|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
 Posted - 05/06/2006 : 14:53:54 [Permalink]
|
Where are the black boxes.
In every other deal, we have been allowed to listen to them. The black boxes were found and whisked away in the nano second they were found.
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html
All I am raising is questions. Too many questions in fact. Why, why, why.
There is no reason why we shouldn't be told the truth on the subjects. What are they protecting, or hiding from us.
If a plane fly's 2000 miles an hour, and can fly the whole United States in 1.5 hours at that speed. They can catch some jet liners going 500 mph. I'm sure the US military has ones that fly faster than that.
I don't trust Uncle Samuel, at all. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 18:37:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
There is no reason why we shouldn't be told the truth on the subjects.
Then why are you repeating such obvious lies?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 22:51:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
There is no reason why we shouldn't be told the truth on the subjects.
Then why are you repeating such obvious lies?
Dave,
I'm repeating questions, not lies per say.
Ever heard of Cause, Reaction, Solution. This is what happened here, It was used for the benefit of those that run the show, whether it was planned or a seizure of the moment, nothing else would have gotten us into Iraq. Sort of that.
Who stands to profit? The saying of old. Haliburton, oil, monopolies, you name it. They are no longer in control of the profits of their resources. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 23:16:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
I'm repeating questions, not lies per say.
Unfortunately, since the Latin phrase "per se" means "with respect to its inherent nature," then you're either asking questions for the sake of asking questions, or you're asking questions which are inherently based upon lies that other people have promoted as truth.
Either way, your questions stand in contradiction to your desire to see that people know the truth about what happened on 9/11/2001, regardless of who stood to profit. I'd like people to know the truth, also, and as far as I'm concerned, your questions do not further that cause, but instead make it look like the cause is being championed by idiots. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2006 : 00:00:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
[Another thing I heard, was that it takes a rock 8.9 seconds to reach the ground from the top of WTC 1. It took the buildings 8.9 seconds to hit the ground. The only way it could do that, is if the supports were blown away. It would have taken alot longer for it too collapse if each floor had fallen one on the other.
You either heard wrong, or the one you heard it from was wrong or lying.
If it takes 8.9 seconds for a rock to hit the ground, then the rock was dropped from a height of 0.8 kilometer. (Or 0.5 mile for you who don't know International Standard)
This is high-school physics.
Check your math guys - Acceleration of gravity is 9.807 m/s/s
velocity is = a t for constant acceleration.
integrating this gives distance = 0.5 a t^2
in 8.9 seconds a rock falling in vacuum would travel
0.5 * 9.807 * 8.9 * 8.9 = 388 m or 1274 feet.
WTC-1 could not possibly have come down in 8.9 seconds - unless it was pulled down by a black hole.
Don't you hate smart ass engineers. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
| Edited by - Ghost_Skeptic on 05/07/2006 01:12:01 |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2006 : 01:25:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
If a plane fly's 2000 miles an hour, and can fly the whole United States in 1.5 hours at that speed. They can catch some jet liners going 500 mph. I'm sure the US military has ones that fly faster than that.
It takes time to load weapons, fuel and take off.
Also, supersonic flight uses fuel at an astonishing rate - I doubt if a fighter aircraft can fly across the US at that speed without refueling.
Shooting down an airliner full of people is not an easy decision - no one would have considered doing this until after the first plane hit the WTC.
Common sense is the first thing jettisoned in a conspiracy theory. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2006 : 10:18:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
[Another thing I heard, was that it takes a rock 8.9 seconds to reach the ground from the top of WTC 1. It took the buildings 8.9 seconds to hit the ground. The only way it could do that, is if the supports were blown away. It would have taken alot longer for it too collapse if each floor had fallen one on the other.
You either heard wrong, or the one you heard it from was wrong or lying.
If it takes 8.9 seconds for a rock to hit the ground, then the rock was dropped from a height of 0.8 kilometer. (Or 0.5 mile for you who don't know International Standard)
This is high-school physics.
Check your math guys - Acceleration of gravity is 9.807 m/s/s
velocity is = a t for constant acceleration.
integrating this gives distance = 0.5 a t^2
in 8.9 seconds a rock falling in vacuum would travel
0.5 * 9.807 * 8.9 * 8.9 = 388 m or 1274 feet.
WTC-1 could not possibly have come down in 8.9 seconds - unless it was pulled down by a black hole.
Don't you hate smart ass engineers.
Damn. Especially when they point out things that one should know.
Sir, I stand corrected. Shit, I obviously need to revisit my old math schoolbooks from high-school and college. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2006 : 11:28:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Where are the black boxes.
In every other deal, we have been allowed to listen to them.
Horse patooties. The release of CVR recordings is prohibited by law. Here's what the NTSB has to say about it:
quote:
The CVR recordings are treated differently than the other factual information obtained in an accident investigation. Due to the highly sensitive nature of the verbal communications inside the cockpit, Congress has required that the Safety Board not release any part of a CVR audio recording. Because of this sensitivity, a high degree of security is provided for the CVR audio and its transcript. The content and timing of release of the written transcript are strictly regulated: under federal law, transcripts of pertinent portions of cockpit voice recordings are released at a Safety Board public hearing on the accident or, if no hearing is held, when a majority of the factual reports are made public.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/cvr_fdr.htm
And here's the law itself, 49 U.S.C. § 1114
quote:
(c) Cockpit Recordings and Transcripts.—
(1) The Board may not disclose publicly any part of a cockpit voice or video recorder recording or transcript of oral communications by and between flight crew members and ground stations related to an accident or incident investigated by the Board. However, the Board shall make public any part of a transcript or any written depiction of visual information the Board decides is relevant to the accident or incident—
(A) if the Board holds a public hearing on the accident or incident, at the time of the hearing; or
(B) if the Board does not hold a public hearing, at the time a majority of the other factual reports on the accident or incident are placed in the public docket.
(2) This subsection does not prevent the Board from referring at any time to cockpit voice or video recorder information in making safety recommendations.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00001114----000-.html
Where on Earth did you get the idea that "we have been allowed to listen to them"? Can you cite even one pre-9/11 example?
This law has been on the books since 1975.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1114&url=/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00001114----000-notes.html
Was it passed, 26 years before 9/11, as part of the Great Big Eevil Gummint Conspiracy?
It took me only about five minutes of Googling to find that out. Honestly, verlch, do you ever even consider doing the most rudimentary checking, like seeing what pops up with an ordinary search engine, before spouting a claim?
quote:
The black boxes were found and whisked away in the nano second they were found.
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html
Nice unsubstantiated, conveniently vague tale of an ATV ride through the rubble with "a million dollars worth of equipment". One has to wonder just what that million dollars worth of equipment was intended to detect. There is an underwater locating device attached to CVRs and FDRs (if you look at this picture of a CVR the ULD is the gold-colored cylindrical thing mounted on one end of the box); what activates them is immersion in water. They're designed to transmit ultrasonic (37.5 kHz) pulses through water. The specific acoustic impedance of water is over 3600 times that of air (approximately 1,500,000 Rayles versus 410 Rayles for air). A transducer designed for efficient coupling to water will perform very poorly in air.
If I assume that the transducer's acoustic impedance is matched to that of the intended transmission medium of water (the condition for maximum power transfer) and start with the specification for acoustic output after 30 days (because these events are claimed to have taken place in October 2001) of 700 dynes/cm^2 (70 Pa) (see this spec sheet) and do the sums to account for the transmission loss due to impedance mismatch and to convert the resulting pressure to the dB SPL scale used in air acoustics, I get an expected SPL of approximately 65.5 dB @ 1 meter. Just perfect for penetrating ferroconcrete rubble and being located in a noisy environment like the Ground Zero cleanup.
I also can't help but notice that nowhere in this tale of hunting around for what would be a very weak signal from a device which one can't reasonably expect to have been activated at all is there any account of where the CVRs and FDRs were supposedly found, how they were extricated from the rubble or when this happened, save for the claim that it was in October. That's strangely indistinct for someone who was present at such an important find, but it's just right if you want to avoid naming a time and location lest someone who was actually there might contradict your claim.
The whole thing bears the hallmarks of a technically-illiterate attention-seeker making shit up and putting it over on an equally ignorant reporter. In other words, it gives off a very strong aroma of equine exhaust.
quote:
All I am raising is questions.
Still more horse patooties. What you are doing is brainlessly parroting the second-rate fantasies of third-rate minds.
quote:
I don't trust Uncle Samuel, at all.
And how does that absolve you from making an attempt to inform yourself about the workings of the physical universe and how they affect the claims you regurgitate, or from making even a minimal effort to fact-check your sources?
Better go back to ranting about your fear of women at Vox Day's place, patriarch verlch. You're hopelessly out of your depth here. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2006 : 18:26:15 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the link ktesibios, it will really help.   |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2006 : 21:19:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
[Another thing I heard, was that it takes a rock 8.9 seconds to reach the ground from the top of WTC 1. It took the buildings 8.9 seconds to hit the ground. The only way it could do that, is if the supports were blown away. It would have taken alot longer for it too collapse if each floor had fallen one on the other.
You either heard wrong, or the one you heard it from was wrong or lying.
If it takes 8.9 seconds for a rock to hit the ground, then the rock was dropped from a height of 0.8 kilometer. (Or 0.5 mile for you who don't know International Standard)
This is high-school physics.
Check your math guys - Acceleration of gravity is 9.807 m/s/s
velocity is = a t for constant acceleration.
integrating this gives distance = 0.5 a t^2
in 8.9 seconds a rock falling in vacuum would travel
0.5 * 9.807 * 8.9 * 8.9 = 388 m or 1274 feet.
WTC-1 could not possibly have come down in 8.9 seconds - unless it was pulled down by a black hole.
Don't you hate smart ass engineers.
Damn. Especially when they point out things that one should know.
Sir, I stand corrected. Shit, I obviously need to revisit my old math schoolbooks from high-school and college.
When you revisit them, look up angular acceleration, which is a bit more complex. I recall a demonstration in high school involving a meter-long piece of wood attached by a hinge to a base. The arm had a wooden cup glued to the top surface about 15cm from the end. The arm was raised to a a 30 degree angle and a marble was placed in a recess drilled into the upper end. When the teacher released his hold, the arm fell, smacking into the base, then, after a noticable pause, we heard the sound of the marble landing in the cup. The hinged arm "fell" faster than the marble did under the same gravitational acceleration, beating the marble to the ground by at least the height of the cup. We then did the math to calculate the velocity of the tip of the arm just before striking compared to the velocity of the marble.
Since that was 32 years ago, the calculations are far from the tip of my fingers, but I think it's safe to say that the forces acting on a collapsing building are far more complex than those acting on an apple falling from a tree.
Edited to improve spelling and clarity.
|
- TW
|
| Edited by - tw101356 on 05/07/2006 21:22:37 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2006 : 22:08:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tw101356
When you revisit them, look up angular acceleration, which is a bit more complex. I recall a demonstration in high school involving a meter-long piece of wood attached by a hinge to a base. The arm had a wooden cup glued to the top surface about 15cm from the end. The arm was raised to a a 30 degree angle and a marble was placed in a recess drilled into the upper end. When the teacher released his hold, the arm fell, smacking into the base, then, after a noticable pause, we heard the sound of the marble landing in the cup. The hinged arm "fell" faster than the marble did under the same gravitational acceleration, beating the marble to the ground by at least the height of the cup. We then did the math to calculate the velocity of the tip of the arm just before striking compared to the velocity of the marble.
I can't quite picture this, could you please explain it a little more fully?
I'm thinking of a cup on the ruler, "dropping" from 30 degrees from vertical back to the vertical. The marble drops from the top of the rule, the full 1m or thereabouts. The "Cup" only "falls" from 1/2 a meter vertically. It takes about 320 milli Seconds to fall 0.5 meters from rest, 452 milli Seconds from 1 meter.
There's a little more to it than that, as you've suggested, but I want to make sure I've got the right idea before I get carried away! |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2006 : 17:41:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:
Originally posted by tw101356
When you revisit them, look up angular acceleration, which is a bit more complex. I recall a demonstration in high school involving a meter-long piece of wood attached by a hinge to a base. The arm had a wooden cup glued to the top surface about 15cm from the end. The arm was raised to a a 30 degree angle and a marble was placed in a recess drilled into the upper end. When the teacher released his hold, the arm fell, smacking into the base, then, after a noticable pause, we heard the sound of the marble landing in the cup. The hinged arm "fell" faster than the marble did under the same gravitational acceleration, beating the marble to the ground by at least the height of the cup. We then did the math to calculate the velocity of the tip of the arm just before striking compared to the velocity of the marble.
I can't quite picture this, could you please explain it a little more fully?
I'm thinking of a cup on the ruler, "dropping" from 30 degrees from vertical back to the vertical. The marble drops from the top of the rule, the full 1m or thereabouts. The "Cup" only "falls" from 1/2 a meter vertically. It takes about 320 milli Seconds to fall 0.5 meters from rest, 452 milli Seconds from 1 meter.
There's a little more to it than that, as you've suggested, but I want to make sure I've got the right idea before I get carried away!
My late night post was not clear. Base is horizontal and hinged arm is raised 30 deg from horizontal. Cup is glued to arm 10cm from free end and marble rests in depression in free end. The tip of the arm falls faster than the marble because of angular acceleration versus the marble's linear acceleration.
Even better than a description is the strobe picture.
|
- TW
|
|
|
|
Jumbo
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2006 : 03:43:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If a plane fly's 2000 miles an hour, and can fly the whole United States in 1.5 hours at that speed. They can catch some jet liners going 500 mph. I'm sure the US military has ones that fly faster than that.
Just to add a little to this. I believe the fighters scrambled that day were F16s. Now it takes several minutes to get one in the air unless its powered up on standby. IIRC it takes 8 minutes to fully align the navigation systems but a cut down start up can reduce this to 3. This eats into any catch up time. Once in the air the plane has a top speed of 1321 mph at altitude.
Flying at such a speed requires a lack of drop tanks in order to reduce drag. Also any weapons carried would slow this speed for the same reasons. Maintaining this speed will require full afterburner. At this throttle setting the F16 can use up in excess of 70,000 lbs of fuel per hour. The F16 in clean configuration only carries about 7000 lbs of fuel (enough for 6 minutes of flight before fuel starvation at full throttle)
If we allow drop tanks in all positions on the plane that ups the fuel to 14,000lbs, enough for 12 minutes flight. Its clear why you dont fly a plane like this even in most intercept situations. You likely wont reach the target (your range is 132/ 264 miles for the 7000lbs/14,000lbs fuel loads if you have no wish to return home or 66/ 132 miles if you want to land back at base) and when you do you have no weapons to fire as you had to leave them at home in order to race to the target. |
The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be lighted |
| Edited by - Jumbo on 05/09/2006 03:44:44 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2006 : 20:17:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tw101356
My late night post was not clear. Base is horizontal and hinged arm is raised 30 deg from horizontal. Cup is glued to arm 10cm from free end and marble rests in depression in free end. The tip of the arm falls faster than the marble because of angular acceleration versus the marble's linear acceleration.
Even better than a description is the strobe picture.
Excellent, that clears it up nicely. Thanks tw101356.
I've not seen that particular demonstration before, it's a good one. For those that are interested, I've created the following diagram:
It's important to remember that the rotational acceleration of the arm changes with time. The force due to gravity is constant, and always downwards, as shown by the green arrows in the diagram. To analyze the effects of the applied force, it makes sense to break it down into components in directions that will be more useful for calculation.
The force along the axis of the beam is not going to result in any change of motion, as long as we ignore friction in the hinge itself. These forces are shown in purple. The force perpendicular to the beam, along the tangent to the circle described by the beam, will be the force that is responsible for acceleration of the beam. This force is shown in red. The percentages are the magnitude of this force in relation to the force due to gravity. As you can see, this force starts out small (around 25% of the gravitational force, at 20 degrees, a number I picked arbitrarily, and will be a maximum at horizontal).
As anyone who has ever balanced a pencil/broomstick/rule on their finger knows, if you can get it stable and completely vertical, there is no tendency to rotate. In reality, you can never balance it perfectly by staying completely still, so it does tend to "fall" over eventually, but if you keep it near vertical, this acceleration is small, and easily countered with small corrections.
Also worth noting is that the cup that catches that marble in fact starts below the marble, so the title "Falling faster than gravity" is a little misleading.
An impressive demonstration I have helped set up uses a similar arrangement, but with an arm that can swing past the horizontal. The cup is designed to catch the falling marble exactly as it passes through the lowest point of the swing, horizontally. The purpose of the exercise was to see who could calculate the correct starting position for the (in our case, wooden) marble the most accurately. It resulted in quite a bit of chaos, and wooden spheres being whacked all over the place. Fun stuff, if you're into that sort of thing.
Edited to improve(I hope) clarity. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 05/10/2006 05:43:03 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2006 : 06:29:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As anyone who has ever balanced a pencil/broomstick/rule on their finger knows, if you can get it stable and completely vertical, there is no tendency to rotate. In reality, you can never balance it perfectly by staying completely still, so it does tend to "fall" over eventually, but if you keep it near vertical, this acceleration is small, and easily countered with small corrections.
You would have enjoyed debating BigBrain... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
