Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2017, 02:14 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2017 03:15 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 01:56 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I didn't intend that to mean the destruction of the twin towers as well, but yes I can see how some people might think it unlikely for a conspiracy to be true, I myself however do not retain the same feelings regarding that. My process was a gradual change, being here where I am now it must seem like I'm asking you to swim an ocean, but to me it seems as though all I'm asking you to do is step across a small stream.

That's because you're a credulous dipshit.

I've seen that exact same tripe here before, but rather with someone desperate for us to give ourselves over to Jesus. All the exact same 'I know it sounds crazy', 'I thought it was BS too at first', 'I'm not asking you to do anything hard'. Nothing but vacuous platitudes.

That's all you got; empty platitudes, being a whiny passive-aggressive cunt, and memes. Color us not impressed. Your only value to us now is as an example, a laundry list of 'don'ts', a target worthy of nothing more than bored derision.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-01-2017, 02:17 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 01:56 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I didn't intend that to mean the destruction of the twin towers as well, but yes I can see how some people might think it unlikely for a conspiracy to be true, I myself however do not retain the same feelings regarding that. My process was a gradual change, being here where I am now it must seem like I'm asking you to swim an ocean, but to me it seems as though all I'm asking you to do is step across a small stream.

Fine, what then is the information to take this 'small step'?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2017, 02:29 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 02:17 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 01:56 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I didn't intend that to mean the destruction of the twin towers as well, but yes I can see how some people might think it unlikely for a conspiracy to be true, I myself however do not retain the same feelings regarding that. My process was a gradual change, being here where I am now it must seem like I'm asking you to swim an ocean, but to me it seems as though all I'm asking you to do is step across a small stream.

Fine, what then is the information to take this 'small step'?

That it's obviously the result of thermite. The molten slag at ground zero, the molten metal dripping from the twin towers (be it aluminum oxide or molten steel), the lack of the role of the jet fuel (which I have a link to the math for if you wish to see it). There simply isn't any other alternative peebothuhul.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2017, 02:30 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 09:18 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I've proven you all wrong, Deesse,

You havent proven anything. I made an error in conversion of units, the calculation was correct.
....you however, at that point, didnt bother to support any of your assertions at all. I asked you a bunch of questions to defend your claims, to which, to this day, we have no answers, no estimations, no calculations but your assertions.
You know, you can do things only wrong when in fact you do someting, like calculating.

You on the other hand dont understand ca. anything you are talking about, and its documented in this thread. Everybody who is interested in the topic can read it.

You havent shown how 60t of fuel vaporize and burn away when thrown at a wall
You havent explained why it didnt look like the combustion of an aerosol bomb, if it had burned away completely.
You havent shown why thermite ("or something similar") should have caused any fire in WTC, when kerosene is part of "something similar" when it comes down to the ability to heat up metal.
You havent shown how the themite was allegedly installed in the WTC
You havent shown how the planes were allegedly remote controlled
You havent shown how many people must have been involved in your multiple conspiracies that are actually necessary to make your fantasy real
You havent explained either why any of those people has not yet stepped up in front of some cameras, like so many other people of real conspiracies did.
You have made asserions about a pile of rubble not cooling down like you expected, you have been given possible explanations which you ignored (like everything else that doesnt fit your narrative).
You have made claims about behaviour of Aluminium under heat and when exposed to an oxidizing environment, you have been shown to be completely wrong, and you have (again) completely ignored this.

You have shown nothing but your determination to spread BS on this forum and show everybody what an idiot you are.

Not that you are going to bother being a missdirecting ("what about WTC7..what about WTC7...what about WTC7") idiot and liar. You just have no shame for blatantly spreading misinformation. You only interest is to pollute this forum by spreading misinformation, with assertions, YT videos, without facts and with very questionable scientific knowldege.

I have met similar others like you on this forum, and what i learned is: There is no poing talking to them. I am not going to argue with you anymore. Its a waste of time and too many showers are bad for my skin.

I am just pointing out what an incredibly dishonest person you are. Since it seems to be necessary to make a little wrap up, from time to time, after your (halfway) successful attempt of gish galopping across science and demonstrating your ignorance as a byproduct.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
23-01-2017, 02:33 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 02:30 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(22-01-2017 09:18 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I've proven you all wrong, Deesse,

You havent proven anything. I made an error in conversion of units, the calculation was correct.
....you however, at that point, didnt bother to support any of your assertions at all. I asked you a bunch of questions to defend your claims, to which, to this day, we have no answers, no estimations, no calculations but your assertions.
You know, you can do things only wrong when in fact you do someting, like calculating.

You on the other hand dont understand ca. anything you are talking about, and its documented in this thread. Everybody who is interested in the topic can read it.

You havent shown how 60t of fuel vaporize and burn away when thrown at a wall
You havent explained why it didnt look like the combustion of an aerosol bomb, if it had burned away completely.
You havent shown why thermite ("or something similar") should have caused any fire in WTC, when kerosene is part of "something similar" when it comes down to the ability to heat up metal.
You havent shown how the themite was allegedly installed in the WTC
You havent shown how the planes were allegedly remote controlled
You havent shown how many people must have been involved in your multiple conspiracies that are actually necessary to make your fantasy real
You havent explained either why any of those people has not yet stepped up in front of some cameras, like so many other people of real conspiracies did.
You have made asserions about a pile of rubble not cooling down like you expected, you have been given possible explanations which you ignored (like everything else that doesnt fit your narrative).
You have made claims about behaviour of Aluminium under heat and when exposed to an oxidizing environment, you have been shown to be completely wrong, and you have (again) completely ignored this.

You have shown nothing but your determination to spread BS on this forum and show everybody what an idiot you are.

Not that you are going to bother being a missdirecting ("what about WTC7..what about WTC7...what about WTC7") idiot and liar. You just have no shame for blatantly spreading misinformation. You only interest is to pollute this forum by spreading misinformation, with assertions, YT videos, without facts and with very questionable scientific knowldege.

I have met similar others like you on this forum, and what i learned is: There is no poing talking to them. I am not going to argue with you anymore. Its a waste of time and too many showers are bad for my skin.

I am just pointing out what an incredibly dishonest person you are. Since it seems to be necessary to make a little wrap up, from time to time, after your (halfway) successful attempt of gish galopping across science and demonstrating your ignorance as a byproduct.

Flex those math muscles of yours for me deesse and double check these equations for me please?

Quote:The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845
Lightweight Concrete 800
Steel 450

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2017, 02:42 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2017 02:57 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  That it's obviously the result of thermite.

So, again, we are back to thermite.

Step 1:

Explain how it got there.

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The molten slag at ground zero,

There was much falling, collapsing, fires, burning and other destruction. Something being heated to melting is not weird/strange.

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The molten metal dripping from the twin towers (be it aluminum oxide or molten steel),

See above.

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The lack of the role of the jet fuel (which I have a link to the math for if you wish to see it).

You are the only one, so far, who does not accept the energy density of kerosene Vs thermite.

As in, as stated, it takes less kerosene to create the energy to meet the failure point of steel then it does thermite to destroy (That's what the thermite has to do.

Thermite, in contact with the steel structure of the buildings. At specific junctures. At a specific timing. Also, the thermite has to survive the impact of the planes into the buildings.

Do you see how your proposition just keeps adding problems?

(23-01-2017 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There simply isn't any other alternative peebothuhul.

No, you are the one presenting the alternative.

I am accepting that, on the day in question, a plane impacted each of the towers (Plus two other events) and that those aircraft's impacts and other energy introduced into the structure was enough to eventually (As in not immediately upon impact) lead to the collapse of said structure.

So far. When ever you have proposed your alternative there then follows a whole land-slide of other things that you then have to additionally accounted for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
23-01-2017, 03:00 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 12:49 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Blah

You read the part where I said I was a blacksmith, right?

I did the apprenticeship and then went on to a career in music.

So, you understand that this reader is a blacksmith.

E.J. Hadaway Melb Victoria. Look 'em up.

I am telling you this. From a blacksmith to a non blacksmith.

You would do well to learn about metals.

CW I am going to give you some unasked for advice.

But it's good.

It is unwise to speak on topics one does not understand as if one did.

We musicians see it all the time. Kind of like a bad X Factor audition.

Only turn up with talent, groove and some knowledge.

Otherwise please waste another's time.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Banjo's post
23-01-2017, 06:39 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 02:33 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Flex those math muscles of yours for me deesse and double check these equations for me please?

Answer the questions or admit your ignorance.

For someone who claimed incontrovertible evidence, you seem to have nothing but debunked pseudo-science.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
23-01-2017, 06:41 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 06:39 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 02:33 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Flex those math muscles of yours for me deesse and double check these equations for me please?

Answer the questions or admit your ignorance.

For someone who claimed incontrovertible evidence, you seem to have nothing but debunked pseudo-science.

Because if he actually cared enough about the truth to the the actual work, he wouldn't be here spouting off like a jackass.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-01-2017, 07:34 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(23-01-2017 06:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 06:39 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Answer the questions or admit your ignorance.

For someone who claimed incontrovertible evidence, you seem to have nothing but debunked pseudo-science.

Because if he actually cared enough about the truth to the the actual work, he wouldn't be here spouting off like a jackass.

See, the truth is boring. Invented fantasy that makes Psikey/CW feel like he's special is faaar more fun. CW, the thing is though, you're not special, you're just stupid.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: