AF FIGHTER PILOT COMES OUT FOR 9/11

April 9, 2007

In article <UBgSh.2479$%l5.1006@trnddc05>,

David Morgan $MAMS$ <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

>

>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> sputtered forth in message...

>

>> No one with any brains even suggests that it was mysterious.

>

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11

>

>http://www.answers.com/topic/researchers-questioning-the-official-account-of-9-11

>

>I think the issue is the number of people who apparently don't have

>enough brains to see that it was not only suspicious, but intentional.

>

Nobody with any expertise says that WTYC1/2/7 collapsewd due to

explosives.

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

April 9, 2007

In article <fJgSh.2482$%l5.435@trnddc05>,

David Morgan $MAMS$ <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

>

>"Ned Flanders" <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote in message news:46186048$0$22073$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

>>

>> "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message

>> news:86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>

>> > And the guy who got fired ?

>> > Who was he ?

>>

>> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

>> I understand that his company were responsible for

>> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

>> not the case for WTC 7.

>> However building regulations require

>> the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the

>> same or similar high tensile structural steel.

>

>I am aghast that there are apparently adults living in this word

>who not only do not understand structural grade steel alloys,

>but some even think that they can burn or bend at the behest

>of a little kerosene and office furniture.

>

And your expertise is?

Temperature of fire increase in an enclosure;

http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly

greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be

expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below

the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses

from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not

heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are

essentially at 200C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small

enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame

exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred 0C; the

consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame

temperature.

ASTM specifies steel (and not UL)

http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art23.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A36_steel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel#Carbon_steels

Most structural steel is listed as plain carbon steel. Some is

"low alloy" which is just a small step above carbon steel.

Salvaged steel shows Temps inside WTC7 reaches 1000C and seriously

damaged beams.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Steel looses 50% of it's strength at 500C/950F. See [1]

[1] http://www.bluescopesteel.com.au/go.cfm?path=/go/tools-and-resources/faqs&categoryid=69889D86-CEAD-1C1F-41FC14783AE3D4F6&action=results

How does the strength of steel vary with increasing temperature?

Plain carbon manganese steels behave similarly when heated, in

that the yield strength decreases approximately linearly with

increasing temperature at the rate of around 0.1% of room

temperature strength per 10C increase in temperature. This means

that most steels have about 50% of their room temperature

strength at 500C. Above this temperature, the rate of softening

increases more rapidly.

However, other factors are important at higher

temperatures. These include creep where the material will fail

over a time period at a stress level much lower than the

strength of the steel. Further, oxidation of the surface

accelerates rapidly. For these reasons, plain carbon steels are

not generally suitable for applications above 400C.

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

April 9, 2007

In article <3TsSh.6369$B25.5409@news01.roc.ny>,

Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Ned Flanders wrote:

>

>> "Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:%axRh.6344$ya1.2846@news02.roc.ny...

>>

>> <snip>

>>

>>>He never said "pull the building"

>>

>> Big deal.

>

>Yeah. You quote him as saying "they made that decision, to pull the

>building". I say you're wrong and you say "big deal"

>

>I've said it before: The "truth movement" is only interested in

>fabricating truth, not finding it.

>

There is a pattern and practice of some people in the "Truth Movement"

committing fraud and a huge echo chamber of people mindlessly

repeating things. I check quotes, That's how I came across this crap.

There is zero effort by the Truthies to fact check and correct their

own material. The worst are the alleged "peer reviewed" sites. They

contain fraudlent quotes by NYFD/EMS personel that can be shown to

differ from the public record. One of the steps in peer review is

fact checking.

Examples;

From many Truthy site; http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on

certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."

- NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera

The Truthies edited Rivera's text to make it clear what he saw. Here it is.

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN

A: THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE

Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE

A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE.

AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL

DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN

FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP

POP THAVS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT

IT WASTHAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE

THAVS WHEN SAWTHE BUILDING COMING DOWN

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO

A: RUN MOST OF THE PEOPLE RAN INTO THE

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF

If you think the NYT site lies, I can put you in touch with Rivera'a

union rep and you can accuse him of saying things he didn't say,

maybe to his face.

Here is the page of official testimony for about 500 first responders.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

You can check lots of trythy quotes here, and if the Truty site says

something different, it's not impossible to contact any of them and

verify quote.

I first came across these fraud edited NYFD quotes on Jones' "peer

reviewed" 911 site. (there are more misleadingly edited quotes

there). One task of peer review is fact checking. It's clear that the

site is bullshit.

That's enough of the fine people in NYFD and EMS. Here are more;

------------------------------------------------------------

Many sites have quotes similar to this;

Danielle O'Brien commenting on how air traffic

controllers thought Flight 77 was a military plane based on

its maneuverability;

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html

but it leaves out the end of the statement,

"... you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

My point isn't that the quote is goldplate accurate,

it's that the Truthies have edited pertenant info out,

not told us, and not given URLs to sources.

----------------------------------------------------------

Loose Change quotes the coroner, Wally Miller,

as seeing no bodies or blood the day of Flight 93's crash;

over the next several weeks Miller goes on to identify 12

passengers "using mostly dental records."[31]

http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp

------------------------------------------------------

There are quotes like thisinterview of chief flight instructor Marcel

Bernard focusing on the weaknesses of Hani Hanjour's flying skills

when he took

Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite,

meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said,

they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed

that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee

said. "He could not fly at all.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

It fails to clarify Bernard's expert opinion on Hanjour's ability to

hit the Pentagon. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that

[hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a

building and hit it."

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html

-------------------------

http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

---------

My favorite example of how these conspiracy theorists such as the guys

behind Loose Change selectively edit information in order to get the

desired conclusion is the CNN interview with the guy outside the

Pentagon right after the plane hit. The guy said (and I'm

paraphrasing) "It was a red and blue plane, clearly a United Jet, and

it crashed into the side of the Pentagon. It looked like a missile

when it was coming toward the building and there was a giant explosion

when I saw the plane hit the building." The conspiracy theorists edit

out everything except for "It looked like a missile" and use that as

absolute proof that a missile and not a plane hit the Pentagon.

-----------

I've been asking for months about where this 35 seconds of video came

from. I'd like to know what the Truthies edited out, given the above.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287

-----------

Home

Arabs and Osama

First Time in History

The Fires

The Twin Towers

World Trade Cener 7

The Free Fall Fallacy

Molten Steel Explained

Sounds of Explosions

The Firemans Quotes

Civil Engineers Quotes

Peer Reviewed Paper

Professor Steven E Jones

Massive Conspriracy

The Real Conspiracy

Government Planning

The 911 Zogby Poll

Debunking 911 Links

Quotes

.I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?.--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context...

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC

/Gregory_Stephen.txt

Let me guess why they left that important part out..

.t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDN'T FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.

THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?

A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.

Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN I SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC

/9110035.PDF

First, notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse of this odd combination.

.There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers

there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC

/Cruthers.txt

And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION... :blink:

"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.. --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski

Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC

/9110202.PDF

And here is the outright LIE...

. we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.. -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen

Note where these liars put the "...."

Now for the REAL quote...

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC

/9110505.PDF

With that alone I should rest my case. These CT sites are dishonest.

Here is the other lie, they split up those quotes to make it seem like there are more people hearing explosions than there really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera's interview split in two and Stephen Gregory's interview split in two, as if there are different people hearing different explosions. They flood you with quotes hoping you won't notice. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???

.Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore

MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.

GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "IT'S BLOWING".

I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I

KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.

...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT

IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDN'T KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING

SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.

It's time to see a transformer explosion.

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.

SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC

/9110192.PDF

.I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.. -- Captain Jay Swithers

When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling "run".

At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.

But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC

/9110172.PDF

First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.

Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; .I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it.s an inside job; and the firemen know it too., said Isaac.

"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,. Isaac added that .many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they.re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the .higher-ups. forbid discussion of this fact.. --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac

Paul Isaac never said anything of the kind. Another Conspiracy Theorist deception.

A video is shown on just about every conspiracy web site which shows a few fireman discussing what they heard and saw.

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.

fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.

fireman2: 2 blocks.

fireman1: and we started runnin'

fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch

fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out .

fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det.

fireman1: yea detonated yea

fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,

boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom.

In the context of reading it off a conspiracy site, this may sound like damning evidence. They are saying .detonated. and .they had planned to take down a building.. They even say .Boom. to describe the sound. But if you hear the other things they.re saying, their body language and context outside the conspiracy theory setting, something else emerges. Before or after every description is .As if.. .As if they had planned to take down a building.. .It was as if as if they had detonated.. They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another.

boom- (hand moves down)

boom.

This could be just as powerful evidence of pancaking as the use of explosives. But the real evidence isn.t so much examining the video as examining the actions taken, or NOT taken, by the NYC Fire Department after the event. The NYC Fire Department hasn.t rallied its members to force an investigation into the possible murder of over 300 of its members. Some sites offer an explanation of this saying there was a gag order placed on the Fire Department. The only place you will find this is on conspiracy theory sites. No mention from main stream press about the hundreds if not thousands of fireman on the scene not being allowed to talk.

A glaring example of picking and choosing what to focus on is the interview with Mary Baldizzi... They point to a BBC article that says

The jet fuel caused the fire to spread so far and so fast that it effectively cut the building into two. For the 6,000 people below where the plane had hit the staircases still offered a means of escape, but for the 950 caught above the point of impact and the fire there was no way out.

The argument is made that towers fell because of separate detonations. As proof, they offered the case of Mary Baldizzi who supposedly had escaped the 104th floor of the World Trade Center's North Tower by elevator. Thus, the only way she could have escaped via elevator was if the core was intact at least to the 104th floor.

When I watched the video, I thought, if there had been a survivor from above the impact zone in Tower 1, it would have been widely broadcast. So, logically, I searched online for either confirmation or repudiation. I found neither. What I did find was the repeated use of Ms. Baldizzi's story as evidence in various alternative theories (i.e., other than fire) for the collapse of the towers.

Returning to the original video, I watched it several more times. After listening closely to Ms. Baldizzi's interview, I came to the conclusion that Mary Baldizzi was not on the 104th floor of the North Tower (WTC1) but was on the 104th floor of the South Tower (WTC2) and that this was a misrepresentation of her escape as having been from WTC1. Here are the reasons I came to this conclusion:

1. Although the newswomen began the interview stating that Mary Baldizzi had come down the elevators from the 104th floor and was in the "first tower when it was struck," at no time during the interview does Ms. Baldizzi state that she was in the North Tower. In addition, none of the graphics that accompany the interview claim that Ms. Baldizzi was in the North Tower. When Ms. Baldizzi is asked if she felt the impact, she says "Oh yeah." But the effects she describes -- feeling the heat, experiencing the shaking, hearing the explosion -- are all effects experienced by those who were in the South Tower on the floors adjacent to the impact zone (see:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-02-choices-usat_x.htm ). If she had been in the North Tower when it was hit then she would have described the impact in much less casual terms.

2. Around 5 minutes and 20 seconds into the interview, the interviewers ask about Ms. Baldizzi's coworkers. Ms. Baldizzi's states that she does not know the whereabouts of her fellow employees and proceeds to state, around 5:55 of the interview, that she has no way of contacting them other than to "call [the] main office in Illinois." Now, the offices on the 104th floor of the North Tower were occupied exclusively by Cantor Fitzgerald, while offices on the 104th floor of the South Tower were occupied by Sandler O'Neill (see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html). Cantor Fitzgerald does not have a main office in Illinois (see: http://www.cantor.com/contact/). Sandler O'Neill, on the other hand, does have a central office in Chicago (see: http://www.sandleroneill.com/). This suggests that Ms. Baldizzi was an employee of Sandler O'Neill (in the South Tower) rather than Cantor Fitzgerald (in the North Tower).

3. Finally, and conclusively, at 6:15 in the interview Ms. Baldizzi begins a discussion about what she and her coworkers did when they exited the building. She clearly says: "There were police officers, thank God, that were aiming us towards Liberty St. because we stupidly walked towards One World Trade because we didn't know; we had no idea it was a terrorist attack." Now, if Ms. Baldizzi had been in One World Trade Center (i.e., the North Tower) there is no way she would have described her egress as "towards One Word Trade" because no matter in which direction she walked she would have been going away from One World Trade. This point proves, beyond any doubt, that Ms. Baldizzi exited from the South Tower and that the mistaken announcement at the beginning of the interview that she was in the North Tower was just one of the miscommunications and misunderstandings in the chaos of those early days.

I concluded that Ms. Baldizzi exited Tower 2 at the same time many others in the building did: after the North Tower was hit but before the South Tower was hit. If she was "dragged" into the elevator within seconds after the first tower was hit, and if the elevator ride took about 4 minutes, she would've been out of the building well before the South Tower was hit.

USA Today

As you can see the South Tower core was not damaged as much because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it anyway.

There were two freight elevators that serviced the 104th floor.

Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.

----------

. Car #5: B1-5, 7, 9-40, 44

. Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107

. Car #17: B1-1, 41, 43-78

. Car #48: B1-7, 9-40

. Car #49: B1-5, 41-74

. Car #50: B6-108

. Car #99: 107-110

There were two express elevators to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2.

pg 34 (adobe pg 72)

NIST NCSTAR 1-7 (Draft)

Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications (Draft)

There were firemen who radioed in after being stuck in the elevator moments before the south tower collapsed.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio8.html

So there were elevators working in the south tower AFTER the impact. But what's important here is that the interview is being taken out of context. A theme which seems to run strong with these conspiracy theorists.

Thanks to Scott S Coastal and Drval.

General Fires Gallery

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

April 9, 2007

"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message

news:j86j13t434a9of1pcl6oaqrecetmmdj9f7@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:34:53 GMT, "David Morgan $MAMS$"

> <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message

>>news:0f5j13hnluv4guh9o83kvmkpji81cboh8a@4ax.com...

>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:22:47 GMT, "David Morgan $MAMS$"

>>> <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

>>>

>>> >

>>> >"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message

>>> >news:e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com...

>>> >

>>> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders"

>>> >> <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

>>> >> >

>>> >> >There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers.

>>> >> >Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel.

>>> >

>>> >> <LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough....

>>> >

>>> >That sort of seems to reflect the issue here, now doesn't it Steve?

>>> >If there had been some "bending" and toppling, and a few sections

>>> >of the undamaged structural grade steel remaining erect, we probably

>>> >wouldn't be having this conversation.

>>> >

>>>

>>> Bending of structural steel in a building can bring it down, you silly

>>> jackass.

>>

>>The only jackass here, is the one who joyfully overlooks that 90% of

>>the steel in all three buildings was completely undamaged.

>>

>

> <ROTFLMAO> ...did the aliens tell you that?

PLONK

April 10, 2007

"sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote in message...

> PLONK

He was already gone from my reader... nothing to offer.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will

be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

-- James Madison

April 10, 2007

In article <JqhRh.19956$tD2.11151@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,

Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote:

> In article <LB1Rh.3429$WL4.1835@trnddc04>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm

> mumbled

> >

> > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message

> > news:Rd%Qh.134536$_73.79781@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> > > In article <_8WQh.5351$i93.3877@trnddc05>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm

> > > mumbled

> > > >

> > > > "whofan" <dgbrewer@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> > > >

> > > > > Just shows that even AF pilots can be kooks too.

> > > >

> > > > Is there ANY proof you can offer (besides your shill mouthpiece) to

> > > > couter

> > > > the facts of the matter?

> >

> > > Facts ?

> >

> > The world is still waiting for those.

>

> So you mean all those web sites you list below don't actually contain

> any facts ?

> Thanks for letting us know.

>

> >

> > > or opinion ?

> >

> > Tank fixers can be kooks as well, if they buy anything other than an

> > implosion as applies to Building 7's so-called 'collapse'.

>

> So far the proponents of the "implosion" theory can't explain why no one

> saw any evidence of the building being prepared.

If you were to search for the security logs, you'd find some

interesting facts and events. But I'm guessing that, over five years

after the demolitions, you're not about to question your own beliefs.

So don't bother.

E. K.

>

> >

> > "WTC 7 - The Smoking Gun of 9/11 - updated"

> >

> > <

> >

> > The Science: Fires and Buildings:

> > 911 PHYSICS http://www.physics911.org

> >

> > WTC7 - THE HIDDEN STORY OF BUILDING: 7 http://www.wtc7.net

> >

> > http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html http://www.911truthbristol.com/videos/films.html

> > http://www.911tv.org http://www.911revisited.com/

> > http://www.snowshoefilms.com/911coverup.html

> >

> > Muslims suspend laws of physics:

> > http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

> > http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm

> >

> > http://www.911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/usgs_hotspots.html

> > http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

> > http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html

> >

> > Casual commentary style reporting from March 28, 2006

> > "Eliminating the Impossible" By Sheila Samples

> >

> > http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_sheila_s_060329

> > _9_2f11____eliminating_.htm

>

> --

> Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a

> diet of static text and

> cascading "threads."

--

"You can fool some of the people all of the time,

April 10, 2007

"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:ywsSh.6360$B25.5375@news01.roc.ny...

<snip>

> How many times do you need to told it didn't have to melt before you

> finally catch on to the fact that it didn't have to melt?

Vandar, why not bother yourself for a few minutes and look at

one of the pages that you bro is currently spamming? Here is the

link:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

According to the authors you will see a picture of what remains a piece of

'I' beam that has been destroyed in the WTC7 collapse. Please note that

the back of the beam has been melted.

P.S. I was only trying to educate you about the welding rods, but you seem

to disbelieve me. Therefore go and ask someone you trust.

April 10, 2007

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 16:37:10 -0700, "sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com>

wrote:

>

>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message

>news:j86j13t434a9of1pcl6oaqrecetmmdj9f7@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:34:53 GMT, "David Morgan $MAMS$"

>> <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message

>>>news:0f5j13hnluv4guh9o83kvmkpji81cboh8a@4ax.com...

>>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:22:47 GMT, "David Morgan $MAMS$"

>>>> <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> >

>>>> >"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message

>>>> >news:e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com...

>>>> >

>>>> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders"

>>>> >> <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers.

>>>> >> >Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel.

>>>> >

>>>> >> <LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough....

>>>> >

>>>> >That sort of seems to reflect the issue here, now doesn't it Steve?

>>>> >If there had been some "bending" and toppling, and a few sections

>>>> >of the undamaged structural grade steel remaining erect, we probably

>>>> >wouldn't be having this conversation.

>>>> >

>>>>

>>>> Bending of structural steel in a building can bring it down, you silly

>>>> jackass.

>>>

>>>The only jackass here, is the one who joyfully overlooks that 90% of

>>>the steel in all three buildings was completely undamaged.

>>>

>>

>> <ROTFLMAO> ...did the aliens tell you that?

>

> PLONK

>

<LOL> I always find it amusing when some moron apparently thinks

that their announcement that they're not going to read my posts

significant enough to post....

April 10, 2007

In article <090420072236501974%jfm6949@nospam.ispwest.com>,

Eyeball Kid <Eyeball Kid> wrote:

>In article <JqhRh.19956$tD2.11151@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,

>Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote:

>

>> In article <LB1Rh.3429$WL4.1835@trnddc04>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm

>> mumbled

>> >

>> > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message

>> > news:Rd%Qh.134536$_73.79781@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>> > > In article <_8WQh.5351$i93.3877@trnddc05>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm

>> > > mumbled

>> > > >

>> > > > "whofan" <dgbrewer@gmail.com> wrote in message...

>> > > >

>> > > > > Just shows that even AF pilots can be kooks too.

>> > > >

>> > > > Is there ANY proof you can offer (besides your shill mouthpiece) to

>> > > > couter

>> > > > the facts of the matter?

>> >

>> > > Facts ?

>> >

>> > The world is still waiting for those.

>>

>> So you mean all those web sites you list below don't actually contain

>> any facts ?

>> Thanks for letting us know.

>>

>> >

>> > > or opinion ?

>> >

>> > Tank fixers can be kooks as well, if they buy anything other than an

>> > implosion as applies to Building 7's so-called 'collapse'.

>>

>> So far the proponents of the "implosion" theory can't explain why no one

>> saw any evidence of the building being prepared.

>

>If you were to search for the security logs, you'd find some

>interesting facts and events. But I'm guessing that, over five years

>after the demolitions, you're not about to question your own beliefs.

>So don't bother.

"you'd find some interesting facts and events"

You've made an unqualified statement that there is something in the

logs that support the Truthy movement. Are you making shit up as you

go? I bet you are.

I'm guessing you never worked at all hours in a large skyscraper.

Either put in years in advance or the night before, both scenarios for

the preperation and placement of explosives is laughable.

Nobody with any expertise in demoliiton says that charges

brought down WTC7, or WTC and WTC2

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

April 11, 2007

Are we suggesting or perhaps hoping there's something left that our

government doesn't lie to us about?

How about TWA flight 800 that has since entirely altered the laws of

physics, or the Shuttle fiasco along with our ABL being at 40,000' at

the same time.

-

Brad Guth

April 11, 2007

In article <1176256694.436810.222630@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

>Are we suggesting or perhaps hoping there's something left that our

>government doesn't lie to us about?

>

>How about TWA flight 800 that has since entirely altered the laws of

>physics, or the Shuttle fiasco along with our ABL being at 40,000' at

>the same time.

>-

>Brad Guth

>

"entirely altered the laws of physics"

Please cite a physist that agrees with you,clearly you are not one,

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists

A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who

are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep",

patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no

matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what

they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even

if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time,

when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.)

Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go

on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise

their determination to the principle of questioning everything,

they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics

about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui

bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the

importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's

"once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however

unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is

that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any

responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you

simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account

can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your

choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is

therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the

principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the

small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed

by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in

any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have

no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the

respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by

anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand

that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual

enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do

this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the

sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy

theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be

without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any

of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking

(see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their

claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather

than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed

to declare the "official" account totally discredited without

having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them

to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small

inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered

questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure

from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to

declare the "official" account clearly and definitively

discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to

prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they

even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their

claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the

Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to

try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded

some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to

reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always

far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies

with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something

might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it

anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the

body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are

producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions

which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because

the most important thing about these people is that they are

people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good

theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad

evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And

for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when

they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over

again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac,

then at very least, a bore.

Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial

evidence; Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as

opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant

forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or

emotional impact; Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has

near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that

may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral

actions; Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors

and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and

designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual

conspirators; Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the

existence of powerful individual conspirators from the

'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a

person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators; May

require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant

resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological

insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive

reasoning; Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much

confidence as deductive ones.

7. Appeals to 'common sense'; Common sense steps substitute for the

more robust, academically respectable methodologies available

for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;

Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable

among the key steps of the argument.

9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and

generally lacking peer review; Story originates with a person

who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys

popularity among persons who lack critical (especially

technical) knowledge.

10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of

relevant science; At least some of the story's believers believe

it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific

facts.

11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities; Academics and

professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too

frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority

in disproving.

12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated

through elaborate new twists in the narrative;

When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the

conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to

discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part

of the conspiracy.'

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

April 11, 2007

On Apr 10, 10:19 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

> In article <1176256694.436810.222...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

>

> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Are we suggesting or perhaps hoping there's something left that our

> >government doesn't lie to us about?

>

> >How about TWA flight 800 that has since entirely altered the laws of

> >physics, or the Shuttle fiasco along with our ABL being at 40,000' at

> >the same time.

> >-

> >BradGuth

>

> "entirely altered the laws of physics"

>

> Please cite a physist that agrees with you,clearly you are not one,

>

The fundamental laws of combustion, that has something silly to do

with the fuel/air mixture ratio, especially if you're going for an

explosion with no external excitation (such as a STINGER or whatever

SA delivered shock wave).

You have seen those improved images, and having read the local

submarine report, haven't you.

-

Brad Guth

April 11, 2007

On Apr 10, 10:19 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

> In article <1176256694.436810.222...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

>

> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Are we suggesting or perhaps hoping there's something left that our

> >government doesn't lie to us about?

>

> >How about TWA flight 800 that has since entirely altered the laws of

> >physics, or the Shuttle fiasco along with our ABL being at 40,000' at

> >the same time.

> >-

> >BradGuth

>

> "entirely altered the laws of physics"

>

> Please cite a physist that agrees with you,clearly you are not one,

>

The fundamental laws of combustion, that has something silly to do

with the fuel/air mixture ratio, especially if you're going for an

explosion with no external excitation (such as a STINGER or whatever

SA delivered shock wave).

You have seen those improved images, and having read the local

submarine report, haven't you.

BTW; Without a trace, our ABLs can also take out any such aircraft,

or even if need be a returning space shuttle, at the silent and

invisible pushing of a DoD or merely that of a TRW/Raytheon R&D

button.

-

Brad Guth

April 12, 2007

In article <1176312265.053075.142250@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 10, 10:19 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>> In article <1176256694.436810.222...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

>>

>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Are we suggesting or perhaps hoping there's something left that our

>> >government doesn't lie to us about?

>>

>> >How about TWA flight 800 that has since entirely altered the laws of

>> >physics, or the Shuttle fiasco along with our ABL being at 40,000' at

>> >the same time.

>> >-

>> >BradGuth

>>

>> "entirely altered the laws of physics"

>>

>> Please cite a physist that agrees with you,clearly you are not one,

>>

>

>The fundamental laws of combustion, that has something silly to do

>with the fuel/air mixture ratio, especially if you're going for an

>explosion with no external excitation (such as a STINGER or whatever

>SA delivered shock wave).

>

Or problems with the type of electrical insulation, widely used in A/C

of that vintage and known to cause problems with other models and

being phased out.

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

April 13, 2007

In article <1LgSh.2483$%l5.2249@trnddc05>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm

mumbled

>

> "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:0f5j13hnluv4guh9o83kvmkpji81cboh8a@4ax.com...

> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:22:47 GMT, "David Morgan $MAMS$"

> > <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > >"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com...

> > >

> > >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders"

> > >> <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

> > >> >

> > >> >There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers.

> > >> >Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel.

> > >

> > >> <LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough....

> > >

> > >That sort of seems to reflect the issue here, now doesn't it Steve?

> > >If there had been some "bending" and toppling, and a few sections

> > >of the undamaged structural grade steel remaining erect, we probably

> > >wouldn't be having this conversation.

> > >

> >

> > Bending of structural steel in a building can bring it down, you silly

> > jackass.

>

> The only jackass here, is the one who joyfully overlooks that 90% of

> the steel in all three buildings was completely undamaged.

Maroon

--

Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a

diet of static text and

cascading "threads."

April 13, 2007

In article <fJgSh.2482$%l5.435@trnddc05>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm

mumbled

>

> "Ned Flanders" <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote in message news:46186048$0$22073$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

> >

> > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message

> > news:86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> >

> > > And the guy who got fired ?

> > > Who was he ?

> >

> > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

> > I understand that his company were responsible for

> > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

> > not the case for WTC 7.

> > However building regulations require

> > the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the

> > same or similar high tensile structural steel.

>

> I am aghast that there are apparently adults living in this word

> who not only do not understand structural grade steel alloys,

> but some even think that they can burn or bend at the behest

> of a little kerosene and office furniture.

What is amazing that some people think a bit of weakened structural

steel will not bend when half the buling is resting on it.

--

Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a

diet of static text and

cascading "threads."

Sign In

AF FIGHTER PILOT COMES OUT FOR 9/11

Recommended Posts

Guest Al Dykes

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest Al Dykes

Guest Al Dykes

Guest sandman

Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\)

Guest Eyeball Kid

Guest Ned Flanders

Guest Steve

Guest Al Dykes

Guest bradguth@gmail.com

Guest Al Dykes

Guest bradguth@gmail.com

Guest bradguth@gmail.com

Guest Al Dykes

Guest Tankfixer

Guest Tankfixer

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Support