Slideshow image


Since your web browser does not support JavaScript, here is a non-JavaScript version of the image slideshow:

slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


Why Fact-check? Why preserve a visual record?

The Website Written as a Book
Introduction
1: Science and Subjective Viewpoints
2: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
....2.4: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History
....2.5: WTC2 Accurate Collapse History
....2.6: WTC7 Accurate Collapse History
3: WTC Collapse Misrepresentations
....3.1: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations
....3.3: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentations
....3.4: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentations
....3.5: Reviewing the Purpose of NIST and FEMA Reports
....3.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progressions
....3.7: Block Misrepresentations of Collapse Progressions
....3.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
4: Scientific Institutions Can Be Unaware of Contradiction
5: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
....5.1: The Case of WTC1
....5.2: The Case of WTC2
....5.3: The Case of WTC7
6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication
....6.1: Meme Replication in Technical Literature
....6.2: Meme Replication in Mass Media
....6.3: Meme Replication in Popular Culture
....6.4: John Q Public and the WTC Collapse Records
Conclusions

WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

Official, Legal Attempts to Explain Collapses

Academic Attempts to Explain Collapses Reviewed

On the Limits of Science and Technology

WTC Video Record

WTC Photographic Record
WTC1 Attack to Collapse
WTC2 Attack to Collapse
WTC 7
.
-----PHOTO RECORD OF FIRE PROGRESSION-----
Fire Progression, WTC1 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 West Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 West Face
.
----DEBRIS LAYOUT AND CONDITION, BY REGION-----
Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings
Perimeter Column Photo Record
Perimeter Columns: Types of Damage
Core Box Columns: Types of Damage
Complete Photo Archive
Other Major 9-11 Photo Archives
The 911Dataset Project

WTC Structural Information

Log In
Username

Password

Remember Me



Online Misrepresentations of the WTC Collapses

Forum, Blog Representations of the WTC Collapses

The Book Tested Through Experiments

Miscellaneous Notes, Resources
FAQ for Miscellaneous Notes
History Commons 9/11 Timeline
The 911Dataset Project
Skyscraper Safety Campaign
First and Largest 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Key Words in Book and Website
Trapped Within a Narrowed False Choice
Vulnerability and Requestioning
On Memes and Memetics
Obedience, Conformity and Mental Structure
Denial, Avoidance (Taboo) and Mental Structure
Taboos Against Reviewing the Collapse Events
Extreme Situations and Mental Structure
Suggestibility, Hypnosis and Mental Structure
Awareness and Behavior
Magical, Religious, Scientific Cause-Effect Relations
The Extreme Limits of Mental Dysfunction
Orwell's "Crimestop", "Doublethink", "Blackwhite"
William James, Max Born: Science as Philosophy
Plato on Self Reflection and Mental Structure
Rewriting History, part 1
Rewriting History, part 2
On Smart Idiots

New Ideas in Education

Key words within the book and website

Key words within the book and website




Key words and questions


Because the attacks of 9/11/01 are a pivotal historic event not just for us, but for the next few generations that follow, and because one can witness some distinct psychological patterns all around us, the event can serve as an excellent tool for communication and teaching of various cultural and psychological concepts near and dear to many of us.

General outlines of most of these concepts were already given throughout this website and accompanying book. For example, what is science? This is kind of important within our cultures and these events give an excellent opportunity to re-examine what science is and what it is not. One rarely gets a chance to see it break down before ones eyes, to see people at all levels of the technical hierarchy pretend to reach scientific conclusions.

Another question which has been addressed for a long time: What is critical thought?

Others...

What is taboo? How deeply can social denial penetrate our cultures?

What are common psychological reactions to negative shock?

What is self reflection? What does it mean be aware of ones limitations?

What is the nature of scientific revolutions and scientific institutions?

What is the nature of social obedience and conformity?

What is the relation between awareness and behavior?

How do minds tend to respond to extreme situations?

How does groupthink work?

What is a meme? How do memes replicate within popular culture and scientific literature?





Obviously nobody can answer these question completely, but it is rare to be given an opportunity to catch a glimpse of the mechanics of all these phenomena in action, especially around a pivotal historic event central to the times in which we live. So, while the subject at hand can be a bit shocking and depressing, it is an invaluable opportunity to observe many things about ourselves, the people around us and the societies in which we live.


The common western context of thinking and western science has many wonderful qualities and there is a lot to learn from the information available, but it doesn't take a genius to notice that it is limited and these limits are often not recognized by the institutions of education, science and power through which this information is propagated throughout the world.





These are the main key words I use repeatedly in my "book" and website:


science vs subjectivity
verification
mappings
misrepresentations
anomaly
structure and mechanism

an artificially narrowed false choice
false certainty
vulnerability
gullibility
denial
obedience
authority
suggestibility
mental fragmentation
memes and memetics


divorce of awareness from behavior
detachment from the visual and written records
the plight of Joe Average, Joe engineer (the poor guys never had a chance).
how various people can be expected to respond to misrepresentions, contradiction and anomaly
dynamics of group-think
consensus




I didn't originally intend to write around these key words. These concepts kept resurfacing in the course of research and observation and they naturally became the concepts through which I expressed information in the website.





Science and Faith


This is a quote from OWE posted The 9/11 Forum, on p 8 of the "coddling technical monkeys" thread:

Having followed great swaths of this debate over the course of years, as well as participating in some aspects, I long ago came to some unavoidable conclusions which are not generally recognized or accepted. I suspect the reason these conclusions are not well received is because no one likes to perceive themselves as deficient, especially not deficient in the same way as their (greatly loathed) opponents.

In popular argumentation (that is, forum debates), there is generally little difference between CTers and non-CTers in terms of scientific rigor, logical process and recognition of available evidence. Both sides liberally employ pseudophysics and brazenly ignore physical evidence to make their points. Unsupported assertions and logical fallacies abound on both sides. Hand-waving is a common modus operandi, in lieu of carefully constructed arguments. Not that there aren't cogent and compelling arguments to be made, it's just surprising how rare it actually is.

Because the quality and veracity of arguments made by opponents so frequently suffer the same deficiencies, the only rational explanation I can come to is that many people on both sides have come to their respective conclusions by way of FAITH. Faith is belief absent evidence and sound reasoning process. When evidence and reasoning are absent or flawed as presented, what basis other than preconceived ideology or faith in perceived authority explains a firm conclusion?

I've lost count of the number of threads and posters therein where the basis for both sides of the argument was simple incredulity dressed up with imaginary physics, chemistry and so on. Of course, there are some very good sources of information and analysis which may be cited at any given time, but I'm talking about the quality of argumentation which originates from the posters themselves. As an example, JEM articles by Bazant et al are cited with great frequency but the fact is most of those in agreement with Bazant's results are no more able to explain why Bazant should be considered correct than their counterparts are to explain why he is wrong.

That's pretty *bleep*ing sad.

But it's not surprising. The events of 9/11 have spawned legions of armchair physicists on all sides of the argument. Never have I seen so many uneducated and ignorant laypeople assume the cloak of scientific expertise. There's a reason why such a small percentage of the general population declares a university major in physics and an even smaller percentage attain their goal: they have neither the intellectual capacity nor willingness to expend great effort to rise to the challenge. Of course, most people are not interested anyway, and that's the root of it, but that's even worse.

If you think that having a couple of planes smack into buildings magically waives the requirement of years of hard study in order to know what the *bleep* you're talking about, you're sadly mistaken.

To try to answer the question of the OP, I can only offer this: whatever it is that might cure a truther from what ails them, the same prescription should be applied to non-CTers as well. I suggest a long period of diligent study in scientific/engineering disciplines and traditional courses of logic.






Propaganda and False Choices


This is a clip of Noam Chomsky on a seemingly unrelated issue of advertising and public relations:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0TFtXa5RqI&feature=player_embedded


At first glance it may appear that the subject of manipulation through public relations is quite different from the subject of 9/11 and the world trade center collapses, but the fundamentals of both are remarkably similar. In both cases the manipulation of human perception seems much more important than an interest in any underlying verifiable reality.



Chomsky quotes Edward Bernays 1928 book "Propaganda" in the clip, which is defined by Bernays as:

The goal of the industry should be conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses, an important element in democratic society. Very clearly it is the intelligent minorities that need to make use of propaganda continuously and systematically, because it is only they that understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses and are therefore able to pull the wires to control the public mind, to mold the mind of the masses so they will throw their strength in the desired direction, in the direction understood by the intelligent minorites who must regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army must regiment the bodies of its soldiers.



Some of the key words that I use to describe how the WTC collapses are perceived and discussed have a direct parallel to the topic Chomsky is discussing:

an artificially narrowed false choice
false certainty
vulnerability
gullibility
denial
obedience
authority
suggestibility

These are terms I use but they are equally applicable in the topics of propaganda, advertising and public relations.





I agree with the bulk of the comments made by OWE within his post but I express ideas using different key words.

Science vs subjectivity is the title of the first section of my "book". It would also be interesting to compare science to propaganda or public relations. They seem to follow a very different and mutually contradictory set of rules.


A quick review of "Propaganda" in wikipedia linked here. In it there is a long list of propaganda techniques. It reads like a "how to" manual of how to avoid evidence-based technical discussion or fact-based communication.



OWE from the quote:

In popular argumentation (that is, forum debates), there is generally little difference between CTers and non-CTers in terms of scientific rigor, logical process and recognition of available evidence.


Exactly. The atmosphere is extremely polarized and judging from the content of forum discussions arguments are generally presented as sets of false choices. There is a lot of confusion but it is presented as certainty.

Both sides liberally employ pseudophysics and brazenly ignore physical evidence to make their points. Unsupported assertions and logical fallacies abound on both sides.


If one could step back from the polarized atmosphere and view discussions as a whole, it is possible to see a certain pervading confusion behind the pretense of certainty. The actual science is pretty thin while the equivalent of propaganda techniques dominates exchanges.

Because the quality and veracity of arguments made by opponents so frequently suffer the same deficiencies, the only rational explanation I can come to is that many people on both sides have come to their respective conclusions by way of FAITH. Faith is belief absent evidence and sound reasoning process. When evidence and reasoning are absent or flawed as presented, what basis other than preconceived ideology or faith in perceived authority explains a firm conclusion?


Your explanation is destined to be unpopular for obvious reasons. Neither side of the polarity will be able to admit to being vulnerable.

I long ago came to some unavoidable conclusions which are not generally recognized or accepted. I suspect the reason these conclusions are not well received is because no one likes to perceive themselves as deficient, especially not deficient in the same way as their (greatly loathed) opponents.


These conclusions are not generally recognized or accepted. Ironically, accepting the polarized nature in viewpoints witnessed is essential to see the situation as a whole. Earlier in this thread, when discussing Robert Parry, OWE wrote:

The same debate carries on at the bottom of online mainstream news articles; on ABC / WSJ / Independent / MSNBC / AOL / Guardian / YouNameIt, both sides continue to hack away at each other on the same tired themes using the same tired methods year after year.


Because of the repetition in arguments a type of pseudo-debate is guaranteed to continue far into the future. This seems unavoidable.




The Technical Hierarchy


OWE:

The events of 9/11 have spawned legions of armchair physicists on all sides of the argument. Never have I seen so many uneducated and ignorant laypeople assume the cloak of scientific expertise.


I have never seen anything like it before. I didn't know such a thing existed until I witnessed it in the 9/11 exchanges.

But it isn't just those with little or no technical training. The people participating in forums or on message boards received their information within a larger environment. Taken as a whole, the larger environment consists of people with various levels of technical knowledge. I call it the "technical hierarchy" and describe it as a type of pyramid like this:





The general confusion witnessed, which neither sharply polarized side will admit is confusion, seems to come from confusion higher up the technical hierarchy. On the forum level both polarized sides received their information from elsewhere. All levels must be taken as an interacting whole to see where much of the confusion originates.


Technical studies of the WTC collapses can be taken as the 21st century poster boy of fragmented knowledge. Technical information in this area seems to consist of scattered fragments with no clear, coherent concept of failure mechanism. Much of what is observed on the forum level is the inevitable result of highly fragmented bits of knowledge gathered from the highest levels of the technical hierarchy.

Consider, if clear explanations of failure mechanisms were available within literature at the highest levels of the technical hierarchy, would we have witnessed so much ambiguity and confusion on the forum level?


Please consider how different levels of the techical pyramid interact. Journalists are as helpless as any average Joe when it comes to fact-checking highly technical information.


I have never yet seen a case of a journalist who isn't thoroughly trapped within an artificially narrowed false choice. Exactly as Chomsky describes the false choice within U.S. politics, so journalists, no matter how independent they are on other issues, invariably see these technical issues through such a lens. It is the narrowed, polarized false choice which dominates most all published commentary on these technical issues.

Judging from news articles written over the last few years, the way many journalists approach the technical issues of the WTC collapses is pretty much the same and well established:

They sharply criticize truther authority figures and then reach for their own authority figures (divorce of awareness from behavior. vulnerability, false certainty)

The formula is pretty much always the same:

1) Narrowed polarization
2) Total reliance on technical authority


The most commonly cited authorities are the NIST and articles like the one in Popular Mechanics. These form the highest form of technical "reality" that so many people are capable of perceiving.



OWE:

Because the quality and veracity of arguments made by opponents so frequently suffer the same deficiencies, the only rational explanation I can come to is that many people on both sides have come to their respective conclusions by way of FAITH. Faith is belief absent evidence and sound reasoning process. When evidence and reasoning are absent or flawed as presented, what basis other than preconceived ideology or faith in perceived authority explains a firm conclusion?


Yes. When the technical pyramid is viewed as an interactive whole the same explanation can be applied on a much wider scale to encompass the entirety of the green and yellow levels, which are journalists and the general public.


OWE:

I long ago came to some unavoidable conclusions which are not generally recognized or accepted.


On this issue people understandably hunger for certainty. These unavoidable conclusions do not provide certainty to either side of the polarity. Faith implies vulnerability. For the most part, the feeling of certainty is obtained through a simple formula observable in most all written commentary:

1) Narrowed polarization

followed by

2) Total reliance on technical authority




As an example of how even more careful journalists tend to perceive the issue of the WTC collapses, Robert Parry updated one of his articles on 9/11 conspiracies after the Tucson shootings.

Parry:

Update: On Sunday, in a profile of alleged Tucson gunman Jared L. Loughner, the New York Times reported that as "a curious teenager," Loughner "became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government. ...

"His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government."

Given how a mentally disturbed young person can process information (or disinformation), it is incumbent on all of us who speak in today's public square to be responsible, especially when we make serious allegations like suggesting that Bush and the U.S. government "made" 9/11 happen.

The need for this careful behavior is true for the Right and it is true for the Left. The Center (including the mainstream press) also has a deep responsibility to examine suspicions of government wrongdoing when there is credible evidence and to have the courage to speak truth to power regardless of the pressures and consequences.

For the Center to renege on that duty (such as when the mainstream press attacked Gary Webb's Contra-cocaine reporting in the mid-to-late 1990s) may be rationalized as "good for the country" in the short-term (by discrediting ugly truths) but whitewashing only feeds the public's appetite for conspiracy theories on the Right and the Left.

In other words, to help avert future tragedies like the one in Tucson, all parts of the U.S. political/media system need to work better and take their responsibilities to the public more seriously. That would include not spreading wild accusations with weak or non-existent evidence, but it also would require holding Bush and his associates accountable for what they actually did.

Surely, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to decry (and investigate) what Bush did in office: his use of torture, his misleading the nation to war, his reckless tax cuts for the rich, his botched economic policies, and, yes, his failure to protect the country from the 9/11 attacks.

However, it doesn’t help the cause of accountability to make unfounded allegations against Bush â€" indeed it hurts. By floating unsubstantiated and bizarre claims about "controlled demolitions" and a "missile hitting the Pentagon," the "truthers" actually make it harder to proceed with investigations into important areas of doubt about 9/11, like the financing and the Saudi role.

As for the crazy stuff, enough is enough.

[For summaries of evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks, see the work done by Popular Mechanics, the National Geographic channel, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.]


He is obviously thinking deeply on these issues and the dangers which surround them. Yet he is completely immersed in adoration of the technical hierarchy and uses Popular Mechanics and the NIST as his deepest underlying proof of his claims.





Parry and Cockburn write of how they see the danger of such thinking affecting "the left".

Rachael Maddow, on the other hand, sees this as something that affects "the right".







Always the same simple formula:

1) Narrowed polarization

followed by

2) Total reliance on technical authority

In the case of Maddow, Popular Mechanics is the highest form of technical truth. That is the upper limit of her technical knowledge of these issues.

Each sees themselves as certain on these technical issues. The total reliance on technical authority should be obvious for anyone to see. But what about narrowed polarization?


Well, what if a person were to systematically rip apart the Popular Mechanics article using the superior mappings of the collapse events now available and present the information to either Parry or Maddow? Would they not automatically perceive that person as one of "them"? As the crazy "other"?

Most probably yes, since reliance on that technical authority forms the underlying fabric of their world views.





The Top of the Hierarchy


So, the limitations which OWE sees within forum exchanges permeates journalism as well. Lastly, to what degree does this same faith and confusion permeate the highest levels of the technical hierarchy?

In addition to the NIST reports, a list of academic and professional literature on the WTC collapses is available at this link.

As the reader looks over these sources, can they spot confusion in the form of a steady train of contradictions within the literature? Most probably not because they cannot read the literature. This information might as well be written in Latin or Mandarin as far as the large majority of readers are concerned. And even if some could read it, what mappings of the actual collapse events would one use to compare the statements and claims made, to check them for accuracy or inconsistencies?

Joe Average will be unable to detect a pervading confusion behind the pretense of certainty within academic and professional literature on this subject due to the simple fact that he will be unable to read the material. Journalists are in the same position.



It must all look so impressive. So many papers, so many names, so......overwhelming.

Such consensus!







Sweet, sweet surrender


Complete reliance on technical authorities will naturally lead a person to a state of belief, but they won't necessarily be aware that they are believing. They may see it as authoritative certainty and professional consensus (false certainty).

There is something being given up in order to embrace this type of certainty.

OWE:

Because the quality and veracity of arguments made by opponents so frequently suffer the same deficiencies, the only rational explanation I can come to is that many people on both sides have come to their respective conclusions by way of FAITH.

...

When evidence and reasoning are absent or flawed as presented, what basis other than preconceived ideology or faith in perceived authority explains a firm conclusion?



A strong, unwaivering faith. The stronger the faith, and the more buffalo in your herd, the more it superficially appears as "certainty" or "truth". Undoubtably, when such a thing does happen, what many participants may not realize is how large a role purely subjective psychological factors and patterns may have played in the whole process.







Polarity: An artificially narrowed false choice


These are representations of an electric field created by a pair of equal and opposite point charges.


in 2-D



3-D





Noam Chomsky gives a good description of the prolonged effects of an artificially narrowed false choice in the clip on the last page. In politics and economics false choices lead to pseudo-debates. These types of discussions based on an artificially small, sharply polarized number of choices, not surprisingly, tend to lead to highly predictable results.



1) Each pole is defined by and reliant upon the arguments of the opposite pole.



2) Both poles taken together form the overall environment.



3) Polarity kills intelligent, fact-based discussion

According to Chomsky's application, polarity is designed to kill intelligent discussion.



4) Independent, individual research and inquiry is considered a threat to both polarized viewpoints.


This means, strangely, that independence, reserved judgement and careful study are discouraged by both polarized viewpoints.


Taking the analogy between electrostatic polarity and polarized viewpoints a bit further...


How does one increase the polarization in the environment?

By increasing the magnitude of charge. Highly charged subjects commonly result in sharply polarized camps,


The polarity can be so strong that purely neutral attributes of physical objects like observations and measurements are something to attack and treat with suspicion. (After all, they could be coming from spies in the enemy camp.)

High charge results in a highly polarized environment. Various journalists like Maddow and Parry respond to the polarization sensed, not to the actual technical issues, according to the simple, all too predictable formula:

1) Narrowed polarization

followed by

2) Total reliance on technical authority


which can also be described as a type of surrender:

1) Surrender to the false choice

2) Surrender to technical authority






To what degree does this same faith and confusion permeate the highest levels of the technical hierarchy?

In addition to the NIST reports, a list of academic and professional literature on the WTC collapses is available at this link.

As the reader looks over these sources, can they spot confusion in the form of a steady train of contradictions within the literature? Most probably not because they cannot read the literature. This information might as well be written in Latin or Mandarin as far as the large majority of readers are concerned. And even if some could read it, what mappings of the actual collapse events would one use to compare the statements and claims made, to check them for accuracy or inconsistencies?

Joe Average will be unable to detect a pervading confusion behind the pretense of certainty within academic and professional literature on this subject due to the simple fact that he will be unable to read the material. Journalists are in the same position.


In other words, the large, large majority of readers will not be able to see if a similar faith or general confusion exists throughout this literature.


Of those able to read the literature a second barrier exists.

The first notable item within media and academia is that people on the whole tend to be remarkably detached from the visual record. This is understandable. It is quite difficult to reconstruct events from the visual record, and a comprehensive visual record of events was not even available to the public until close to a decade after the collapses. This detachment is what has allowed misrepresentations to continue to repeat themselves and flourish unchecked.

People on the whole are largely detached from the visual records of the collapse events and from the written records of the collapses for the last 11 years. People tend to be detached from the history of the collapses in 2 ways:


1) They are detached from the visual record of events
2) They are detached from written records of events


I have already stated what I have found in the literature:

Technical studies of the WTC collapses can be taken as the 21st century poster boy of fragmented knowledge. Technical information in this area seems to consist of scattered fragments with no clear, coherent concept of failure mechanism. Much of what is observed on the forum level is the inevitable result of highly fragmented bits of knowledge gathered from the highest levels of the technical hierarchy.






Inability to visualize the initiation processes


A comparison to quantum mechanics gives an excellent example. People cannot visualize quantum transition mechanisms. This is a huge philosophical shift from classical to quantum mechanics. QM is a purely mathematical theory and the actual mechanistic processes themselves cannot be visualized.


So, if this was an issue in QM I could understand why nobody can draw a general schematic of the initiation process. But it isn't. This is a purely classical mechanism and somebody should be able to draw a *bleep*ing schematic which demonstrates the mechanism.


The schematics produced thus far are like confessionals of how people once viewed the initiation processes and how others still do. They have "I don't know" and confusion written all over them.


The inability for any academic or professional organization or individual to etch out an even remotely accurate sketch of the initiation process after more than a decade is proof in itself that people tend to think they know more than they actually do.


The inability for anyone to etch out a visual representation of the mechanisms is proof of just how vaguely it is described in the written literature and how poorly people have examined the visual record of the collapse processes.


There is no justifiable reason for not being able to visually represent a classical mechanism or process other than the fact that it is not understood. It is misrepresented so often and described only in the vaguest terms because people have no clear, coherent idea of what is going on.


The working descriptions of the initiation processes in 2013 are open confessionals of what people know and don't know. This is not quantum mechanics and there is no excuse for not being able to visually represent the initiation mechanisms if even in the most general terms.

The collective information is destined to remain in a fragmented, largely incorrect form. Therefore anomaly lies at the very heart of the initiation and progression mechanisms.

Anomaly is the written into the historic record and that cannot be rewritten or changed anymore. How many people will be able to recognize that? Well, that is a different story.

Created on 05/21/2013 07:43 PM by admin
Updated on 08/02/2015 09:18 AM by admin
 Printable Version

Copyright © 2008 WiredTech, LLC
phpWebSite is licensed under the GNU LGPL