World Aero Data
Aviation discussion. 
Home | Older Messages

Search the Database


Current Page: 6 of 10
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Truth Be Told ()
Date: July 07, 2013 07:41PM

This whole argument is a regurgitation of the strawman argument (logical fallacy) that was provided by Popular Mechanics. The question is NOT did the steel need to melt to collapse the towers.. The question is WHAT CAUSED STEEL TO MELT. And there is no denying that steel DID melt in both the towers AND in building seven, which had NO JET FUEL FIRES.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Truth Be Told ()
Date: July 07, 2013 07:50PM

"These people with their conspiracy theories are just nuts. For me to believe that government agents were able to consistently bypass WTC security and plant explosives over and over again without detection seems implausible to begin with."

This is a belief.. not a fact.. and it's a belief that's contradicted by the blatant, hard evidence.. plus, your understanding of the event and who was behind it is flawed.. it was carried out by ZIONISTS within our government.. i.e. people who are dual citizens of the U.S. AND ISRAEL and who are more loyal to ISRAEL than the United States.. These zionists, such as Richard Pearl, Dov Zakeim and Michael Chertoff, who were all PNAC members (Project for a New American Century) felt that an event like this was NEEDED to mobilize the American military into the middle east to protect the zionist controlled banking system's petrodollar, and to protect Israel by toppling and destabilizing its enemies/neighbors. And if you doubt this.. look into the truck bomb attack that was thwarted on the George Washington bridge that day.. and guess why you never heard about it on the media?? IT'S BECAUSE THE VAN HAD ISRAELIS IN IT THAT WERE TRYING TO BLOW UP THE BRIDGE TO BLAME IT ON THEIR ENEMIES (Hence, a "False Flag" Attack) AND OUR MEDIA IS TOTALLY CONTROLLED BY ZIONISTS, WHO, AGAIN, ARE LOYAL TO ISRAEL NOT THE U.S.!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Christian ()
Date: July 12, 2013 12:38AM

I appreciate your restrained and evidence focused post, but I found of description on wikipedia that disputes your claim about the burning temperature of Jet-A Fuel. Stating it burns in open air between 500-599 degrees F, not C. Wikipedia is not fault proof, but I find it to be a pretty reliable source on most things. Thoughts?

Here is the link: []

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: order ()
Date: July 12, 2013 06:22PM

the american goverment, is the most powerful in the world, or at least thats what we think. What makes you think they are also the nicest most honest people? wake up, or stay sleep... it doesnt matter to me or anyone else who seeks the truth. in the end, we all die any way right???? winking smiley

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Matt ()
Date: July 24, 2013 10:42PM

I don't have a problem with alternate ideas of how the towers came down. what I do have a problem with is that people say thermite had to be used to take the towers down because they see some facts without taking into consideration that there are other environmental conditions that can amplify the burning effects.. Any one who has taken metalergy knows that it is very conceivable that a fire could have taken down the towers and got hot enough to eventually melt the steel.

Structural fires get hot enough without jet fuel to change the state of steel. then if people were trying to fight the fire by quenching it with water, it can send the steel into another state that can be very brittle.

Fires get hotter in an enclosed area that traps heat and can raise the temp tremendously. think about it. it crashes into a building that has floors and ceilings to contain the heat, yet the sides are made up of windows allowing a good oxigen feed to the combustion. it's like a giant man made furnous. Even a common camp fire can melt glass. it's hard to denigh that a fire in a building burning structural materials, jet, fuel, and components of a jet in an enclosed area with ample access to air can't get hot enough to weaken and melt steel. the shock of the plane hitting can in fact crack and weaken concrete. there is so many factors that can add together that you really can't just go off a few ideas to say well it had to be thermite ect... Sky scrapers can be designed to implode if they fall to keep from causing multi-structural damage to other buildings. Not all designs are perfect. not in the 70's, not today. Not all designs are followed exactly by the builders. a falling building can damage the structure below it even before the actual falling pieces hit the structer at the bottom.

To say it HAD to be deliberately taken down in another manner besides the planes hitting them is not logically sound.

Anyone, just go talk to a metalurgical engineer, then a mechanical engineer who knows what they are talking about and ask them.

Now I'm not apposed to the idea that our government would do something so corrupt, but to say that there is sound proof that the buildings were deliberately taken down by other than the plane crash, is just people not taking into consideration everthing that could have contributed.

So much misinformation out there

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Me ()
Date: August 14, 2013 10:06AM

Yes, there is lots of fires that caused steel building to collapse, even without jet fuel. A fire in 2007 in Charleston SC at a furniture store heated the steel roof beams causing them to weaken and collapse killing 9 firemen.

So now what? Dont state a fact if you dont know its not a fact. Just because an internet meme says so.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jay ()
Date: August 25, 2013 07:53AM

It will never cease to amaze me how people can turn a blind eye to the facts of the case.

The fact of Melted steel MONTHS after the collapses
iron-based microspheres in the dust at 5% by weight
concrete dust! (WTF?)
The red/gray chips--evidence of highly engineered nano-composite explosives
The metric shitload of money to be made by going to war in Iraq/Afghanistan
Cheney's still classified meeting with energy execs in 2000
The lack of an official theory (that can be tested)
The fact that MCI/Worldcom and Enron investigation documents were all lost in WTC7
Molten molybdenum in debris found by USGS (melting point 2623C, 4753F)

If anyone still believes the buildings were taken down by jet fuel, you are goddamned incompetent to have an opinion. You have NOT weighed the facts. You are in denial and do not deserve to participate in an adult discussion until you deal with the facts at hand. You are not being serious about the information available and have no business being taken seriously until you wrestle with this information. Anyone, ANYONE giving me bullshit about being unAmerican or unpatriotic can save that shit for highschool. The facts don't give a shit about your childish notions of "patriotism" and sucking rich peoples' dicks. Facts are facts.



Grow up. This is the world we live in. Surprise, surprise, sociopathic predators have their fingers on powerful buttons. Is anyone surprised by this? You shouldn't be. If you are, grow up.

/end rant

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: James ()
Date: September 06, 2013 05:15AM

All you principled, genuine, decent Americans who are disturbed by comments made by conspiracy theorists, don't waste your time by replying to them.

If you have little regard for them you won't bother arguing with them. They will ignore any sensible statements you make and they will probably keep believing nonsense until the world ends.

If a tree produces rotten fruit the tree most likely will be rotten as well.

If you stop posting comments they will have nothing left to argue with.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jeremy ()
Date: September 09, 2013 07:00AM

If the 'science' of why the steel shouldn't have melted is so clear and indisputable (as stated by the conspiracy theorists) why is not every structural engineer, etc. questioning the collapse? Did "the government" pay off everyone with knowledge of such science?

Silliness all.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: debunker ()
Date: September 11, 2013 03:13PM

The B-25 burned avgas, a high-octane version of gasoline still used aboard piston engine aircraft today. The 767 instead uses Jet-A, a derivative of kerosene that fuels all commercial jetliners. Jet fuel tends to reach higher temperatures than gasoline causing the fires in the WTC to burn more intensely than that in the Empire State Building.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: J Vayian ()
Date: September 11, 2013 09:41PM

If you have any doubts or are just wondering what happened, please see this documentary that was made with the biggest and most respected experts in the fields of demolition, archictecture, engineers, military, firefighters, first responders, volunteers and hundreds of others. Just watch it and draw your own conclusions. Please.

Just google Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Robert McVay ()
Date: September 12, 2013 10:07AM

...very strong evidence in WTC7 falling hours afterwards with no direct hit by a plane....

just as in the Kennedy assasination the Bush Family name GHW Bush's
CIA connections relative to the Kennedy Assasination.
read about Walker Bush's association with Averil Harriman and holding Nazi money in New York banks before WWII. George HW Bush's State of the Union message where he talks about the "New World Order".....ascendency to power, and maintaining class, priveledge and status.

Clearly several people had money to gain in this....including the Military-Industrial complex (Bush buddy's) which has ALWAYS done everything to ensure it's survival, longevity and profitability.
As Eisenhower warned us in his departing message as President.

Interesting to note that we can't seem to end one war without starting another lately????....marked by the typical intelligence community ramping up things by crying "Wolf" with every/any/ all incidences....

Any idea what connections Bush may have around the world (foriegn Oil and Military intelligence community) between being CIA director and a
Texas Oil Tycoon?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Peter ()
Date: September 12, 2013 04:23PM

this was helpful in deciding for myself waht i think happened thank you for the ranting it was very helpful smiling smiley

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: chris ()
Date: September 12, 2013 05:12PM

you clearly have a lot of research to do about the new world order and secret societies my friend, the president doesn't alwasys "pull the plug" even he has to answer to a higher calling....there are things people will do for your research that's all i can say..

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: chris ()
Date: September 12, 2013 05:18PM

i wanted to post about this too but was too lazy, i read that that silverstein guy took the insurance company to court and said that he should've been paid double since it was two attacks and he ended up getting 4.5 TRILLION dollars, but who knows...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: nate ()
Date: September 12, 2013 07:19PM

didn't someone say they saw melted steel on ground level? crazy huh the fire had to be very hot to do that no fuel could have done that in an open area.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Chris Roberts ()
Date: September 13, 2013 06:57AM

go watch some videos of controlled demolitions, for example the twin towers, including building 7, the jet fuel didn't just happen to make all 3 buildings collapse vertically straight down at free-fall speed with a concavity in the roofline, if it were possible for a jet to make even one of them fall over it would have been the top of the building falling off and landing sideways on other buildings, not some perfectly straight collapse. for that matter, go burn up a car or an airplane with a full tank of gas and see if the steel collapses, it won't, you will have a black car, not a pancake.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: bob ()
Date: September 17, 2013 10:59PM

Look everyone keeps saying how do they plant the bombs well I'm a construction work
erand I have been through many locked doors. From what I've heard WTC structural beens were around the elevators shaft, all I have to do is say is I'm here to fix the elevator and plant away .

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: peterLF ()
Date: September 24, 2013 05:49AM

Can't believe this is still going. Oh well. Concluding anything on jet fuel temperatures is asinine. If you want to be a proper conspiracy theorist, at least do it right.

You would need thousands of pounds of thermite to cut anything like the twin towers, and no beams have shown to be cut either preceding the fall or causing it. Hence, can not be concluded as such.

Why does the molten metal flowing from a building have to be steel? After all, the plane was made of aluminium - and was at just the place at just the time, in just the quantity and with just the physical properties...

A skyscraper collapsing in on itself is a massive outburst of energy, and temperatures (to anyone who actually know what "temperature" means) would have greatly exceeded anything jet fuel was capable of. The existence of unusual alloys, structures and particles proves nothing more than the fact that the event was unusual. Compare it to all the other "angry plane hit building and collapsing"-examples we find. Don't worry, I'll wait.

This conspiracy is one big argument from ignorance and incredulity. Listing incorrect scenarios and concluding on them is called a straw man. Just because you don't know how it happened doesn't mean God - eh, the GOVERNMENT did it.

Lastly, the people who conclude on /how/ the buildings went down (as in "they wouldn't have fallen straight down"winking smiley - again, are idiots. Don't play so much jenga. Ask a structural engineer. If the buildings were to fall on their sides, the construction would need to be uneven, they would need to be physically tipped, or they would need to be solid. I was up one of those towers 2 weeks before they fell. None of the conspiracies add up.

PS: You can have all the baseless boneheaded political accusations (which are fun to read) - but they are not to be taken seriously until someone provide some actual reasons to do so. So please do.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: ANON?MUS ()
Date: September 25, 2013 07:37PM

All I have To Say Is Check Israel's Connection To The 9/11 Attacks.... Here Is A Compelling Video By "Missing Links" That Will Indeed Challenge ANYONE Stating Most People Who Disagree With The "Official" Report Of What Happened As "Conspiracy Nuts"
Wake Up Sheeple! REALLY?? "How Can The Government Pull This Off, AND Bypass WTC Security?" I heard Someone Ask!!! REALLY?! Do Your Research THEN Ask Questions.. Look Into Companies Such As "Kroll" Security Consultants & "Marsh"..

Please Share:

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jeff Staples ()
Date: September 28, 2013 06:01AM

Do u believe your own bull

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Bob Sims ()
Date: October 12, 2013 10:56PM

BTSun Wrote:
> Ahh hem...
> I know that most everyone here is "pro-conspiracy"
> and has had the great pleasure of jumping on so
> weak arguments here.
> First of all there is a lot of guessing and
> weaving around facts here.
> The infamous "Melted Steel"
> Ok, so first jet fuel in an open environment burns
> anywhere in between 800* F and 1500* F where steel
> "melts" at 2750°F. And obviously, if you've ever
> poured gas on your average campfire, gas doesn't
> burn for all that long. So... theory dismissed
> jet fuel did not DIRECTLY bring down the WTC.
> However, can we all agree that the WTC burned
> after that? During the building of the WTC
> Asbestos was used on the initial floors, then the
> environmentalists said, "NO!!!" so a good 75% of
> the towers is made in flammable insulation, that's
> a good fuel. Also, it wasn't only jet fuel that
> was burning and just because there was no jet fuel
> doesn't mean there was a nice and cool fire ready
> to be put out by the nearest firefighter! Now many
> sources (including NIST) report pockets of the
> after-jet-fuel-burning reaching temps of over
> 1800*F. Unfortunately that's still not hot enough
> to melt steel. However, true experts (sorry that
> probably doesn't mean anyone here, no offense)
> state that a building does not need to have its
> steel "melted" to collapse, just lose some of its
> structural integrity. And experts say that steel
> will lose 50% of its strength at 1100*F and will
> have less than 10% of its strength at 1800*F.
> That's a lot of strength to take away on a 110
> story building. Some will still say, "but that
> doesn't explain the melted steel at the bottom!"
> when steel is heated, it needs a place to expand
> to, and if there is not place to expand to the
> metal will sag and crack, which may confuse an
> uneducated firefighter, or reporter to look as if
> the steel had been "melted". Call the fire chief
> he will report that there was NO melted steel at
> the site.
> WTC 7
> WTC 7 as reported by NIST, "had little damage
> before its collapse". So some of you are so quick
> to jump on that "fact" when you shun the rest of
> the information by the official report, you find
> one fact that fits your twisted theories and grab
> it! But NIST discovered after that there was
> actually about 25% of the depth of the south of
> the building "scooped" out. The building also had
> unusual construction. 2 trusses held about 2000 sq
> ft each in the visible outings of the building. If
> you take out one column then the other on the
> north side is carrying quite a substantial load,
> over its designed capacity. The fifth-floor
> burned for over 7 hours. Emergency generators were
> fed by a rather large tank in the basement of the
> WTC7. This pressurized line supplied the fire for
> quite a long time. There was also no firefighting
> in WTC 7. The structurally abstracted building
> combined with the long fire led to the collapse of
> this building.
> If you guys have anything you'd like to poke holes
> in I'd be glad to help answer!!

You are SO full of crap!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: dinkidi ()
Date: October 22, 2013 01:28AM

I am an Australian.I watched years ago on TV what was happening in your wonderful country. I spent the day crying and the weeks and years later believing the bs that we were all fed on TV and in the media that terrorists had attacked.

Science is
"a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and OBSERVATIONS, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it
(Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991,)
Notice the word OBSERVATION. There were/are many people who observed first hand events that occurred on that day, yet these observations have not been addressed or taken into account by the nay sayers who refuse to believe that their own government( who are just men and women like everyone else on this planet) would be capable of such atrocities.
Why is it so difficult to believe that men and women who are part of an organization referred to as a government are not capable of wrong doing, lies, manipulation, murder etc etc etc? Are they psychologically profiled before being allowed to enter the government?
No they are just people from our society and are subject to the same quirks of personality as the rest of us.
Do you know people in your own life who are self serving, manipulative who lie, perhaps steal, break the law? I'm sure we all do. We all know there are many people on our planet who are capable of murder and horrendous crimes, why do people assume that a members of a Government are not capable of such things.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Marcus ()
Date: October 30, 2013 04:23PM

You should use correct grammar in your argument before you try to make people look bad, and at least spell thermite right... (By the way, thermite is not an explosive)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: jack sprat ()
Date: November 01, 2013 08:00AM

This was NOT an open-air event, anymore than is a building fire in which backdraft occurs. First, there was the not inconsiderable energy released by the impact, much of which would have been transferred to the air contained within a confined space. Even before the tanks exploded, the space would have been aerosolized with fabric and plastic, from both the building and the plane. This amounted to an area bomb, very big brother to a fertilizer bomb or napalm attack. The overpressure would have stripped the concrete from the steel almost instantaneously, exposing the steel beams.

Impact energy and assorted materials are contained, aerosolizing said materials. The tanks explode, igniting the aerosolized materials. Jelly bomb strips concrete from steel via overpressure. Behind the pressure wave, the burning jelly produces sufficient sustained heat to catastrophically weaken the steel. No longer able to transmit the load safely into the sub-structure of the building, gravity torques the beams until they fail, causing the weight above to pancake the building in place.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: jack sprat ()
Date: November 01, 2013 08:48AM

Charlie, the time in between the initial events (impact and explosions) and the pancaking was considerable, during which the weakened steel structure increasingly unbalanced the load of the ENTIRE building as gravity continuously torqued it. Once that train starts rolling, the potential energy released would be enormous, atomizing megatons of material. Noise, vibration, heat....

Construction demolition, by comparison, plays with match boxes. By design, as well as by necessity. Their job is to bring a building down WITHOUT coating a dense urban population with aerosolized poisons.

Options: ReplyQuote
Don't let your education dumb your common sense.
Posted by: muzzy ()
Date: November 01, 2013 08:42PM

OH, you're so smart, you overlook the obvious: If 'fire' softened the steel into a weaker form, and collapsed, great. But the fire wasn't throughout the entire floors, only in a section of the floor. Also, say five floors all melted or softened, and collapsed-you still have nearly half a million square feet of reinforced concrete and four thick columns of same below it, so the 'softened' section and the floors above it would have to 'pancake' down and smash everything below it. But how fast can that happen? And completely thoroughly all the way down into the basement of the building and pulverize into dust all the thousands of tons of reinforced cement? The building collapsed at FREEFALL speed, same speed as dropping a quarter from the roof. PHYSICS says that can't happen as the media described. I guess your brain and education trumps all the witnesses who say they heard explosions near the basement and ground floors, and the firemen who were there, who heard rapid-fire explosions. And the molten metal and 2000f fires found two months AFTER the collapse. And the quick removal of the debris before it could be inspected. If that all doesn't make you say HMMMM...than a good education isn't going to help you. You'll still be dumb, and I hope you don't design a plane i'll ever be flying on.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: unknown ()
Date: November 03, 2013 01:57PM

I'm just say'n

1.Larey siverstein bought wtc 3.6 Bil 6 mo prior to & included a little extra towrd insur for " acts of terrorism" and got paid 4.55 bil. He wanted 7 arguing it was two acts.
2.No plane parts.
3.ALL news footage shown frm distance and tamperd with. ie.same view,one has Hudson & Jersy in background, other blue screen.
4.Hole in pentagon 18ft, wing span 147ft. No plane parts.
5.3rd plane went dwn, no plane parts, Nothing.
6.Video footage of pre explostions with the likeness that of a controlled demolishion to include man being BLOWN out of a window.
Bottom line don't none of it add up, any of it! Question EVRYTHING

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: ACEWOLF ()
Date: November 06, 2013 09:09AM

Let's see, the plane filled to full capacity, would have aprox. 10,000 gallons, if the plane burned no fuel on the way to the towers, and none was lost on impact, then you would have 10,000 gallons to spread over approximately 10,000,000 square feet of building. so if no fuel was burned in flight, or on impact you would have one gallon of fuel for every 1000 sq. ft. OR 1.28 oz for every 10 sq ft Wow, no wonder the twin towers fell, that's a thin film of fuel spread over the floor that was made of concrete supported by several inch thick asbestos covered beams. By law all the furnishings had to be flame retardant and of course a sprinkler system was in place. But wait, it did burn fuel on the flight over and it lost a lot of fuel on impact. Even though on the movie Die Hard jet fuel burns like crazy, jet fuel is more closely related to fuel oil because of the tremendous heat developed in jet engines it is not nearly as flammable as gasoline. If jet fuel burning openly slightly oxy starved melted the steel beams covered by concrete and asbestos spread over 10,000,000 sq. ft,. it makes you wonder why the jet engine with oxy poured into it at 400 miles per hour with thousands of gallons of the exact same fuel being burned in a very small enclosed area constantly for hours at many times the heat with no concrete or asbestos lining doesn't melt the engines doesn't it? Naa, the towers were brought down.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: WMG ()
Date: November 08, 2013 06:42PM

People like you who bury their head in the sand is exactly why the government gets away with all it's hidden agenda. Where have you been since the close of the Vietnam war. The Vietnam war started over a false flag operation by our government. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The war took 58,000 American souls. Just so the military industrial complex could make a load of money, the very thing President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address. So do you really think that 3000 American souls lost in the WTC make a damn bit of difference to our government. Did you know that WTC building number 7 also went down that same day. Did you see the BBC broadcasting that the WTC#7 had also went down? Broadcasted it twice. But there was one flaw in the broadcast you could see WTC#7 still stand with no smoke in the background of the broadcast. Reminds me of the New Zealand broadcast that JFK was dead before the assassination ever happen.
Did you know thermite can be applied with paint. What about the BYU professor that took sames of the dust and discovered using a electron microscope thermite everywhere in the dust. The pictures of the I-beams that run from bottom to top of the building cut at an angle at the base with thermite just like the demolition of a old building. The BYU professor life was destroyed. His career was gone. Unable to get a job now. Why? It is oblivious that you do know the facts. Do the research like the rest of us that are very aware of what is taking place in this country. Your not going to get it from your major news networks, they are owned by corporations. You will get nothing there but a corporate agenda. All wars have always been about money, greed, and power. Never for the rights or freedom of people. Just see where the money trail leads. Which by the wat 9-11 commission decided that tracing the money wasn’t important. Really! Wake up my friend. The love of money is the root of all evil. Not the money itself but the love of it and the power in generates.

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 6 of 10

Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.
This forum powered by Phorum.