• What Happened to WTC Building 7 on 9/11?
    1,009 replies, posted
Definitely some new information in there worth checking out. I've been reading too. [editline]03:02AM[/editline] Here's a few scientific documents that should prove interesting. They are published by the same journal I was informing you was peer reviewed. I'll try to answer your question as to how that is done as I read more.[URL="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM"] Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe[/URL] [URL="http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/"]Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials [/URL] [URL="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM"] Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction [/URL]
Ok, reading a random one. Wait, what the fuck is this? "Indirect hit pieces: The primary purpose of the article is not to attack or undermine the work of Dr. Wood or Dr. Reynolds, but the article aims to do so on a more sublte level." What is this shit? This isn't science.
not sure what article you're reading, but that does seem like an odd thing to put into a scientific article detailing their findings. link? [editline]03:05AM[/editline] If you click the link to the journal of 9/11 studies, you will find the articles I referenced as well as up 50 more in PDF form.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992708]not sure what article you're reading, but that does seem like an odd thing to put into a scientific article detailing their findings. link? [editline]03:05AM[/editline] If you click the link to the journal of 9/11 studies, you will find the articles I referenced as well as up 50 more in PDF form.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/cc/JJJ.html[/url] I'm currently reading another, but the calculations seem wrong. Here, this one "The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers". It's arguing that the fuselage of the aircraft could only 'possibly' damage 20% of the internal structure, however, he does not account for the weight of the remaining aircraft, or what actual damage the contents of the building could do once on fire. Also, his only 'sources' are wikipedia specifications and links to other Journal 9/11 articles.
Not at all what I was looking at. I direct you to [URL="http://www.journalof911studies.com/"]this page[/URL] instead.
It was linked off that page. [editline]04:16AM[/editline] OK, the 'scientific' article I mentioned has [B]one equation in it[/B]. It's evidence is from other 9/11 journals and after giving some slightly wobbly scientific talk, goes on about what the government did it for, and argues that 'since it was suppose to withstand a plane hitting it.. it.. should' for 11 pages. 11 pages is not a scientific journal.
Try to refer to articles particularly mentioning the WTC 7 tower, as to avoid unnecessary debate about what happened elsewhere. There is TONS of information out there, some bullshit, some not so much. If we stick to one aspect of what happened and apply peer-to-peer criticism to just that, we'll come to a conclusion entirely faster. Besides, this thread was only really about WTC 7 in the first place anyhow.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992982]Try to refer to articles particularly mentioning the WTC 7 tower, as to avoid unnecessary debate about what happened elsewhere. There is TONS of information out there, some bullshit, some not so much. If we stick to one aspect of what happened and apply peer-to-peer criticism to just that, we'll come to a conclusion entirely faster.[/QUOTE] There are only two WTC 7 articles. One is an opinion piece about witness statements, the other is describing the fall rate. The maths does not include the amount of damage suffered, or any citations about studying the damage done, only regarding the fall rate of a 'complete' and 'incomplete' structure, so his maths is incomplete at best, and then lastly states that it's possible if 'the floors encountered little resistant.' So far, there is nothing here that changes anything.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992798]Not at all what I was looking at. I direct you to [URL="http://www.journalof911studies.com/"]this page[/URL] instead.[/QUOTE] The Journal of 9/11 Studies isn't a real journal. It was founded by a 9/11 Truther. Its "peer review" is all done by 9/11 Truthers. No one other than 9/11 Truthers has even heard of it. I challenge you to find a mention of this "journal" (let alone a [i]positive[/i] mention) on a credible science news site. There's nothing. The name only appears once on Wikipedia, when it is cited as a source on the "9/11 Truth Movement" article. [url=http://www.google.com/search?q="journal+of+9%2F11+studies"]Virtually every Google hit for "journal of 9/11 studies"[/url] is a truther website or blog. It doesn't even register on the scientific radar. It's nothing.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992603]Definitely some new information in there worth checking out. I've been reading too. [editline]03:02AM[/editline] Here's a few scientific documents that should prove interesting. They are published by the same journal I was informing you was peer reviewed. I'll try to answer your question as to how that is done as I read more.[URL="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM"] Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [/URL] Mmkay, active thermitic material. You do realize that you can't cut a vertically standing pillar with something like thermite, which works basically like lava. [URL="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM"] Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction [/URL] [/QUOTE] I can't comment on the other articles, but the fact that not all of them aren't fully bogus does NOT mean that they are all not bogus. I'm sure everyone accepts that there may be some good articles there. And in fact, the third article, "Fourteen points of agreement with the government's story" Doesn't that basically prove that it's a biased truther journal? [editline]03:33AM[/editline] [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992982]Try to refer to articles particularly mentioning the WTC 7 tower, as to avoid unnecessary debate about what happened elsewhere. There is TONS of information out there, some bullshit, some not so much. If we stick to one aspect of what happened and apply peer-to-peer criticism to just that, we'll come to a conclusion entirely faster. Besides, this thread was only really about WTC 7 in the first place anyhow.[/QUOTE] It's really easy to find evidence supporting your claims when the journal you source is always a blatantly truther journal. Peer review should be neutral.
Like TH89 said, I can't find any of their names on any other documents outside of this 9/11 journal. Real credible.
The "Bentham Open Access" site is pretty dodgy too, just take a look at this: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article[/url]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24982841]I like this post most of all. Atleast he took the time to carefully refute my claims (the ones he could). I have carefully rebutted every point made against me, if you missed one go back to read it. I'll continue to address any and all counterpoints to the best of my ability. As of yet however, I am not convinced there was not foul play involved in the destruction of the building. [editline]07:19PM[/editline] I'm about to show you how right I really am. Firstly, McCormick Place, really? [IMG_thumb]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/mccormick_fire.jpg[/IMG_thumb] The first fact that should be noted in regard to any such comparison is that the McCormick Place incident was not a total building collapse -- it was only a roof collapse. Much less was it the total collapse of a high-rise building. Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse. And the toy factory fire... There were no fire extinguishers, no alarms, no sprinkler systems and the elevated walkways between the buildings were either locked or used as storage areas. The buildings themselves were death traps, constructed from [I]un-insulated steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes.[/I] You're trying to compare that to a skyscraper with EXTENSIVE heat insulation? Even your last 'building collapse from fire' is not anything close to such. Thermal weakening of structural steel is a crucial element of the official theory of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Since there are no examples of steel-framed buildings [I][B]totally [/B][/I]collapsing due to fire stress (outside of these three alleged examples I just debunked) that just makes this all the more strange.[/quote] The point I made is structural steel can be weakened by fire, even if it has fireproofing. There are many examples of such buildings collapsing, just not all of them are recorded on the Internet, or at least not easily searchable by their structural design. It's obvious McCormick Place didn't collapse in the same way, as it was a relatively flat, low-lying building [b]not struck by debris from other buildings.[/b] WTC 7 was structurally unique and subject to a unique situation. In any case, just read the damned NIST report thoroughly, for fuck's sake. [quote]Here's the important stuff out of FEMA's report: [LIST] [*]At 9:59 AM (after the south tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was shut off. [*]Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves. [*]Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.) [*]This, and other debris (that also made the journey across Building 6 and Vesey Street), managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone to turn off the generators.) [*]The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel. [*]The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite. [*]The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire. [*]The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Building 7. [/LIST] The last point is the greatest stretch, since it asks us to believe that an event that would be expected only to cause the sagging of a floor instead led not only to total collapse, but to such a tidy collapse that directly adjacent buildings were scarcely even damaged. This is surprising behavior for a steel-framed skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes. [I]After laying out this highly improbable scenario, the FEMA report authors conclude: [/I] [I] The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.[/I] Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy,[B] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence[/B]. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. [I][B] Unfortunately for investigators hoping to resolve this issue, nearly all of the evidence had already been destroyed by the time the FEMA report was published. [/B][/I] If we wanted to use Occam's Razor right now... I'd say controlled demolition sounds a lot more plausible.[/QUOTE]I wasn't referring to the FEMA report. That was published in 2002, plus it did not reach an actual conclusion as to the cause of collapse and called for further investigation, which NIST did. I distinctly remember the FEMA report dismissing diesel fuel as a significant factor in the fires as nearly all of it was accounted for after searching the debris and finding the fuel tanks. Just that which was stored in the fuel lines was not recovered. So read the NIST report, that's why I linked to it. [b]Especially as the NIST report specifically refutes the idea that explosives were involved.[/b] [list][*]The sound from the least amount of RDX needed to sever column 79 would have been on the order of 140 decibels, something audible at around 1 mile away. [*]The overpressure would have blasted out a number of windows on the northeast corner, which was not the case.[/list] And before you say "nano-thermite", that couldn't be produced in the quantities needed nor planted at the site without anyone noticing. We're talking hundreds of tons of thermite needed. That, and the way in which it would have melted through the columns would have been seen on the wreckage and noted by the vast number of qualified professionals writing the report. [editline]08:45AM[/editline] [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986111]I'm sorry I didn't realize you had a more educated viewpoint on the evidence than Dr. Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archaeometrist. edit: please enlighten us oh omnipotent TH89, all knowing of all sciences, architecture, and politics.[/QUOTE]Oh my god, you actually brought that guy up? Oh dear me. [b]His own goddamn university said his paper was a load of shit[/b] You know what his last actually peer-reviewed paper was about? Cold fusion. He has limited, if no, understanding of engineering or demolitions.
[quote=Sgt Doom]And before you say "nano-thermite", that couldn't be produced in the quantities needed nor planted at the site without anyone noticing. We're talking hundreds of tons of thermite needed. That, and the way in which it would have melted through the columns would have been seen on the wreckage and noted by the vast number of qualified professionals writing the report.[/quote] I especially find this theory funny because the theorists never stop to explain how that much thermite could avoid igniting prematurely when it's in a burning building.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;24994610]And before you say "nano-thermite", that couldn't be produced in the quantities needed nor planted at the site without anyone noticing. We're talking hundreds of tons of thermite needed. That, and the way in which it would have melted through the columns would have been seen on the wreckage and noted by the vast number of qualified professionals writing the report.[/QUOTE] Back from the real world, I will now address all your points. Starting with this one because I was hoping you would mention the nano thermite. I found the article I referenced before.[URL="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=da&u=http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_nanomateriale_fundet_i_stovet_fra_world_trade_center&ei=dhXZSduWFp_wswOGvM2iCg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNiels%2BHarrit:%2BVidenskabeligt%2Bbevis%2Bfor%2Bgammel%2Bviden%2Bom%2B9/11%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG"] There [U][B]was [/B][/U]hundreds of tons of it found.[/URL] [editline]06:57AM[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;24993269]The "Bentham Open Access" site is pretty dodgy too, just take a look at this: [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article[/URL][/QUOTE] Read the whole thing. Will take that into consideration upon posting further sources, however, even the article you linked states that although it had a hoax, it did say it contained good articles as well. So you have to take the good with the bad. Don't lump them together before taking them into consideration, though. That said, take a look at the previous link. It seems to be a much more credible source published outside of the US in 2009. [editline]07:02AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;24994610]The point I made is structural steel can be weakened by fire, even if it has fireproofing. There are many examples of such buildings collapsing, just not all of them are recorded on the Internet, or at least not easily searchable by their structural design. It's obvious McCormick Place didn't collapse in the same way, as it was a relatively flat, low-lying building [B]not struck by debris from other buildings.[/B] WTC 7 was structurally unique and subject to a unique situation.[/QUOTE] The amount of debris involved is debatable. I've seen several sources claiming the damage by debris was minimal, especially given the fact that the buildings side by side WTC 7 were practically untouched.
Just because 1 building was untouched doesn't men that another wasn't. Just like tornadoes.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24995277]Back from the real world, I will now address all your points. Starting with this one because I was hoping you would mention the nano thermite. I found the article I referenced before.[URL="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=da&u=http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_nanomateriale_fundet_i_stovet_fra_world_trade_center&ei=dhXZSduWFp_wswOGvM2iCg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNiels%2BHarrit:%2BVidenskabeligt%2Bbevis%2Bfor%2Bgammel%2Bviden%2Bom%2B9/11%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG"] There [U][B]was [/B][/U]hundreds of tons of it found.[/URL][/QUOTE] -Ahem- "Videnskab.dk have spoken with a number of [B]sources in professional demolition Danish companies, Danish Fire and Security Technology Department, National Building Research and Force Technology, a technological material producer - but nobody knows nanotermit.[/B] Force state that typically uses Termite to weld railway tracks, but have no suggestion as to why it would be to find in a building." "The authors show a content of ordinary minerals like aluminum and iron oxide which is not surprising in dust from a building fire" (Remember the old Aluminum + iron argument?) A plane made of aluminum colliding into a building made a steel and iron and theres thermite around? Gosh, shock horror. Pity the physical evidence (Damage to the beams) cannot be made that way by thermite.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;24995593] "Videnskab.dk have spoken with a number of sources in professional demolition Danish companies, Danish Fire and Security Technology Department, National Building Research and Force Technology, a technological material producer - but nobody knows nanotermit. Force state that typically uses Termite to weld railway tracks, but have no suggestion as to why it would be to find in a building." "The authors show a content of ordinary minerals like aluminum and iron oxide which is not surprising in dust from a building fire"..."[B]but I could be wrong, for I must stress that I do not know anything about either termites or nanotermit. "[/B] [/QUOTE] You do realize that your first point is basically the basis for his claim that the thermite was developed and placed there for the purpose of controlled demolition. Also, you might as well finish the quote if you're gonna post it. Boldness was my completion of the quote.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24995277]Read the whole thing. Will take that into consideration upon posting further sources, however, even the article you linked states that although it had a hoax, it did say it contained good articles as well. So you have to take the good with the bad. Don't lump them together before taking them into consideration, though.[/QUOTE] The point is that Open Access journals like that one tend to be desperate for submissions, since the admission fee they charge is how they make their money. The less scrupulous publishers will take just about anything. And if they'll take just about anything, being published in their journal is no longer indicative of crediblity.
[QUOTE=TH89;24995772]The point is that Open Access journals like that one tend to be desperate for submissions, since the admission fee they charge is how they make their money. The less scrupulous publishers will take just about anything. And if they'll take just about anything, being published in their journal is no longer indicative of crediblity.[/QUOTE] On the contrary... they really aren't desperate at all. [Quote]The journal feels that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust.[/Quote][editline]08:07AM[/editline] You're still lumping all the good in with the bad. Not all of it is lacking credibility just because of one bad post/article. It seems to me that you (and plenty of other posters) aren't willing to accept that there is some good with the bad. Quote from your source: [quote]"There is a whole range in the quality of journals. Some that are open access are extremely good."[/quote]Stop being so close minded.
That's weird, where'd you find that? I found this under Manuscript Submission: [quote]Online Manuscript Submission: An online submission and tracking service via Internet facilitates a speedy and cost-effective submission of manuscripts.1 The full manuscript has to be submitted online via Bentham's Content Management System (CMS) at [url]http://www.bentham-editorial.org/[/url] View Instructions PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below: Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is US $600. Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is US $800. Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini-Review article is US $600. Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is US $900. Book Reviews: The open access fee for a published book review is US $450. Once the paper is accepted for publication, the author will receive by email an electronic invoice. The fee form is also available on the Web site at [url]www.bentham.org/open/feeform[/url][/quote]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24995755]You do realize that your first point is basically the basis for his claim that the thermite was developed and placed there for the purpose of controlled demolition. Also, you might as well finish the quote if you're gonna post it. Boldness was my completion of the quote.[/QUOTE] There was no point completely the quote, considering he knew little about the subject, so I bolded the part that he was actually correct about. So.. what about the basis of the claim? So what?
[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;24809347]Seriously, Compare this, which didn't collapse: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtVRma5QS6k[/url] With this: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTy3RYDj0lk[/url][/QUOTE] then compare it with this, an actual demolition. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A&feature=related[/url]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24995277] The amount of debris involved is debatable. I've seen several sources claiming the damage by debris was minimal, especially given the fact that the buildings side by side WTC 7 were practically untouched.[/QUOTE] The amount of debris involved is not debatable, it's well-known that WTC7 was hit by a large chunk of debris, causing substantial damage. The wiki says this, the NIST says this, every fireman in place at the time says this.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24982841]If we wanted to use Occam's Razor right now... I'd say controlled demolition sounds a lot more plausible.[/QUOTE]"All other things being equal, the simplest explanation is best." or alternatively in the form which Ockham wrote it: "Plurality is not to be posited without necessity." or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Really now? You're going to piss on William of Ockham's grave as well as Francis Bacon's? [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24995277]Back from the real world, I will now address all your points. Starting with this one because I was hoping you would mention the nano thermite. I found the article I referenced before.[URL="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=da&u=http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_nanomateriale_fundet_i_stovet_fra_world_trade_center&ei=dhXZSduWFp_wswOGvM2iCg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNiels%2BHarrit:%2BVidenskabeligt%2Bbevis%2Bfor%2Bgammel%2Bviden%2Bom%2B9/11%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG"] There [U][B]was [/B][/U]hundreds of tons of it found.[/URL][/quote]That refers to the Twin Towers. No such "thermite" material (in reality it's far more likely to just be aluminium from the plane and rust from the tower, as in fact is said multiple times in the article) was found in WTC 7. I won't bother attacking the validity of the source as TH89 has saved me the trouble. [quote]The amount of debris involved is debatable. I've seen several sources claiming the damage by debris was minimal, especially given the fact that the buildings side by side WTC 7 were practically untouched.[/QUOTE]The amount of debris involved is not debatable, considering there is photographic evidence of a gigantic hole in the southern face of the building. The buildings to the side of WTC 7 were untouched because of the nature in which the sides of WTC 1 fell i.e. outwards. The Verizon Building, which was also close to the path of WTC 1's debris, also suffered damage from it's collapse, though of course most of the damage came from WTC 7. [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24988116]The scientific community in the U.S. of all places is [I]extremely[/I] biased. How is that so hard to believe? We have history books go through 'legitimate peer-review processes' and they come out as skewed, misconstrued images that will only serve to uphold the ignorance that is so blissfully apart of maintaining the status quo. How is it so hard to understand that perhaps [I]defiance against the state[/I] in the scientific community is extremely kept secret.[/QUOTE]Now you're just making shit up By the way, you still haven't responded to the evidence in the NIST report nor it's specific debunking of explosives at WTC 7, i'll simply ignore you from now on until you read the thing and come up with something against it. Nor have you responded to Dr. Steven E. Jones' lack of qualification in relevant fields, nor his own peers questioning the scientific validity of his paper.
[quote=shukaidox;24988116]the scientific community in the u.s. Of all places is [i]extremely[/i] biased. How is that so hard to believe? We have history books go through 'legitimate peer-review processes' and they come out as skewed, misconstrued images that will only serve to uphold the ignorance that is so blissfully apart of maintaining the status quo. How is it so hard to understand that perhaps [i]defiance against the state[/i] in the scientific community is extremely kept secret.[/quote] [b]defiance against the state[/b]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24995277]Back from the real world, I will now address all your points. Starting with this one because I was hoping you would mention the nano thermite. I found the article I referenced before.[URL="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=da&u=http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_nanomateriale_fundet_i_stovet_fra_world_trade_center&ei=dhXZSduWFp_wswOGvM2iCg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNiels%2BHarrit:%2BVidenskabeligt%2Bbevis%2Bfor%2Bgammel%2Bviden%2Bom%2B9/11%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG"] There [U][B]was [/B][/U]hundreds of tons of it found.[/URL][/QUOTE] Nowhere in the article does it say there were hundreds of tons. Stop making shit up. And like it's been mentioned before, that theory is dealing with the twin towers. [I]NOT[/I] building 7.
people still think 9/11 was an inside job?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24995797] Stop being so close minded.[/QUOTE] Highly applicable to your situation. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/media]
Were the mods just trying to silence dissenting opinion or was ShukaidoX really just banned for quoting Network? [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=24983619&postcount=8[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.