Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Moron Loose Change Forum

Well, that didn't last long. One of the fruitiest of the fruitcakes over at the Loose Change forum banned me for not answering his question about a 1989 Washington Times article that claims... I don't know, something about a sex with boys ring in the Reagan White House. It's of course moderately tangential to 9/11 unless you're a moonbat like TheGuest, in which case it's crucial to checking out one's bona fides. If I could just accept that Poppy Bush was into underage boys, why the 9/11 conspiracy movement would all make glorious sense. But if not... well, I'm just not enlightened enough to reach "Veteran" Status on the Loose Change nutboard like TheGuest.

41 Comments:

At 09 May, 2006 23:20, Blogger James B. said...

Don't feel bad, I got banned too. I guess I shouldn't have asked what the poster was smoking when he said the collapse of the World Trade Center wasn't caused by it being hit by an airplane.

 
At 10 May, 2006 01:46, Blogger Mr. Fault said...

Thank you so much for putting this information all together in one place. I recently saw Loose Change for the first time and was starting to question my sanity. For a minute there, they had introduced some doubt into my mind. When I sat down to do the research into the claims in the movie, I came across your blog and found that you had already done all the work for me.

I have now removed my tin foil hat. It has been a stressful 24 hours.

My one remaining question is about the video tapes confiscated from the gas station and the Sheraton. Why does the FBI not release these videos?

Thanks again and good work.

 
At 10 May, 2006 03:43, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Mr. Fault, the government is not really allowed to release the tapes because they do not own them. They confiscated them, yes, and they can use them as evidence in a trial or investigation. But they are still the property of the gas station and releasing them is a violation of property rights.

In any case, I would not expect much from a gas station video. The cameras there are focused on local events, not the Pentagon.

 
At 10 May, 2006 07:13, Blogger Truth said...

Bravo, guys.
I think you have me to blame for the banning trend at the "Looser" forum. They couldn't face being confronted with facts.

Unfortunately, the creators of "Loose Change" managed to get EVERYTHING wrong. They simply couldn't be bothered with fact-checking, and with a subject as important as 9/11, that's a crying shame.

For a thorough critique of every claim in "Loose Change," go to http://tinyurl.com/epp82

(Going to URL will begin 5 Mb .doc download of my critique, which covers most of the prevalent 9/11 conspiracy theories, or check my blog above to see the index of subjects covered.)

Here's a recent review of one of their screenings:
"Goofball Shockumentary"
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2006-04-27/news/Bird.html

 
At 10 May, 2006 08:54, Blogger ScottSl said...

From the FOIA filed, the Sheraton and the gas station do not show the impact.

Hopefully many of these videos will be released in the near future. But who knows.

 
At 10 May, 2006 08:54, Blogger tellus said...

Why did Bush remain surrounded by children, in his previously publicized schoolhouse location, long after it was clear that 2 planes had struck the WTC & America was under attack???

Why did WTC-7 implode in a controlled demolition, despite the facts that it was 350 feet from the nearest tower, had very little damage, & a few scattered fires??? Why did Silverstein, the leaseholder, when confronted with this inexplicable “collapse”, claim that he & the Fire Dept. pulled it???

Because 9/11 was an inside job, that's why!

 
At 10 May, 2006 09:29, Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

The conspiradroid army do NOT like naysayers. Their standard operating procedure is to ban anyone who isn't a like-minded kook. Offer them facts, logic and reason and you will get banned...

 
At 10 May, 2006 09:32, Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

"Why did WTC-7 implode in a controlled demolition, despite the facts that it was 350 feet from the nearest tower, had very little damage, & a few scattered fires???"

What is it with you clown-shoes that you keep repeating the same debunked nonsense?

Chris Boyle expands on what he saw when he viewed the south side, not just the corner.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Fire chief Daniel Nigro clearly thought the building could collapse. Here's why.

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634

Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

 
At 10 May, 2006 09:59, Blogger ScottSl said...

Building 7 is closer than you think.
http://hereisnewyork.org/jpegs/photos/3189.jpg

 
At 10 May, 2006 10:22, Blogger mustknow said...

There are hundreds of photos, videos & eyewitnesses contradicting the 3 firemen you cite re: WTC-7. These photos, videos & witnesses demonstrate that there were merely a few scattered fires & minor, superficial damage to WTC-7. See: http://911research.wtc7.net

Why don't you link us some “gaping holes” in WTC-7 or some severe fires???

 
At 10 May, 2006 10:30, Blogger James B. said...

Hundreds of photos and videos? I have only seen 2-3 photos of WTC7 after the collapse of the towers, and they were all from far away on the side away from the collapse, for obvious reasons.

 
At 10 May, 2006 10:33, Blogger mustknow said...

WTC-7 was 350 feet from the nearest tower. It was not struck by a plane. Why did it implode. Why did Larry Silverstein say on video that he & the Fire Dept. "pulled-it."
http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/wtc4.jpg

 
At 10 May, 2006 10:41, Blogger mustknow said...

For tons of photos of WTC-7 & more truth, please look here:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

http://www.911blogger.com/

http://physics911.net/

 
At 10 May, 2006 10:54, Blogger ScottSl said...

For more photos that those guys are to afraid to show, go here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

 
At 10 May, 2006 11:00, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

"Mr. Fault, the government is not really allowed to release the tapes because they do not own them. They confiscated them, yes, and they can use them as evidence in a trial or investigation. But they are still the property of the gas station and releasing them is a violation of property rights.

In any case, I would not expect much from a gas station video. The cameras there are focused on local events, not the Pentagon."

So how about those government tapes that film the highway that runs right next to the Pentagon???? They have a right to release them, but they have not. Why?? Perhaps it will blow their story out of the water?

As far as WTC7.....

It was a controlled demolition. First of all, look at the penthouse portion of it when the collapse occurs. There is a KINK in the center, a known symptom of controlled demolition. Second, even if there was that much damage to the building as stated, the building WOULD NOT have collapsed virtually on it's own footprint. There were many other buildings in the area that suffered just as much damage, but they did not collapse.

Please show me one building in the history of the world before or after 9/11 that has collapsed because of fire of damage where it collapsed completely on its own footprint? JUST ONE? I'm not asking a lot here!

 
At 10 May, 2006 11:08, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

Can you explain why these towers did not collapse? They obviously suffered much more damage than WTC7, yet they did not collapse.


http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/050488_InterstateFire.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

I look forward to seeing/reading about one steel framed building that has collapsed onto it's own footprint without controlled demolition.

 
At 10 May, 2006 11:35, Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

"Why don't you link us some “gaping holes” in WTC-7 or some severe fires???"

Since you're a conspiradroid, it's unlikely that anything I could provide you would help you see the truth - but here it is anyway...

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

 
At 10 May, 2006 11:49, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

Perhaps someone can explain to me how the top part of this building defied Newtons 3 laws and magically straightened its self out and landed almost on it's own footprint rather than continuing it's fall to the side and landing onto buildings near by and onto the streets below?

Please enlighten me how PHYSICS can be disregarded? This is roughly 20 stories that are at a 30 degree angle. It would take hundreds of tons worth of force to bring it back in line with the footprint.

Please explain this and show your math or science that supports it.

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-collapse-sm.jpg

 
At 10 May, 2006 12:55, Blogger Pat said...

"Perhaps someone can explain to me how the top part of this building defied Newtons 3 laws and magically straightened its self out and landed almost on it's own footprint rather than continuing it's fall to the side and landing onto buildings near by and onto the streets below?

Please enlighten me how PHYSICS can be disregarded? This is roughly 20 stories that are at a 30 degree angle. It would take hundreds of tons worth of force to bring it back in line with the footprint.

Please explain this and show your math or science that supports it."

I dunno, what's the CT answer for that one? Is there a way to use controlled demolition to generate hundreds of tons of force? We know that despite the claims of the nuts, the buildings did not collapse neatly into their own footprints.

 
At 10 May, 2006 12:57, Blogger Pat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10 May, 2006 13:03, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

"I dunno, what's the CT answer for that one? Is there a way to use controlled demolition to generate hundreds of tons of force? We know that despite the claims of the nuts, the buildings did not collapse neatly into their own footprints."

Yes there is..... You simply blow the opposite side of the building and cause the weight to shift.

By the way.... Though it is extremely rare, there have been times when a top down demolition has occured. Usually they are a bottom up demolition.

So your telling me that they were laying on the streets surrounding the buildings? Neatly onto their own footprint is subjective. Did they not fall down onto the region of their footprint? Yes they did. This is the purpose of controlled demolition.

Did they fall onto buildings next to them across the street? No, the only buildings dammaged were from debree that was a result of the collapse, not the building its self.

 
At 10 May, 2006 13:30, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

Perhaps those who believe the OV can explain how the steel behind the firefighter was melted? No it was not cut with a blow torch.


http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg

 
At 10 May, 2006 17:31, Blogger fo0hzy said...

mustknow: "Why don't you link us some “gaping holes” in WTC-7 or some severe fires???"


how's this for a gaping hole?
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5610/wtc725tc.jpg

 
At 10 May, 2006 18:01, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

"how's this for a gaping hole?"

Really????

So with that damage, you consider that enough to cause the building to collapse down on its own footprint?

If thats the case, then we should have had 10 buildings around falling down that day. There were other buildings in the area that were damaged just as bad or worse than that but did not collapse. In fact, one building is just now, or has been recently, scheduled for demolition because of the damage received from WTC1 or 2.

Please review this document. Then tell me why these buildings that suffered much greater damage from the day, did not fall?

If you can explain why all these buildings did not fall, but the WTC's did, with scientific or math evidence, then I will admit that I am completely wrong. If you can't then I just ask that you do a little more research with an open mind.

I think that is a fair request, don't you?

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP02Screen.pdf

 
At 10 May, 2006 19:25, Blogger fo0hzy said...

justthefacts_1 said...

So with that damage, you consider that enough to cause the building to collapse down on its own footprint?


Not on its own... no. But -

The damage shown in that picture (SW corner of WTC7), starting at the 18th floor on down, should be enough to imply more horrific damage on the WTC1 side.

We cannot be totally sure of the extent of damage to WTC7 because after WTC1 fell into it (link) the WTC1 side was shrouded in dust and smoke until it fell.

WTC 1&2 fell because they were devastated by the impacts of two jet liners (one each) carrying massive amounts of fuel. Period.

WTC 7 was blasted by debris from WTC 1, and was left unstable and burning. It fell because Newton's law demanded it.

 
At 10 May, 2006 19:29, Blogger fo0hzy said...

BTW - that link is a view looking between WTC 7 (left) and the Verizon Building (right) towards the remains of WTC 1.

Note the distance the remains have traveled. No imagine the side of WTC 7 facing WTC 1.

 
At 10 May, 2006 19:42, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

"The damage shown in that picture (SW corner of WTC7), starting at the 18th floor on down, should be enough to imply more horrific damage on the WTC1 side. "

So then Newton's 3 Laws and the law of gravity was ignored by the other buildings around that sustained much more damage? Cummon! Who writes this stuf? Oh thats right FEMA and the Bush administration.

"because after WTC1 fell into it (link) the WTC1 side was shrouded in dust and smoke until it fell."

WTC1 did not fall into it! Some debre may have hit it, but WTC1 DID NOT FALL INTO IT. Did you forget about the 2 buildings on either side of WTC7??????

"WTC 7 was blasted by debris from WTC 1, and was left unstable and burning."

Not plausible, but OK. Then please show me another building in our worlds history that fell onto it's own footprint due to fire, damage, or both? JUST ONE! I think that should be easy enough since those who believe the OV think that this occurs all the time in steel framed buildings.

Even WTC3 and 4 were still partially standing even though they were pulverized by WTC1 and 2. See the pictures here.

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP02Screen.pdf

Please explain how several buildings that were with this sever of damage remain standing but one that has by far less sever damage falls?

By the way..... Do you even know what Netwon's Law's says, because if you do you would know that the event with WTC7 does not fall into this catagory. The only law even coming close is I. However, that does not even begin to reflect how the building collapsed straight down rather than toppling due to this (large part of the building missing).

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 
At 10 May, 2006 20:00, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

"WTC 1&2 fell because they were devastated by the impacts of two jet liners (one each) carrying massive amounts of fuel. Period."

Is this based on some facts???

So far there has been no data to support the statement you have made.

The 9/11 commission report is a complete ommission and distortion of the facts.

NIST states that even the models don't show the collapse of WTC1 or 2 falling in this fashion.

Now the 9/11 Commission claimed that the inner part of the towers were hollow tubes for elevators and electrical ducts. They never state that there were 47 steel cores that were the main load bearing part, and the uniqueness, of the building. They try to claim that the outer shell was the load bearing part of the building. NOT! As for WTC7, they never answer that question because if they did then that would lead back to WTC1 and 2.

NIST attempts to show WTC1 and 2 collapsing by the pancaking theory, but Dr. Jones and Dr. Griffin blow that theory out of the water.

I would be interrested in your explaination for the parts of the building exploding 20 to 30 floors below the collapse of the building as it is falling down???? Why was a 50 ton hydrolic press destroyed in the sub basement? The building shafts were hermetically sealed. There is no way that the fire could have gotten down there not to mention still maintain enough energy to destroy the underground parking lot and the 50 ton press.

Please explain this? In order to bring down buildings, you need to take out the support beams. i.e. the foundation in order to get the building weight to collapse it self.

 
At 10 May, 2006 21:12, Blogger fo0hzy said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10 May, 2006 21:13, Blogger fo0hzy said...

justthefacts: you're not interested in facts. Your mind is made up, and I will never sway your opinion, which is after all, just that: opinion.

So enjoy your fantasies. I'm sure the world will provide you with more CT fodder as time marches forward.

 
At 10 May, 2006 21:42, Blogger Pat said...

"Now the 9/11 Commission claimed that the inner part of the towers were hollow tubes for elevators and electrical ducts. They never state that there were 47 steel cores that were the main load bearing part, and the uniqueness, of the building."

Steel cores? What on earth is a steel core, and what are 47 of them doing in the building?

Let me guess, you're not a building construction expert?

 
At 11 May, 2006 06:42, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

"fo0hzy said...

justthefacts: you're not interested in facts. Your mind is made up, and I will never sway your opinion, which is after all, just that: opinion.

So enjoy your fantasies. I'm sure the world will provide you with more CT fodder as time marches forward."

I just love that when people can't prove anything, and people challenge them, that they start spouting nonesense.

Show me the evidence to what you say, scientific or mathmatical, and I will look at it and decide. You see I am an Engineer and believe in what data analysis tells me.

The data I have and the analysis that has been performed shows evidence to the WTC's being demolished. If you have PROOF otherwise, please provide it.

I guess that as long as the government says its so you will believe it?? I'm one who looks at something and if a person is dead with a bullet hole in his head, I say that he was shot. I will argue with someone who tries to tell me that that person died of a heart attack. The facts in that instance do not match and neither do the facts in 9/11.

NONE of them!

 
At 11 May, 2006 06:51, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

"Pat said...
Steel cores? What on earth is a steel core, and what are 47 of them doing in the building?

Let me guess, you're not a building construction expert?"

Oh, so sorry that I miss typed what I meant to say........ You got me!!!

That would be steel colums. Is that better????

GEEZE! Unless you are an uneducated and mentally disabled individual, you more than likely knew what I meant! Rather than being sarcastic and idiotic, you could have asked me to elaborate.

I noticed that NO ONE has even tried to answer my questions! Cummon! If your support of the OV is so strong you should be able to counter my questions and the information I have provided. Let's see what you have as scientific proof or the math.

Of course you wont be able to show the math because the math already shows that it would have taken no less than 40 seconds for the buildings to collapse in the fashion the government says.

If all you can do is call people names, then I truely know that you have no facts and no way to disprove or negate the information I provide.

By the way.... The most common question asked when someone says that they could not have placed the bombs in the building. Really? Do you happen to know who was in charge of security for the WTC's?

Marvin Bush. Yes the presidents brother. Now don't you think that security could be bypassed?

 
At 11 May, 2006 06:57, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

By the way.... The most common question asked when someone says that they could not have placed the bombs in the building. Really? Do you happen to know who was in charge of security for the WTC's?

Should have read...

The most common question asked when someone says that they could not have placed the bombs in the building.

How could they have placed them?

 
At 11 May, 2006 09:17, Blogger Pat said...

Just the facts, the Marvin Bush thing is really lame. You do know what a director of a company does, right? He goes to board meetings once a month. He has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the company. The movie even acknowledges that he left the company after fiscal 2000. You do understand that fiscal 2000 must have ended at least 8 months and change before 9-11?

 
At 11 May, 2006 09:44, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

"The movie even acknowledges that he left the company after fiscal 2000. You do understand that fiscal 2000 must have ended at least 8 months and change before 9-11?"

Actually, the movie states that he was in charge of security upto 9/11. There is no place, that I recall, that says otherwise.

"He goes to board meetings once a month. He has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the company."

So he has no say into what happens or how he would like to see things? Cummon! He can tell or ask that something is done this way or that way. He RUNS the operation, maybe not directly, but he is the person in charge.

That's like saying that the board of directors of a company has nothing to do with how a company is ran. Is that what you are telling me?????

 
At 11 May, 2006 09:52, Blogger justthefacts_1 said...

Care to try again???

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

 
At 18 July, 2006 13:33, Blogger eep700 said...

Just the facts1, I couldn't have explained it better if I tried. I mean I am honestly interested in hearing both sides. Since researching the 9/11 attacks and then recently seeing the loose change video, I am sort of in the middle of the road. Here people insult you and reduce themselves to name calling yet you present facts and somehow your the "conspiradroid." You raise pertinent questions and they ignore them. I am in no way a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe what we were told about 9/11 is a complete farce. I wouldn't ever tell anyone to believe the video completely or believe what I believe, but I would want people to keep an open mind and not blindly follow their government or even others. Yet, do their own research and discover it themselves.

 
At 25 September, 2006 02:44, Blogger dobber said...

I would like to complain about loose change forum

Yes! I think they are phobic!

I put in a new topic/thread with a little too much common sense evidence as to why the Pentagon missile theory was rubbish, because of the existence of the Flight 77 bodies and the details of the relatives who acknowledge their deaths - well off course this simple logic was too much for them.

This is how they contol/manipulate you:
First say your on the main topic "Pentagon", then if you start a new thread & differ in opinion from them (missile hit pentagon) and suggest the jet actually hit the Pentagon, they then say they are going to move you from "Pentagon" to their other topic "Debate" - off course once you get there you can no longer reply to your own thread (pressing "reply" gives the error notice "you don't have authority to enter this site" or something like this.

Then when you click on contact web administrator to ask for a fix - your email returns "permanent fatal errors".

I then PM'd senior administrators about it with no reply.

It would appear that there is money in it for these guys, its a rabid business - they clearly are NOT INTERESTED IN TRUTH OR EVEN DIVERGENT OPINIONS TO THEIR OWN. If not money , then they must be nerdy phobics!

 
At 22 October, 2006 08:01, Blogger Rodger Hillbank said...

Great site! I can't believe that Loose Change documentary, I mean how stupid they are to not realise that any building will fall down after a fire.

An idiot I know keeps on reminding me about the bomb sniffing dogs being removed from the buildings days before 9-11, but he can't seem to understand that they were obviously needed elsewhere like in airports, because it was a high risk time. As for the Pentagon, well, it is hard to imagine that that was an aeroplane, I would guess either some terrorists got hold of a military plane and fired a missile, or a suicide bomber managed to get inside the building.

Anyway, keep up the good work!

 
At 17 November, 2006 22:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Info missing from the NIST report

This is the NIST report on the World Trade Center collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

I have done searches and listed all of the pages with the words steel, concrete, C (celsius), F (fahrenheit), tons, degrees, kip and ksi. I have already found things I consider oddly interesting.

On PDF page 117 they say the towers had "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" and mention this again on page 137. That doesn't seem a very precise specification to me. That could mean anywhere from 175,000 to 225,000. I would have thought they would want to be much more precise than that. In addition to that I can't find any mention of the weight of steel and/or concrete on the floors where the planes hit. How can you analyze the overall effect of the impact without having some idea of the distribution of mass within the building? There should be a table specifying the tons of steel and concrete on every floor. The mass and distribution of mass within the building is going to influence the effects of the impact.

But when you search on the word "degree" you find plenty of details about orientation of the building and angles of the plane and it being banked at 25 +/- 2 degrees. And yet the word [b]"tons"[/b] only appears in the report 8 times and nowhere is there a specification of the tons or cubic yards of concrete. They use the word concrete a great deal. See if you can find a specification of the quantity of concrete in each or both towers.

How do you accurately analyze and explain the effect of an airliner colliding with a steel and concrete structure without being exact about the amount and distribution of steel and concrete?

psikeyhackr

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home