Controlled demolition: disinfo?

by **orz** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:25 pm

The austrian art group Geletin notoriously may/may not have rented offices in the WTC and covertly removed a window, installed a balcony, photographed it from a helicopter and then replaced it, leaving a piece of gum stuck to the outside of the building as the only evidence. <a href="http://www.wtc.window.to/">www.wtc.window.to/</a> - website for the project (including official denial - <a href="http://www.gelitin.net/wtc/html/12.html">www.gelitin.net/wtc/html/12.html</a> - for what it's worth!?) <a href="http://www.gelitin.net/mambo/index.php?set_albumName=b-thing&option=com_gallery2&Itemid=48&include=view_album.php">www.gelitin.net/mambo/ind..._album.php</a> - more Whether or not they really did this, it highlights the obvious fact that in a building where offices can be rented, it's possible for suitably organised people to rent them and do whatever secret stuff they like therin!? Doesn't prove a thing either way of course but it's an interesting project in the light of the attacks + the theories about them.

by **Watchful Citizen** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:29 pm

"Whatever the truth, it may be worth noting that the WTC elevator system was undergoing renovation in early September 2001, which would have provided access to the core columns." <a href="http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/pdf/0103-002.pdf">www.elevator-world.com/ma...03-002.pdf</a> The opportunity to arm the WTC with explosives is in this MAJOR LENGTHY renovation of the WTC's elevators which was a custom job requiring unique technologies for the unique physics of the tall buildings. So the March 2001 issue of Elevator World Magazine pdf link leads one to realize just how much access to the core structure of the towers there ACTUALLY WAS. This link is in RigorousIntuition's 10/19/04 article called 'Bushthink and the Strength of Venezualen Steel.' <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/10/bushthink-and-strength-of-venezuelan.html">rigorousintuition.blogspo...uelan.html</a>

by **Starman** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:19 pm

Bamabecky wrote about reports that in the week (or so) before 911 there was a power-down closure of (as I recall) one of the towers -- which some researchers have pointed to as proof there was or 'might have been' a demolitiuon-charge installation. Surely this report must be available on numerous 911 Truth/WTC info sites, as I recall seeing it mentioned/discussed in several different contexts. However, I don't know that this is a critical core-event for the purpose of covertly installing demo charges -- and I don't recall that BOTH buildings had similiar shutdown for 'maintenance' reports. Perhaps more intriguing is the theory that the WTC core beams were pre-treated with an explosive compound DURING the construction process, presumably to aid in the Tower's eventual safe and efficient demolition deconstruction at the end of the Tower's useful service. I recall reading reports about great secrecy including visual curtains being used when specially security-cleared workmen were brought in to apply what was referred to as a special corrosion-resistant coating and using complex welding processes to join the beams so treated -- all conducted under extremely hush-hush circumstances. In fact, the peculiar manner in which one of the Tower's fell leaving a distinct 'spike' of debris was described as proof that sections of explosive coating became weather-degraded prior to preservative-coating being applied, or using older beams whose special coating wasn't properly protected -- and which caused the partial-breakage of those lower sections (due to incomplete demolition). It WAS extremely 'odd' that the main core column beams which supported most of the building's load inexplicably broke in approx. 30-35 ft. sections, convenient for truck-loading the debris without a lot of tedious cutting. The speedy removal offsite and disposal via export of the WTC steel debris without a comprehensive engineering accident investigation as per the requirements of a crime scene, is explained as preventing the discovery of these beams having been modified during construction with a coating for demolition purposes. It was also extremely suspicious and bizarre that NO construction blueprints were ever released showing construction details of the Towers (as I recall) -- thus helping to confound an analytical understanding of how these towers could have fallen as they did. Also, as I recall, the official explanation of the Tower's failure didn't account for the elaborate system of cross-bracing that makes the truss-failure theory extremely improbable (if not essentially impossible, as concluded). Without access to the blueprints, ALL supposition about how and why the towers failed are only theoretical. I strongly suspect the towers were deliberately brought-down by planned demolition, just based on the many anomalies I've learned about -- tho I don't have an opinion on which of several different theories about how those demolition charges were installed or when, during construction or sometime soon just before 911. I think this secret of covert preparation could and was successfully kept secret -- the secrecy of the Manhatten Project is a case in point for an example of how something so important, involving many,many people, can be kept hidden -- as are the projects being funded by the CIA/Pentagon's 1.1 trillion dollar black-budget (and the CIA's global narco-smuggling ops -- a lot of rumours and info in the public chatter, but NO real legal overview or accountability -- it's all kept under the official public radar.) Starman

by **Qutb** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And if you believe the above, you would have to dismiss out of hand the possibility that only 3 people knew the eventual outcome of the Manhattan project, since their were thousands of eminently intelligent proffesional scientists involved.<hr></blockquote> The difference is that the Manhattan project didn't involve mass murder of American citizens. Where do you find controlled demolition professionals willing to participate in that? What do you do if they refuse? Kill them? How can you compartmentalize so that controlled demolition experts don't realize they are placing explosives in the WTC and preparing for demolition? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Perhaps more intriguing is the theory that the WTC core beams were pre-treated with an explosive compound DURING the construction process, presumably to aid in the Tower's eventual safe and efficient demolition deconstruction at the end of the Tower's useful service.<hr></blockquote> I think that's an interesting theory, actually, but I doubt it with regard to WTC1&2, or at least I would like to see someone come forward and admit it before I believe it. WTC7, though... if not during the construction process, that it may have been added later because of the nature of some of the agencies that had offices there (CIA, SS, Giuliani's crisis center). But this is not a common practice, and it doesn't sound altogether safe to me. Besides, explosives aren't very stable, so they would probably have to replace them now and then. But I do suspect something like that could explain WTC7's admittedly rather conspicuous and curiously downplayed collapse. The theory I tend to doubt the most is that the towers were rigged with explosives specifically for 9/11. In the case of WTC7, if it was indeed demolished with pre-planted explosives, that wouldn't prove that there was a conspiracy, foreknowledge or even bad intent. The building was empty by the time it collapsed/was demolished. As Silverstein said, "we made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse". Would he really have admitted as much if he was in on a conspiracy to demolish all three buildings? I don't think so. The way he said it, I think you can detect a slight regret in the video - oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that - but it doesn't seem like he thought about that before he said it, which I'm pretty sure he would have if he risked incriminating himself in mass murder. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **firstimer** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:41 pm

I'm happy to see a still growing dialog about this that isn't regressing to arguing about pods or holograms. I never would have thought progressive accumulation of tiny facts could paint the picture so close to beyond a shadow of a doubt. QTUB gets into coincidence theory trying to refute some of the most recent stuff, but the most revealing weakness in that argument of his is the assumption that somewhere most of the relevant engineers have the "real" story of how the fire caused the collapse of the WTC beyond a shadow of a doubt, yet they are hiding it... or better, it is so obvious and so simple, that it doesn't have to be written down. Those engineers are laughing at our dance of paranoia. I can't imagine why he doesn't cough it up to prove us to be the "jump-to-conclusionists" that we are. He makes a nice pleasant well-behaved backboard thoughdoesn't he? I wonder if a "cooler" could be watching, allowing us to have whatever ideas that already exist regarding 9/11 in peace, monitoring to make sure that no new info becomes acccredited. In that way we feel free, but the minute we start to get closer we run into time wasting inane arguments, and disinfo designed to reduce the incentive to discover, communicate, collaberate, and distribute. When the talk gets too close the RED team moves in and diffuses or obfuscates the collaborative process. Also all the while collecting data for the moment when it becomes necessary to eliminate the idea and its sources. go to yahoo finance, it happens everyday, paid trolls, disinfo campaigns, secret messageboards designed for extracting all kinds of data from unsuspecting innocents trying to get rich. Some places I know implement contribution requirements for access to dialogs on such topics. I'm not referring to TB2000 or the like, I'm talking private. At least the cooler will have to give up something to stay in the game. Constant movement and decentralization of the dialog will keep them busy, but soon I fear that we will have to implement homeless halo's wireless community piratenet. We should already be doing it probably. great work guys firstimer

by **Qutb** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:13 pm

Firsttimer Oh fer cryin' out loud. How about we have a moratorium on "suspecting" fellow posters who don't agree with our pet theory of being members of the "red team", paid disruptors etc. Say, one week for starters? By the way, as, indeed, a first-timer, you ought to be a little more humble. At least you should register first, before you start flinging accusations at the regular posters here. And didn't your mama teach you that it's impolite to talk about people in the third person when they're present? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>the most revealing weakness in that argument of his is the assumption that somewhere most of the relevant engineers have the "real" story of how the fire caused the collapse of the WTC beyond a shadow of a doubt, yet they are hiding it...<hr></blockquote> I frankly have no idea what you're talking about here. No one is hiding anything. And I have never said that anything is "beyond the shadow of a doubt". To me, nothing is. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Byrne** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:38 am

Qutb, I was going to post to say that I didn't agree with your summation of the discussions on the Physics.org board. I didn't bother but I'm mentioning it now as there is now an excellent contribution from a poster who kappears to know his stuff. I've reproduced it below. In my opinion, the Controlled Demolition argument is not 'vacuous' at all!! If anyone else wants to view the discussion, check back up this topic for the Physics.org URL link. & Firstimer, good post above, I agree with you. Quote taken from Physics.org forum post It is heartening to see that the horrific crime of 911, for which NO ONE has been apprehended in my country, is still a burning issue for those that see a real problem in officialdom's explanation (or in the case of WTC 7, simply ignoring the issue entirely, which is cause of suspicion in and of itself for any reasonable person) of that day's events. I wish those finding fault in Mr. Johnson's conclusions would state specifically what those are, not keep referring to something not in the reply. Damn sure would like to see ANY logical rebuttal. In other words, I see no rebuttal to his statement that physics rules out a kerosene fire melting and collapsing three steel buildings in this manner. That's fairly straightforward, and should be simple to refute, yet I see nothing but anger, resentment, insults and false statements about the structural strength (or lack thereof) of the two towers (the core should have stayed upright, with plane parts stuck to it). Not to mention how one poster claimed modeling a 22 second free fall, then stated a 13 second free fall, without explaining his conflicting statements. Look, I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer. I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, Blacksmith Forger and helper. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with @ 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning, the grounding failed, and the million gallons BLEW!! Well, for a diesel fire that is. it simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, didn't melt squat. Tank, 1/4" steel, never melted. Yet HUGE core I-beams, supporting the elevator and utility shafts, were VAPORISED at the WTC towers? Stop, I'll wet my britches laughing. I've melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I 've welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it. I ask you plainly: you know the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower? a_ht, what caused that? Tell me you believe, like me, it was the JP-8 (yes, I work with jet fuel daily, too) contained in the jet's tanks, correct? Huge explosion, you say you were there that day? Your father? He see this huge fireball? What was it? Because, if it was the kerosene (JP-8, acts just like diesel, you can put it right in your diesel tank, works great, low flash point of 140 deg) that did explode that way, that you state so assuredly melted steel, explain how it reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building, and THEN what? Ran down 90 floors to melt the "uninsulated I-beams"? What? "Shook" it off by jet impact? Are you kiddin' me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below!!! What nonsense, a_ht!! Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. About the size on one of the many offices on the floor hit. That's all, a_ht. The size of one office. Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and only <14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see "small fires"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> and caused the beams to melt because the impact "knocked of the insulation". One reply to that: WTC 7. Not hit, there goes THAT THEORY. Melted steel bends. NEVER turns to dust. Never. No, not ever. Say, how about this for argument: From now on, CDI never needs to use sophisticated computer analysis on where to place the explosives, amounts, sequences, no, no no. We can simply use a_ht's rational analysis, pour @ 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the basement, stand back, and watch a PERFECTLY SIMULATED controlled demolition, right? Right, a_ht? or, are you incorrect here? a_ht, Mr. Jackson's British, I believe. Very polite, considerate. I am not, I am just a blunt American: I believe you to be an Israeli disinformation agent. Yes, obviously, the buildings were pre-rigged for controlled demolitions. I never thought I would see the day my country chased the rabbit down the hole...and I would wake up in a land where black is white, up is down, liars are heroes, and criminals in charge of our government, and 19 "Arab Terrorists" could make physics stand down while they attacked. Yet..... Physics don't "stand down" for anyone. Therefore, I believe 19 Arab hijackers flying planes into the towers did not bring down the buildings on 911. Obviously.

by **Andrew D Johnson** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:48 am

Hi all, I think if you read through all the posts on physics.org (linked from <a href="http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s=f917a4506b240a0b6c698e09470a981e&showforum=12),">forum.physorg.com/index.p...forum=12),</a> you will see most bases covered. I recommend anyone who has an interest to simply look at the physics behind the collapse of the towers. This is explained here: <a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ad.johnson/Collapse%20of%20Towers.swf">homepage.ntlworld.com/ad....Towers.swf</a> All the other issues can only really be discussed and focused on once the physics discussed above is agreed as being a valid and correct *proof* (which it is, barring perhaps a 10% or 20% error in the collapse time rather than the 1000% error required by the Pancake Collapse *theory*) People must also focus on what has been disclosed in public. For example, Larry Silverstein was the owner of WTC 1,2 & 7. He went on a PBS Documentary and said the fire department "pulled the building" - this means demolition. Even if this were true (which it isn't), why would the FEMA report say "we can find no reason for the collapse of building 7" (paraphrasing). Don't you think there would be more of an agreement between the FEMA report and the statements of the owner of the actual building? I, for one, find this exceedingly strange.... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=andrewdjohnson>Andrew D Johnson</A> at: 10/6/05 3:50 am

by **bamabecky** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:46 am

Thank You so much for the post from Physics.org! Excellent because it is in PLAIN ENGLISH that any thinking person can understand! Bama

by **Qutb** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:34 am

Byrne Argh, I didn't really want to get involved in discussing the physics involved here, because frankly I'm not a physiscist, I'm not an engineer, I don't know much about structural engineering - like, I assume, most of the posters here. Unlike some though, I'm aware of my own limitations in this field. I also know that I'm not going to convince anybody here who's already made up their minds, so it's bound to be wasted efforts anyway. But regarding this "excellent contribution" on the physics.org board -- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Look, I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer<hr></blockquote> At least he admits as much. That is a good start, if nothing else. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I see no rebuttal to his statement that physics rules out a kerosene fire melting and collapsing three steel buildings in this manner.<hr></blockquote> The kerosene fire didn't melt "three buildings". The steel doesn't have to melt, which it quite correctly won't when exposed to fire. It will, however, weaken substantially, sufficiently to cause a collapse according to the people who have studied this (check out the National Geographic documentary I linked to above for more on this). This point seems to be ignored on purpose by CD theorists. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Because, if it was the kerosene (JP-8, acts just like diesel, you can put it right in your diesel tank, works great, low flash point of 140 deg) that did explode that way, that you state so assuredly melted steel,<hr></blockquote> This fallacy is repeated again... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>and caused the beams to melt<hr></blockquote> and again. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I am not, I am just a blunt American: I believe you to be an Israeli disinformation agent.<hr></blockquote> There you go. No pro-CD argument is complete without the usual accusation, against those who dare to disagree, that they must surely be government agents out to spread disinfo. This poster predictably wants to blame Israel for 9/11, and since evidence of Israeli involvement is rather scarce, it probably helps to imagine that all those who disagree with him on the message boards he trolls are paid by the Mossad to do so. Because if the Mossad is that hell-bent on stifling his irrefutable arguments, that proves they must be guilty, right? Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **slimmouse** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>There you go. No pro-CD argument is complete without the usual accusation, against those who dare to disagree<hr></blockquote> Before you begin bringing the usual, and typical race dissemination into the mix QUTB, Im still waiting for answers to a couple of very simple questions; You have seen the Madrid building fire, and you have the poor woman peering out of the twin towers shortly after the 'raging inferno' that caused the steel at the top of the towers to buckle. <img src="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_woman.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire13.jpg" style="border:0;"/> You were then "officially" told that it was heat that brought one of these buildings crashing down, whilst the other remained standing. Which building would YOUR money be on ? Which would give you credible cause to believe any kind of "heat buckling steel theory" ? Lets start with those two, as you spuriously attempt to suggest that CD is a weak argument.

by **Qutb** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:53 am

Slimmouse I repeat that I'm not an engineer or physicist (are you, by the way?). Therefore, I'm not really comfortable discussing point-by-point what happened. But your argument here is frankly nonsensical. The WTC towers were HUGE. The fact that a woman has found a spot where she can stand without catching fire is indicative of nothing. The Madrid building, from what I've read, had a very different constrction from the WTC. And, most importantly, it wasn't hit by an airliner full of fuel travelling at 500 mph. The destruction wrought by the impact and ensuing explosion plays an important role in the "official" (meaning scientific) explanation of the collapses. (regarding WTC7, I've written about my suspicions, above) Slimmouse, do you really believe that the CD theory is so glaringly obvious as you portray it? That all you have to do is look at a couple of pictures and the case is settled? Do you believe all the engineers in the world have been hypnotized or mind-controlled or force-fed blue pills in order for them not to see what is evident to the few courageous truth-seekers? Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **nomo** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The WTC towers were HUGE.<hr></blockquote> I think that's a point that's often misunderstood. They were indeed massive. And so I don't find it inconceivable for them to collapse after being hit by fuel-laden airplanes at 500mph, the resulting fires having caused weakening of the structural steel (no-one says they "melted", indeed.) So I'm not sure the comparison to the building in Spain is entirely valid. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nomo@rigorousintuition>nomo</A> at: 10/6/05 10:19 am

by **slimmouse** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I repeat that I'm not an engineer or physicist (are you, by the way?).<hr></blockquote> Nope. Kinda puts us both on weak ground in one respect huh ? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>But your argument here is frankly nonsensical.<hr></blockquote> Whereas yours smacks of logic thru and thru ? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The fact that a woman has found a spot where she can stand without catching fire is indicative of nothing<hr></blockquote> It proves to me, that the area directly hit by the plane isnt anything close to the heat required to buckle steel. You can decide for yourself whether or not that statement is more nonsense. Or perhaps youre suggesting that the particular hotspot has now gone to the bottom of the building ? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Madrid building, from what I've read, had a very different constrction from the WTC<hr></blockquote> Apparently youre right. Apparently this building is made of steel designed to withstand a raging fire, and not buckle, unlike WTC 1. What ARE you talking about ? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>it wasn't hit by an airliner full of fuel travelling at 500 mph.<hr></blockquote> WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the impact of not 1 but TWO 707s. Im at a loss to make it much clearer to you than that. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Slimmouse, do you really believe that the CD theory is so glaringly obvious as you portray it? That all you have to do is look at a couple of pictures and the case is settled?<hr></blockquote> First question - unequivocal Yes. 2nd question - Nope, Id need to look at how the towers fell. Id need to listen to eyewitness testimony and all the rest of it. What I simply need to do by looking at the two pictures is use my own very limited intelligence to work out that the Government are lying to us about the cause of the crash - It was steel buckling due to heat resulting in a newly concocted Pancake melee . Call me Mr cynical, but I fail to see how a woman can stand in an area within about 200 feet of a building containing steel at temperatures to cause it to buckle. How about you ? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Do you believe all the engineers in the world have been hypnotized or mind-controlled or force-fed blue pills in order for them not to see what is evident to the few courageous truth-seekers?<hr></blockquote> I most certainly dont, and I think that its entirely disingenuous of you to suggest that all the engineers in the world have reached this conclusion, when plenty have reached completely the opposite - Dont you ? And finally, Im dissappointed , but not surprised to note, that you have yet to answer two simple questions. Too busy flying off on completely unneccesary tangents. This is my last comment on this thread, which is by its very nature, a ridiculous one anyways. Just step back for one moment and reflect on the "official" bullshit, which as always is nothing but complete bullshit - I mean youve just gotta love their last caveat that suggested that when the planes hit the towers it 'blew the lagging off' - talk about fucking laughable. In short, to me its a choice between the "official" version including many paid scientific voices trying as desperately as possible to make their case, and what it actually was - Controlled demolition. Nuff said.

by **Qutb** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:49 pm

Slimmouse I'm going to let you have the last word: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Kinda puts us both on weak ground in one respect huh ?<hr></blockquote> So it does <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Re: Shut down for Maintenance

See this elevator rebuild project at the WTC March 2001

re: WTC Shutdown for Maintenance

Re: re: WTC Shutdown for Maintenance

cd or twist of extreme coincidental fate

Re: cd or twist of extreme coincidental fate

Reasoned Heuristical Argument on Physics.org

WTC 7

Byrne

Re: Reasoned Heuristical Argument on Physics.org

Re: Reasoned Heuristical Argument on Physics.org

Re: Reasoned Heuristical Argument on Physics.org

Re: Reasoned Heuristical Argument on Physics.org

Re: Reasoned Heuristical Argument on Physics.org

Re: Reasoned Heuristical Argument on Physics.org

Who is online