Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 7 of 151 (416962)
08-18-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
08-18-2007 7:43 PM


This post is going to be kinda long. I apologize.
I just feel it's necessary to thoroughly debunk this claptrap.
I was in NYC on 9/11. A friend of mine lost his wife in the collapse. The stench of burnt human flesh hung over Brooklyn for two weeks after 9/11. My friend Laurie Anderson (avatar at left) lives mere blocks from Ground Zero and was home on 9/11.
It pisses me off to no end when I hear this horses***.
There are any number of sites that debunk 911 conspiracy theories. This from Popular Mechanics:
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
The next clip is from debunking911.com - contact with domain owner | Epik.com
Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:
J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
ImplosionWorld.com
WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. 7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia
WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
One World Trade Center - Wikipedia
2 World Trade Center - Wikipedia
So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.
The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives . ” James Santoro - Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
Page Not Found
Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.
http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.
Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:
A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.
Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.
That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.
Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:
Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.
To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 08-18-2007 7:43 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 4:43 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 05-17-2008 4:16 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 26 of 151 (417144)
08-19-2007 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 4:43 PM


Brad,
Let's take this step by step.
What about the planes? Did they exist?
Personal information removed. --Admin
Edited by molbiogirl, : typo
Edited by Admin, : Remove personal info.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 4:43 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 9:29 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 52 by Adminastasia, posted 08-20-2007 4:50 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 29 of 151 (417196)
08-19-2007 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 9:29 PM


OK. The planes exist.
Who hijacked the planes?
Why were the planes hijacked?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 9:29 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 9:45 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 32 of 151 (417202)
08-19-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 9:45 PM


Two things.
First, provide a link supporting your contention about the passport.
Second, dozens of calls were made during the hijacking(s). Passengers made mention of the hijackers. The hijackers contacted air traffic controllers. Video at Dulles (where American Flight 77 originated) captured all 5 hijackers as they boarded the aircraft. The passenger manifests of each plane listed the names of the hijackers. What of that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 9:45 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-19-2007 10:13 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 38 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 11:06 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 37 of 151 (417214)
08-19-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
08-19-2007 10:13 PM


Re: also it is irrelevant to the topic
Sorry, jar.
lost wrote:
Now think critically for a second. If it was the pancaking effect, wouldnt you think it would take a while for the building to collapse? Each floor provides resistance to the falling floors, however we can see there was no resistance because it fell at near free fall speed. Around 9 seconds! now can you imagine over 100 floors being collapsed in a pancake fashion one on top of the next in 9 seconds? We can drop a rock off the top of the building and it will reach the ground in about 9 seconds.
The buildings did not fall at near freefall speeds.
You didn't read my clips, did you?
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
debunking911.com - contact with domain owner | Epik.com
To wire the Towers for detonation would have taken 12 people 24 days. How was this done without notice?
There were no traces of thermite.
However, rather than tackle that head on, I'd like to ask that you provide the evidence that thermite was present at Ground Zero. Links will do nicely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-19-2007 10:13 PM jar has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 40 of 151 (417224)
08-19-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 11:06 PM


Hijackers
While a few of these calls (placed at low altitude) could have got through, the wireless technology was not available. On this issue, expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry is unequivocal.
In other words, at least part of the Commission's script in Chapter 1 on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated.
This entire site relies on one piece of evidence: the cellphones couldn't work.
And to refute the evidence that cell calls had been made, the site chalks it up to: The commission lied.
Did the families that received the calls lie too?
Wiki:
A.K. Dewdney, in a study conducted in Canada in 2003, suggested that mobile phone calls from planes are actually impossible.[171] He argued that connecting a cell phone to a tower's signal would have been near to impossible from the air. Based on this assumption, economist Michel Chossudovsky suggests the calls were fabricated or never made at all.[172] Critics of this study have pointed out that mobile phone signals would not have been the same in Canada in 2003 as they were near the northeast coast of the United States on September 11. Additionally, Carnegie Mellon researchers have concluded that one to four cell phone calls are made during each average passenger flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations.[173]
During the flight of Flight 93, 13 passengers made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (and all but two of these were on air phones). There were far fewer phone calls from Flights 11, 175 and 77, leading to some claims that these calls may have been faked even if the Flight 93 calls were real. Reportedly, the only two calls from these flights that were recorded were placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11. Proponents of this theory have pointed out various anomalies relating to the phone calls
Lost:
Yet a few of them have been found alive and well.
Wiki:
Some conspiracy theorists go further to suggest that the hijackers were not on the planes at all. This claim was fueled by erroneous initial news reports shortly after 9/11 that indicated that some of the hijackers were still alive. The BBC and the Daily Telegraph newspaper reported on September 23, 2001, that some of the people named by the FBI as hijackers were actually alive and well.[163][164] One of them was Waleed al-Shehri, who they said they had found in Casablanca, Morocco. Abdulaziz Al Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and Khalid al-Midhar, three other hijackers, were all said to be living in the Middle East. On September 19, the FDIC even distributed a "special alert" which listed al-Mihdhar as alive. The Justice Department says that this was a typographical error.
All of the reports have since been acknowledged as cases of mistaken identity by the publications involved and by other news organisations such as NBC.[165][163][166] In 2002, Saudi Arabia admitted that the names of the hijackers were correct.[167] The editor of BBC News Online has said the identity confusion in the original BBC article that sparked the theories may be due to the hijackers' names being common Arabic names, and that the BBC has later superseded the original article
And, as I mentioned before, there are the manifests, the security footage, and the contact with air control.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 11:06 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 42 of 151 (417226)
08-19-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 11:35 PM


It comes down in 6 seconds.
Please address the freefall post upthread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 11:35 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 53 of 151 (417371)
08-20-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Adminastasia
08-20-2007 4:50 PM


Re: Better Late Than Never
Cheap shot. I know.
My bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Adminastasia, posted 08-20-2007 4:50 PM Adminastasia has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 61 of 151 (417410)
08-20-2007 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by lost-apathy
08-20-2007 8:49 PM


Re: The Nature of Conspiracy Theorists
They could have known, we don't know.
Really? They sat on 3000 deaths, not a peep. Wow.
Correction, The united states mainstream media is ignoring the biggest story in the history of the world.
Remarkable! Journalists are willing to dig up the Pentagon Papers and bring down a President and yet, wonder of all wonders, they ignore the biggest story of the 21st century. Just remarkable!
Osama bin laden could have planted the explosions. We do not know.
Well, now, this one I believe.
From the NIST link you ignored upthread.
... many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building.
THOUSANDS of pounds. HUNDREDS of columns. On the same floors where the planes hit. Yep. Entirely plausible. Especially if Bin Laden's involved. Hey, I think you're on to something here!
People have been spilling the beans... Go here, it has quotes of government officials, scientists, and 9/11 surviors.
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
You know, I tried. I honestly tried. I clicked on the first link I came to, an NYC firefighter named Richard Banaciski, clicked on the link http://www.graphics8.nytimes.com to see supporting documentation of his story ... and there is no such link. Graphics 8 New York Times my aunt's fanny. Whoever put this site together went to an awful lot of trouble to make up a bunch of crap to fool a bunch of people who are too stupid or too lazy to check the supporting documentation.
So.
What research have you done on the "other side"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by lost-apathy, posted 08-20-2007 8:49 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 66 of 151 (417443)
08-21-2007 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by lost-apathy
08-21-2007 2:10 AM


Re: The Nature of Conspiracy Theorists
Its funny how the the explanation for wtc 7 is different with so many people. Here's Larry Silverstein's explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
Two things:
#1 "They didn't know if they would be able to control the fires." --Larry Silverstein
1. A couple small fires are seen within the building.
Thems some lousy firefighters. Two lil ole fires? Sheesh.
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
World Trade Center Investigation | NIST
#2 "Just pull it. I made the decision to pull and watch the building collapse." --Larry Silverstein
Hmmmmm. Lemme see. Larry Silverstein is in cahoots with Bin Laden (after all, he's rich so he's in on it) and he orders the destruction of the building?
Or. Larry was telling them to pull the firefighters OFF THE JOB?
Silverstein and Bin Laden. Definitely.
1. Eyewitness accounts show that people hear explosions, and in one we do hear a huge explosion.
Provide link.
2. Firemen and police officers Know prior knowledge of the collapse.
Explained upthread.
3. The building collapses strait down in 6 seconds. watch the video and count yourself.
Debris Damage from WTC 1
After WTC 1 collapsed
Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade
No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating
SW Corner Damage floors 8 to 18
South face damage between two exterior columns roof level down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known
South Face Damage
Middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
Large debris hole near center around 14th floor
1/4 width south face, above 5thfloor, atrium glass intact
8th/ 9thfloor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
Damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby
World Trade Center Investigation | NIST
There was a hole in the building between floors 8 and 18. 1/3 of the building was missing.
btw, there are over 2 dozen pictures illustrating this damage on this NIST site.
4. Huge dust clouds encircle the site after the collapse. This says that the concrete was pulverized into dust by some huge force.
Yes. A building collapsed.
5. BBC announced the collapse 20 minutes before it happened.
Explained upthread.
6. The building collapsed in a fashion similar to that of a building being demolished.
Silverstein and Bin Laden were in on it. WAITAMINUTE!!! That would explain how Bin Laden got into WTC 1 & 2. OMG!!!)
7. It obviously wasn't the pancake theory because it collapses from the bottom.
The hole in the building was between floors 8 and 18. 1/3 of the building was missing.
8. No steel building that big has ever collapsed in that fashion ever in the history mankind.
Tall buildings have generally been made with a rigid steel skeleton, sheathed in the lightest materials to keep out the weather. Alternatively, reinforced concrete, where the compression-resisting and protecting concrete surrounds the tough, tension-resisting steel, integrated into a single body, has been used. Such structures have never failed and stoutly resist demolition. However, when the lower supports of a steel skeleton are destroyed, the weight of the building seems to crush the lower parts and the upper parts descend slowly into the pile of debris.
Error 404 - Page Not Found
Btw, while researching this last quote I ran across a website called WHY DIDN'T WTC 5 COLLAPSE???
Can't win for losing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by lost-apathy, posted 08-21-2007 2:10 AM lost-apathy has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 67 of 151 (417444)
08-21-2007 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by lost-apathy
08-21-2007 2:10 AM


Re: The Nature of Conspiracy Theorists
lost:
This just shows they did not do a thorough investigation. They left it out most likely because they don't have a good explanation for its collapse.
NIST:
The NIST reports include the overall investigation report for the WTC towers, 8 project separate project reports, and 34 supporting technical reports, totaling some 10,000 pages.
This enormous task has taken NIST longer to accomplish than originally anticipated.
WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplement to the main report: draft planned for October 2005; final for December 2005.
Decoupling of WTC 7 report necessary to accommodate overlapping staffing demands for work on WTC towers.
This change affects mainly the collapse analysis; other WTC 7 work will be reported with the other Investigation reports.
lost:
What investigations? Give me sources. There was one main investigation, and it ignored this subject.
NIST.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
You keep bringing up non relavent (sic) evidence. Such as "it couldn't have happened because that many people wouldn't help cover it up.
Well. Let's see. FDNY lies. NYPD lies. The families of the victims lie. Each of the airlines lies. Every newspaper, every radio station, every television station in this country lies. Who am I forgetting?
Yeah, I see your point. All these folks would lie. The bastards.
There are three main media's (sic) in america. Fox, cnn, and nbc. All of them are huge coporrations that are influenced by money and the government.
Wow. What have you got against CBS and ABC?
There are thousands of quotes over 500 people. Now I find it hard to believe that you read it all within the time you read my post.
You're absolutely right! I am going to take the next 2 or 3 days and read each and every one of those 500 eyewitness accounts!
What research have you done on the "other side"?
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by lost-apathy, posted 08-21-2007 2:10 AM lost-apathy has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 77 of 151 (417548)
08-21-2007 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by lost-apathy
08-21-2007 7:22 PM


Re: Omg
He speaks!
The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available." Don't you guys find it a little strange that its been 6 years?
(sigh)
Sometimes you just gotta wonder.
NIST:
* Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
* Draft NIST Reports on the World Trade Center Investigation
* NIST-SP 1000-5 June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center
* 2003 Report to Congress of the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee (Dec. 2003)
* NIST SP 1000-4 Public Update on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Dec. 2003)
* NIST SP 1000-3 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (May 2003)
* NISTIR 6942 Progress Report on NIST Building and Fire Investigation into the World Trade Center Disaster (Dec. 9, 2002)
* Initial Model for Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
* Publications Related to the Use of Elevators During Fires
* Publications Related to 1993 World Trade Center Bombing
And under the snip he quotemined from NIST:
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower (DRAFT)
Draft report on project 1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems
Draft report on project 2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
Draft report on project 3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
Draft report on project 4: Active Fire Protection Systems
Draft report on project 5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
Draft report on project 6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
Draft report on project 7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication
Draft report on project 8: The Emergency Response Operations
Here's the link for the .pdf that I referenced last night:
World Trade Center Investigation | NIST
Well. I'll say this much. You clicked a link. Congrats.
Look. Lost. Open the .pdf. Look at the pictures. Then open your fat mouth.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by lost-apathy, posted 08-21-2007 7:22 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 88 of 151 (417813)
08-24-2007 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Rahvin
08-24-2007 3:32 PM


It is Friday, August 24, 5:57 CST
I see that our friend, lost, has returned. I wonder what he has to say to subbie's last post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Rahvin, posted 08-24-2007 3:32 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 140 of 151 (462507)
04-04-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Shield
04-04-2008 8:47 AM


Re: Insanity!
Mention 1, just one, and let us discuss that.
RBP, just FYI.
All of these "details" were discussed ad nauseum, upthread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Shield, posted 04-04-2008 8:47 AM Shield has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Shield, posted 04-04-2008 2:27 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024