reason every piece of structural steel installed in buildings in the US, EU and elsewhere, needs to be at least 1 hour fire protected, usually by wrapping with dry wall or vermiculite......What would be the anticipated fuel source of a fire in most buildings to warrant this protection?...yup, office furniture, carpet etc. Without the fire protection a steel frame building would likely loose its structural integrity within 30 mins or so and that's in a 'normal' fire.....Now are you going to tell me all that the dry wall fire protection remained perfectly in place after a 767 flew through it.....Let's not even mention the thousands of gallons of aviation fuel. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 i dont get that you believe the whole turned to dust, there would be no doubt some would badgerx16 has a point. Of course there is rubble. You still have exactly the same condundrum. Lots of small things inexplicably creating more downward pressure than one large, intact thing. The vast majority of those buildings were pulverised, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 So, to clarify - the official line is that the bottom of the building was crushed by the weight of its own top floors after they'd been rendered into dust. Sorry, but that's not remotely feasible. Kinetic energy ring any bells? You'll never make it in demolition, or boxing, or any other task requiring a knowledge of physics if you don't understand that moving objects exert a greater downward force than static ones. I guess you'd be equally happy to have 5kg dropped on to your head from 1,000ft as you would to have it static and resting on your bonce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Kinetic energy ring any bells? You'll never make it in demolition, or boxing, or any other task requiring a knowledge of physics if you don't understand that moving objects exert a greater downward force than static ones. I guess you'd be equally happy for me to rest a 5kg weight on your head as you would for me to drop 5kg from 1,000ft onto your head? Of course kinetic energy rings bells, but are they applicable here? If the tops of the towers were dropped onto the bottom intact from a distance, you've got a decent point. However, you're asserting that the top bits, which let's remember, were attached to the base of each tower, both built up enough acceleration to crush the rest. This is despite the fact that much of the mass exploded outward. Doesn't work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Of course kinetic energy rings bells, but are they applicable here? If the tops of the towers were dropped onto the bottom intact from a distance, you've got a decent point. However, you're asserting that the top bits, which let's remember, were attached to the base of each tower, both built up enough acceleration to crush the rest. This is despite the fact that much of the mass exploded outward. Doesn't work for me. In most of these demolitions a lower floor was blown out. If your reasoning were correct they would have just dropped by 10 feet or so and then remained standing. Instead they all progressively crushed themselves as they dropped - exactly as you'd expect. [video=youtube;sK50So-yYRU] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 In most of these demolitions a lower floor was blown out. If your reasoning were correct they would have just dropped by 10 feet or so and then remained standing. Instead they all progressively crushed themselves as they dropped - exactly as you'd expect. [video=youtube;sK50So-yYRU] You're being naughty on two points here. 1) You've chosen a lower floor. Fair play. You acknowledge this. 2) Every building in that video has explosives in it, strategically placed to weaken the entire structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 In most of these demolitions a lower floor was blown out. If your reasoning were correct they would have just dropped by 10 feet or so and then remained standing. Instead they all progressively crushed themselves as they dropped - exactly as you'd expect. [video=youtube;sK50So-yYRU] the massive dust clouds as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 In the mighty struggle between Pap and Special K, Special K is winning (imho). Pap, you need to stop deflecting and need to start disputing the facts/opinions put across by Special K as you are following a little bit of a Barry S way of debating at the moment. All still to win though. Ah, it's not really a contest. Neither myself nor Special K will walk away from this with our minds changed. Fair play to him and others for not being an arse when putting his views across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igsey Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html Nice linking to a completely independent unbiased source there, paps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 22 May, 2014 Share Posted 22 May, 2014 Nice linking to a completely independent unbiased source there, paps. As opposed to your "no agenda" mainstream media, eh? Is Farage Hitler yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now