Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition
Source: 9/11 Truth conference
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pJQ2yZfTY0
Published: Feb 20, 2007
Author: Steven Jones
Post Date: 2007-02-20 00:41:08 by robin
Ping List: *9-11*     Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 13649
Comments: 230

From Halifaxion

Steven Jones speaks at the Chicago 9/11 Steven Jones speaks at the Chicago 9/11 Truth conference (June 2006) about World Trade Center Building 7 and the case for controlled demolition of all three towers. This is just ten minutes from a longer lecture that you can find in its entirety on Google Video here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2436472348579687382

Subscribe to *9-11*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-168) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#169. To: SKYDRIFTER (#167)

Not all floors were 'blown.'

I think they were, or otherwise there would have been some concrete in the pile that was more than just dust.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ  posted on  2007-02-23   12:42:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#170. To: intotheabyss, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#168)

It almost feels silly arguing this anymore.

I agree. BUT - if the troll (BAC) is being continuously fed, it has to be re- hashed. Otherwise BAC's disinformation tactics become effective.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-02-23   12:47:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#171. To: innieway (#150)

A real life practical building. I've done it.

Or so you claim.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   12:53:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#172. To: RickyJ, ALL (#153)

Both of the towers exploded from top down. There must of been tons of explosives in it. Not a normal controlled demolition at all.

You said this was obvious.

I even seem to recall you calling (over at LP) structural engineers around the world morons for not seeing this.

Is that what they are, Ricky? Morons?

ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   12:57:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#173. To: Diana, ALL (#154)

"Well said ... especially that part about "philosophical PHD's"."

Are you saying you don't know the difference between a PhD in philosophy and a PhD in mathematics?

You think they are the same?

You didn't the joke? Lighten up, Diana. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   12:58:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#174. To: BeAChooser (#172)

I even seem to recall you calling (over at LP) structural engineers around the world morons for not seeing this.

Yep, they sure the heck are. When the truth is revealed see how many contracts they get then to build even an outhouse!

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ  posted on  2007-02-23   12:59:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#175. To: BeAChooser (#172)

Is that what they are, Ricky? Morons?

Or shills.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-23   13:00:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#176. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#173)

Only controlled demolition of the core 47 steel columns in each of the towers could have provided the documented free-fall rate.

Deal with it, BAC!


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-02-23   13:00:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#177. To: Diana, ALL (#156)

BeAChooser are you a paid shill?

Don't be silly, Diana.

Do you honestly think they'd pay anyone a living wage to worry about the nonsense spouted here at FD4UM?

ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   13:01:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#178. To: BeAChooser (#177) (Edited)

Do you honestly think they'd pay anyone a living wage to worry about the nonsense spouted here at FD4UM?

Yes, I do believe our government which prints money at a furious pace now that M3 money supply is no longer being reported can afford to pay whatever it takes to help keep the lid on the truth of 9/11 from reaching the general population.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ  posted on  2007-02-23   13:06:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: Diana, ALL (#158)

Diana supposedly quoting me - ROTFLOL! I hate to tell you, robin, but Mr Jowenko has specifically stated that the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were clearly NOT controlled demolitions. because Jowenko appears to have some rather kooky ideas.

Why'd you leave out what I wrote between "demolitions." and "because"? When you leave out something you should probably note it with a "... skip ..." so folks don't get confused by your posts.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   13:06:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#180. To: BeAChooser (#179)

Why'd you leave out what I wrote between "demolitions." and "because"?

ROTFLOL!

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-02-23   13:12:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#181. To: RickyJ (#178)

Yes, I do believe our government which prints money at a furious pace now that M3 money supply is no longer being reported can afford to pay whatever it takes to help keep the lid on the truth of 9/11 from reaching the general population.

Could explain why they have been printing so much money since 9/11.

They go into detail in the International Forecaster (Robert Chapman) on how M3 is no longer being reported and how much money the printing presses have been churning out.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-23   13:13:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#182. To: Diana, tom007, RickyJ, ALL (#161)

tom007 - Wouldn't that be, if H= 417m,

tom007 - t= (417m*2/9.8m/s^2)1/2, T=9.22?

At least you included your units, he didn't.

He should know better if he is so smart.

As I noted to tom007, I meant exactly what I wrote:

417 meters * 2 = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 13.05 seconds

because I was dealing with the case of a tower TWICE as tall as the WTC towers.

And you'll note that the answer demonstrates that RickyJ (who once labeled anyone who can't see that the WTC tower collapses are demolitions a moron) was wrong when he claimed it would take 16.31 seconds.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   13:16:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#183. To: Diana, ALL (#162)

Real scientists and engineers always include units in their equations.

No, Diana, real scientists and engineers know how to use the equations to get the answer right.

And they don't think bombs brought down the WTC and damaged the Pentagon.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   13:18:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#184. To: intotheabyss, RickyJ, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#168)

SKYDRIFTER - Thus, only controlled demolition of the core 47 steel columns in each of the towers could have provided the documented free-fall rate.

It really is that obvious to any non-shill with an IQ above that of a moron.

Ahhh ... another who, like RickyJ, must think that 99.99999 percent of the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world are morons. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   13:21:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#185. To: BeAChooser (#184)

Refer to post #175

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-23   13:29:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#186. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#184)

Ahhh ... another who, like RickyJ, must think that 99.99999 percent of the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world are morons. ROTFLOL!

Common sense doesn't require a degree, BAC.

Deal with it!

(Asshole.)

SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-02-23   14:27:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#187. To: BeAChooser (#183)

No, Diana, real scientists and engineers know how to use the equations to get the answer right.

you didn't get my point obviously from the post above.

When you wrote 9.8 pertaining to gravity you didn't write m/s (meters per second) like tom007 did. One must always include units. Otherwise it's considered sloppy.

Diana  posted on  2007-02-23   16:21:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#188. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#184)

I think Diana has an extremely good point in 187. She knows a real scientist from a fake scientist. I happen to remember that she married a scientist. You BAC are NOT a scientist. you failed to put down the meters per second designation and without that designation it is meaningless and you are very sloppy.

This just about dis-proves everything you've said on these subjects once & 4all.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-02-23   16:59:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#189. To: BeAChooser (#179)

HE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT WTC7 IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!

WHY DO YOU IGNORE THAT!!!

He based his opinion on the videos alone. If he had all the evidence, of the explosions heard by the firefighters, the seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell, for example, he would have a different explanation.

If just one of the buildings was a demolition, then it proves the government was involved. It takes weeks in advance to wire a building.

Can you deny that!?!?

Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)

robin  posted on  2007-02-23   17:02:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#190. To: Diana, RickyJ, innieway, ALL (#187)

Otherwise it's considered sloppy.

No, Diana.

Sloppy is claiming to have an engineering degree and then claiming it would take an object, freefalling from the twice the height of the WTC, 16.31 seconds to reach the ground.

Sloppy is claiming an expertise in steel and then claiming steel structural members are stronger in compression than tension.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   18:58:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#191. To: Red Jones, Diana, RickyJ, ALL (#188)

She knows a real scientist from a fake scientist.

I haven't claimed to be a scientist, Red.

I happen to remember that she married a scientist.

Well I suggest she ask her husband who got the right answer in that calculation. RickyJ or I?

You BAC are NOT a scientist.

You don't know anything about me, Summa Cum Laude.

But I know you believe in a lot of demonstrable nonsense. For whatever reason.

you are very sloppy.

Especially when I eat at Carl's Jr. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   19:03:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#192. To: robin, ALL (#189)

HE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT WTC7 IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!

WHY DO YOU IGNORE THAT!!!

And he very clearly doesn't believe that WTC1 or WTC2 are controlled demolitions.

Why do you ignore that?

If he had all the evidence, of the explosions heard by the firefighters,

You mean loud noised interpreted as explosions.

the seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell

There were NO seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell (other than those associated with the aircraft impacts). Don't you believe Lerner-Lam?

If just one of the buildings was a demolition, then it proves the government was involved. It takes weeks in advance to wire a building.

Not according to Mr Jowenko. You did watch the video, didn't you?

ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   19:07:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#193. To: BeAChooser (#192)

He based his opinion on the videos alone. If he had all the evidence, of the explosions heard by the firefighters, the seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell, for example, he would have a different explanation.

If just one of the buildings was a demolition, then it proves the government was involved. It takes weeks in advance to wire a building.

Can you deny that!?!?

Let's try this again.

Mr Jowenko only watched the videos. How many times must this be repeated to you?

You can never accuse anyone of being overly selective with your posts again, you do it yourself.

There were NO seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell (other than those associated with the aircraft impacts).

That is incorrect. You lose, try again.

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

The Palisades seismic record shows that — as the collapses began — a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)

robin  posted on  2007-02-23   19:24:53 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#194. To: robin, ALL (#193)

"There were NO seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell (other than those associated with the aircraft impacts)."

That is incorrect. You lose, try again.

Like the last times, robin? ROTFLOL!

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

Now there's a great source. ROTFLOL!

The Palisades seismic record shows

Who do think recorded that seismic data, robin? Lerner-Lam and his staff. And they state categorically that the seismic record does NOT show signs of a demolition. Let me repeat what he said again: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

In fact, the raw seismic data is available to any seismologist around the world. And guess what? There isn't ONE who has come forward to say there is something in that record that doesn't jibe with NIST's explanation of the collapses.

The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses,

This is simply FALSE, robin. The seismic traces when looked at with a broader time scale rather than that compressed one you posted clearly show a gradually increasing amplitude, with the peak oscillations near the middle of the waveform, not at the beginning as your source wants folks to believe. ImplosionWorld, experts on demolition, is on the record

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)

stating that

"In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibrations during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration "spikes" documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data. This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presense of any unusual or abnormal vibration events."

You simply don't know what you are talking about, robin, You are so eager to make the government bad guys, you will believe anything posted by conspiracists. It is sad.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   19:49:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#195. To: BeAChooser (#194) (Edited)

http://www.rense.com/general60/seis.htm

SEISMIC 'SPIKES'

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.

These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.

You still lose, try again

Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)

robin  posted on  2007-02-23   20:00:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#196. To: robin, ALL (#195)

http://www.rense.com/general60/seis.htm

Citing a AFP article written by Christopher Bollyn is not very convincing, robin. Bollyn is one of those who has done just what Lerner-Lam complained about. Or worse. I happen to think he's an outright liar who made up quotes from people since quotes in his articles could not be corroborated even by going to the individuals quoted (such as Lerner-Lam).

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades,

Where do you think Lerner-Lam and his colleagues work, robin?

ROTFLOL!

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.

This is what I mean about Bollyn LYING, robin. There are no unusual spikes at the beginning of each collapse. Neither Lerner-Lam or any seismologist around the world has said there were. And I quoted ImplosionWorld (experts in demolotion) stating categorically this is not true. If you look at the waveforms with broader timescales you will see this. Or are you too lazy to go look?

The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses

This is absolutely untrue, robin.

You will not find truth by mindlessly regurgitating other's lies.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   20:23:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#197. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#196)

A simple stopwatch says that all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition - you can't get around that, BAC! You can manipulate and micro-manage information all you want; the harsh reality doesn't change.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-02-23   20:26:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#198. To: BeAChooser (#182)

As I noted to tom007, I meant exactly what I wrote:

417 meters * 2 = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 13.05 seconds

because I was dealing with the case of a tower TWICE as tall as the WTC towers.

I was confused because I didn't read the whole thread, so couldn't figure out where the 417*2 came from.

tom007  posted on  2007-02-23   20:28:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#199. To: tom007, Diana, ALL (#198)

I was confused because I didn't read the whole thread, so couldn't figure out where the 417*2 came from.

No problem, I understand. But Diana doesn't.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   20:28:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#200. To: BeAChooser (#196)

Bollyn is quoting seismologists.

You lose, try again.

Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)

robin  posted on  2007-02-23   20:52:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#201. To: BeAChooser (#194)

A simple stopwatch says that all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition - you can't get around that, BAC!

that is a statement by Skydrifter. and it is 110% true. and it disproves everything you've said on the subject.

thanks BAC for trying - but you've come up short.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-02-23   21:48:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#202. To: BeAChooser (#191)

Especially when I eat at Carl's Jr

I am sloppy at Carls JR. too. what a coincidence. ROTFLOL!

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-02-23   21:50:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#203. To: RickyJ (#153)

Not a normal controlled demolition at all.

Yay, someone else gets it right.

It was not a "controlled" demolition at all. It was definitey a demolition however. The perps just didn't care where the debris landed.


I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me

Critter  posted on  2007-02-23   22:09:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#204. To: Diana, BeAChooser, All (#187) (Edited)

When you wrote 9.8 pertaining to gravity you didn't write m/s (meters per second) like tom007 did. One must always include units. Otherwise it's considered sloppy.

BAC was so sloppy, or rather ignorant, he actually questioned why it was necessary to even have a calculation that proves the towers came down as the governemnt says. NIST made up fake computer models until they got the result they were looking for, but NIST didn't use that because they knew it was BS so they just said it was obvious from the video. LOL!

On top of that I see now BAC got the same equation wrong twice. Apparently he doesn't learn from past mistakes, or have a clue what it is that he is talking about in the first place. He has no credibility around here, I doubt he had much at LP either.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ  posted on  2007-02-24   4:42:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#205. To: BeAChooser, tom007, RickyJ (#199)

No problem, I understand. But Diana doesn't.

Whatever... if that makes you feel better to think that then go ahead.

It's just a simple calculation that anyone who took physics 101 can do.

I guess you didn't like me pointing that out about the units, but it's good to remember, and it's a bad habit not to include them.

Diana  posted on  2007-02-24   8:46:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#206. To: Diana (#205)

Yes, using the correct units when doing an equation is important. Otherwise you could end up with bad data. :)

NASA engineers figured this out the hard way when they didn't convert inches to meters and wasted a multi-million dollar probe to Mars.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ  posted on  2007-02-24   9:14:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#207. To: robin, ALL (#200)

Bollyn is quoting seismologists.

No, robin, Bollyn was either taking things said by seismologists completely out of context or outright making up quotes and attributing them to them. He CLAIMED to cite what Lerner-Lam said but I showed you what Lerner-Lam actually said (with quotation marks). You can go directly to the reports put out by Lerner-Lam and his staff. They say NOTHING about spikes or seeing anything remotely related to bombs in the towers explosions in the seismic traces. They say and the seismic records clearly show that Bollyn's claim that the peak amplitudes are at the beginning of the collapse is FALSE. FALSE. The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. Riviera, Bollyn and YOU used only one graph which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span, too long to see any real detail in the pulses. The truth is that Bollyn LIED, robin. And you appear to be gullible enough to believe those lies or because they conform to what you WANT to believe. Either is sad.

The South Tower collapse:

The North Tower collapse:

As to Thorne statement, I suggest you contact him to see if he thinks there is any indication of bombs in the seismic data traces:

thorne@es.ucsc.edu

Bet you he doesn't.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-24   20:12:53 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#208. To: RickyJ, ALL (#204)

BAC was so sloppy,

Says the guy who told everyone that a tower twice as high as the WTC towers would take 16.31 seconds to collapse at freefall speed in a vacuum. ROTFLOL!

or rather ignorant,

Says the guy who claims all the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world are morons because they don't see that the WTC towers were obvious demolitions. ROTFLOL!

He has no credibility around here,

Then you should be able to just ignore me, Ricky ... as I go around demolishing every thread you folks try to start about bombs in the WTC towers and no Flight 77 at the Pentagon. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-24   20:19:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#209. To: Diana, RickyJ, ALL (#205)

It's just a simple calculation that anyone who took physics 101 can do.

For some reason, RickyJ couldn't.

And imagine ... I did it even without specifying the units.

Say, what did your husband have to say, Diana?

ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-24   20:22:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (210 - 230) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest