Morgan Reynolds blows FR GReening out con collapse

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:05 pm

<a href="http://www.st911.org/IntroductionToS911T.html">www.st911.org/IntroductionToS911T.html</a> Refuting the Demolition Debunkers Printer friendly copy of this article available here. At the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 internal explosives demolished three skyscrapers:: WTC1 (north tower), WTC 2 (south tower) and WTC7, a 47-story steel-framed tower that was not hit by an airplane. Thanks to tireless researchers and the internet, knowledge of these demolitions is spreading rapidly throughout the United States and world. This is not good news to the perpetrators of the 9/11 hoax, so it is predictable that new websites pop up to slow the spread of the truth. The idea is to confuse the issue and offer succor to the innocents clinging to the official story about “very sharp box cutters,” “very hot fires,” “very floppy pancake collapses,” and other fantasies propagated by government and its paid-for allies in the academy and media. An attempt to refute the fact that the towers fell due to controlled demolition, with plane impacts as cover for two of the three buildings, is <a href="http://911hypothesis.blogspot.com/,">911hypothesis.blogspot.com/,</a> originally posted here on Wednesday, February 15, 2006. Michiel Brumsen asserts below that he is merely trying to strengthen his belief in WTC demolition by trying his best to refute it. Below we reproduce the original “refutation” article with separate refutations of it by Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter, along with a rebuttal by Michiel Brumsen of 911hypothesis.blogspot.com. Morgan Reynolds, a Ph.D. economist affiliated with physics911.net and st911.org, is the author of a well-known article of June 9, 2005, on the collapses here and his new 9/11 article is here. Rick Rajter, a graduate student @ MIT in Materials Science and Engineering, adds further comments. The original article is in black text. In each section Morgan Reynolds’ comments are first, Rick Rajter’s second, and Michiel Brumsen’s rebuttals third if available. We hope this acts as an educational resource for those debating the events of 9/11. The article with commentary by Reynolds and Rajter has been submitted to physics911.net for review. Update Time for an update on the refutation of the controlled demolition hypothesis. My endeavours have been most instructive; most people apparently either think that you're a nutter promoting conspiracy theories, or somebody working for the CIA or such and trying to cover it all up, depending on which camp they belong themselves. Oh dear: what has happened to dispassionate but thorough scientific questioning? In my previous post I cited four important anomalies; evidence that in the official story it seems hard to account for, but which would support the controlled demolition hypothesis. I'll run by them again. 1) speed of collapse near free fall. Reynolds: Which building is under discussion? WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7? Brumsen: From other entries in the blog it should have been obvious that I was referring to WTC1 and WTC2. Reynolds: Since none is specified, I begin with WTC7 because it is an impossible problem for apologists of the official pancake theory. It is undisputed that no plane hit WTC7, WTC landlord Larry Silverstein told a FDNY commander to “pull it” the afternoon of September 11, and building 7 fell symmetrically into a neat debris stack in under 7 seconds at about 5:20p, all recorded on multiple video tapes. WTC7 was a textbook demolition. Nobody has put forward an alternative to demolition to explain the tidy collapse of 7. Since there were only two small fires on floors 7 and 12, the alternative theory must be that those devious Arab terrorists possess a radical new technology that can neatly implode a steel-framed, 47-story skyscraper in its own footprint with just a few small fires. Controlled Demolition Inc., the industry leader, would love to acquire this secret, superior and cheap campfire technique to replace painstaking study of a building and laborious planting of many pounds of explosives at key points throughout each building. Perhaps we should watch the Wall St. Journal for news of the pending CDI-al Qaeda merger. Rajter: Agreed. The commission report <a href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/">www.9-11commission.gov/</a> doesn’t mention 7 falling, FEMA claims “the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence” <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm">911research.wtc7.net/mirr...TC_ch5.htm</a> and the NIST team has delayed its report on 7 because of the difficulty in creating a plausible non-demolition theory. I have come across an excellent paper by F.R. Greening, which is a bit hard going for those without a background in the exact sciences, but very rewarding. He performs an energy analysis of the collapse of WTC1 and 2. It enables him to show that the NIST report about the collapse were way off; that the finite elements computer models used there were very inaccurate. More to the point, he shows that if pancaking was the way in which they collapsed - regardless of the cause of the collapse - one would expect the collapse to be only slightly slower than free fall. Reynolds: “If pancaking was the way in which they collapsed?” I guess I read that right but the premise is absurd. Brumsen: I am being careful here not to pronounce myself on the truth of the premise. I am merely explaining that the actually observed time of fall would, according to Greening, have been consistent with pancaking. Reynolds: Pancaking is the result to be proved, not a premise. The NIST avoided modeling the official “progressive pancake collapse” theory for the embarrassing reason that such a model would conflict with all the data, especially near-free-fall-speed in all three skyscraper collapses, a signature of demolition. The NIST failure to model and support pancaking signifies “the collapse of the pancake theory,” as A.K. Dewdney says. “[N]o video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses,” writes physicist Derrick Grimmer, “which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small” <a href="http://physics911.net/thermite.htm.">physics911.net/thermite.htm.</a> All videos and pictures of the collapses show each tower demolished by internal explosives, blown to kingdom come because these were no ordinary demolitions where gravity does most of the work. They were a “show,” a shock and awe display to manipulate a gullible public. We have abundant photographic evidence of confluent rows of explosions going off, as well as isolated squibs. Probably hundreds of eyewitnesses, both professionals and laypersons alike, have testified to explosions they saw and heard. Only demolition can account for facts like steel beams hurtled horizontally hundreds of feet through the air, all concrete pulverized into extremely fine dust, pools of melted steel at the base of each building, and destruction so total that none of the massive core remained sticking hundreds of feet into the air. Pancaking explains none of these facts, demolition all of them. Rajter: The following illustrates the main problems with the Greening model: Rajter: The model makes the critical assumption that the floors get hit and offer no resistance beyond a conservation of momentum calculation. This explains why NIST refused to model collapse after failure began because the agency could not make the no-resistance between floors assumption. In other words, a finite difference model would be far more realistic. The upshot is that the Greening model is highly relevant for modeling a controlled demolition where substantial resistance from lower floors is absent! Bombs eliminated resistance by removing lower floors and columns. For this he has to estimate the energy needed to crush the supports of one floor in order to make it collapse onto the next; but interestingly (if he is right, which I think he is) even if the energy needed for crushing one floor's supports would be up to three times more than his best estimate, the collapse time actually observed can still be accounted for. (Figure copied from FR Greening, Energy transfer in the WTC collapse, p.16) Reynolds: Most readers must embrace such calculations on faith because they are not qualified to evaluate them. More in accord with common sense (sound scientific calculations are nothing more than refined common sense), the enormous pyroclastic dust cloud from each tower’s destruction required tremendous energy, at least ten times the potential energy available from a tower’s elevated mass due to gravity. See <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html.">911research.wtc7.net/pape...lume.html.</a> This phenomenon alone renders the pancake theory nonsense. A gravity-driven collapse cannot generate the energy to explain the physical events observed on September 11 in lower Manhattan. Another site which attemps (or pretends?) to calculate falling time is found here. It draws the conclusion that the collapse should have been much slower, but makes the mistake of thinking that the falling speed would be reduced to zero every time a new floor is hit. In support of this, high school experiments of elastic collisions are referred to. But that must be wrong: obviously, in pancaking, we would have had inelastic collisions. The concrete falling down would have slowed down slightly on each impact, but accelerated more on the spaces between the floors. This yields Greenings result. Reynolds: Slowed down slightly on each impact, it says. Baloney. The towers were hell-strong, with redundancy of 500% minimum, probably more like 1,000% in the lightly loaded towers on September 11. Brumsen: I think redundancy is in such a case usually defined as how many times stronger the maximum resistant force of the construction is than the forces exerted by gravity - under static conditions. What does this imply for the resistance offered by the structure relative to the force of a huge block of floors that has accelerated approximately two meters, which is the assumption made when saying that the collapse started with the failing of one floor's supports? No idea. Reynolds: Go here to begin exploration of how strong the towers were: <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html">911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html</a> Rajter: Also, see my pictures above. The Greening model cited shows near-free-fall behavior and although simple and beautiful, it really models demolition more than a pancake collapse. It applies if we are talking about flat plates hovering in the air. Conclusion: this particular piece of evidence cannot show that the supports for each floor were compromised before being hit by the floors above it. Therefore it cannot vindicate the controlled demolition hypothesis. Neither, though, can Greenings results falsify it. Reynolds: What? “This particular piece of evidence” refers to what? Brumsen: It refers to the observed speed of collapse, namely: near freefall. I am afraid that therefore most of the following passage is irrelevant. Reynolds: Greenings’ model? That is not evidence. A black box model based on bad assumptions and parameters cannot show anything empirically convincing. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). So it is resort to authority, belief in the master and similar nonsense. A maximum of 13% of the perimeter columns were fragmented (broken) high up in the North Tower and a smaller fraction in the South Tower. The towers were stable, silent and motionless after the initial hits. The reason so many brave men of the FDNY died was because they knew the towers were so stout that no aluminum Boeing could possibly threaten their stability. A Boeing was born to be chewed by a steel tower. FDNY Battalion Chief Orio Palmer reached the 78th floor of the South Tower and said, “We’ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.” Within a few minutes the entire tower collapsed, inexplicable unless caused by “secondary explosives” going off, and duly feared by some of the emergency personnel on scene. The fire in the South Tower was dying. That’s why the mass murderers had to blow the “wrong tower” first, after only 56 minutes of weak fire, because the cover story about the collapse was nearly gone. Folks, it was an inside job. 2) the presence of molten steel, pointing towards the use of thermite. Greening also addresses this point; here. His point is that there was plenty of aluminium; both from the plane fuselage, and the cladding of the buildings. The fires could have melted the aluminium. And molten aluminium is extremely reactive / explosive. Given the presence of plenty of gypsum (crumbled wallboards) and iron, this would have given the same reactions as with the specialist thermite explosives. Again, neither vindication nor falsification. Reynolds: Talk about a stretch: spontaneous thermite?! Perhaps the author will demonstrate its unassisted formation in a laboratory sometime, or even better, in the “wild.” Aluminum melts at less than half the temperature of steel and if the fires were so bloody hot, why didn’t some of the aluminum façade on the WTC towers melt? Black, sooty smoke showed that the fires were low temp and dying of oxygen starvation. “Corus Construction Corporation performed extensive tests in multiple countries in which they subjected steel-framed carparks, which were uninsulated, to prolonged hydrocarbon fueled fires,” writes Jim Hoffman, “and the highest temperatures they recorded in any of the steel beams or columns was a mere 360 degrees Celsius.” That’s not close to melting aluminum. For more see <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/text/.">911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/text/.</a> A 1975 fire on the 11th floor of the North Tower was more intense than the South Tower fire on 9/11. <a href="http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10613.">bellaciao.org/en/article....cle=10613.</a> Rajter: Actually, Professor Steven E. Jones, et. al. have recently completed experiments in the lab, pouring liquid aluminum on top of rusty steel beams. No thermite reaction occurred. <a href="http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc">www.scholarsfor911truth.o...AlMelt.doc</a> Brumsen: At the time of writing, this paper had not appeared yet, and neither had its update. I accept that the results of Jones et al make Greenings hypothesis unlikely, however, I reject the idea that such an experiment can provide an unassailable refutation, since one never knows whether conditions recreated in the experiment were close enough to actual conditions in the towers. 3) the presence of sideways squibs at collapse time, far below what could be accounted for by free fall speeds. This one may be simple: a shockwave caused by explosions from the molten aluminium would have travelled down central elevator shafts much faster. BUT: why, then, are they so localized? Why are there so few, and seemingly symmetrical, squibs? Jury is still out on this one I think. Reynolds: The author would do anything, it seems, to avoid the obvious and natural explanation: internal explosives. Occam’s razor counts for little because the aim is to arrive at the predetermined result. Instead of following the evidence where it leads, the idea is, “to fix the intelligence around the policy,” as the infamous Downing Street memo put it. The strain of this effort is oh-so visible. Brumsen: No. What I am doing, as I have explained to you in private, is that I am trying to strengthen my belief in the "obvious and natural explanation" by trying my best to refute it. Confirmation of a hypothesis is only as good as the attempt one has made at falsifying it. Reynolds: There was no molten aluminum traveling down central elevator shafts reported by a witness within a tower, at least that I have heard of. Further, we know the hydrocarbon fires did not melt aluminum because such fires in buildings do not burn hot enough without oxygen optimization. And how can we refute a phantom like, “Jury is still out on this one I think”? Such a soft statement suits this era in which the jury is out forever, dithering over whether fire is hot or ice is cold. After all, there’s truth on both sides of an argument, isn’t there? No, there isn’t. Reality exists, objective reality and it is one way and one way only. Arab terrorists did not suspend the laws of physics and chemistry on September 11, 2001. Rajter: Non-load-bearing, steel-reinforced concrete was essentially resting on a plate of truss-supported steel at each floor. Localized waves would cause vibrations along the core structure. Even if pulverization occurred XX floors below, how could it be violently ejected out of the building? This motion requires one of two sources: A) there was a massive gas expansion that caused the air to exit through windows (note, the official explanation gives no such reason for a violent gas expansion, which could only be explained by explosives) or B) the pulverization process itself ejected the material outward radially. Since it would be a statistical nightmare for this to occur randomly, and since we saw it occur in numerous locations down the building, we can rule B out. Besides, photographs of controlled demolitions show squibs on many floors below as columns fail. Occam’s razor doesn’t play favorites, and here, it slices through this line of reasoning. 4) collapse on its own footprint: this remains very troubling. Consider this: "Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base." In other words, according to him, the structure had no choice but to fall straight down, following the path of least resistance. (From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)"">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/1...theories)"</a> Quite convincing, until one realizes that Eagar is begging the question. It is reasonable to conclude from the evidence about how the buildings did collapse that they didn't tip over at least 100 feet. But the question is: WHY did they not? For buildings that size, it would not have been that surprising, given that they most likely failed asymmetrically. It certainly can happen in earthquakes. Now one should obviously be wary of analogies, but there is an important common point here: asymmetrical failing. Furthermore, one needn't argue that the *whole* building would have fallen out of its footprint. Would it not have been likely that the upper blocks, above the impact, would have done so? And for one of the towers this is what we appear to see on the footage: it tilts over considerably, before disappearing into clouds of dust. Why - if this is what happened, which is hard to tell - would it have desintegrated in mid-air? Most of that upper block would not yet have been compromised. And if it did desintegrate, this would have been a large energy sink. Perhaps big enough to make it unlikely that the rest of the collapse would have been self-sustaining. This particular piece of evidence needs much better explanation to be able to uphold the official story. Reynolds: A bit of reality peeks through this section. Approximately the top 300 feet of WTC2 tipped about 23 degrees before it was exploded to bits. The perps screwed up—easy enough to do in a complex operation—and had to quickly blow the upper section to smithereens before it toppled to the ground. They blasted the rest of the structure to remove resistance from below and got the ensuing freefall, otherwise they would have been stuck with an embarrassing “haircut” at the top of WTC2 and no other damage. That was not the “shock and awe” effect the regime had in mind. One of the comments to my previous post came up with a point that causes trouble for the controlled demolition hypothesis. How could the planes not have set off the explosives with which the buildings would have had to be rigged, bringing them down immediately; or at any rate, disturb the carefully planned explosion pattern, so that it would be extremely difficult to bring the buildings down so neatly? My first thoughts are that this is a formidable, but not unsurmountable, challenge to the controlled demolition hypothesis. Rajter: Just as you can’t just ignite thermite with a Bic lighter, jet fuel fires cannot ignite thermite. It takes something like a magnesium fuse to generate the activation heat as far as I am aware. And even if SOME went off, it wasn’t enough to cut down the entire building. To strengthen the case for controlled demolition, I will bring additional points to attention, as mentioned by David Griffin in his excellent paper. Note that I make a strong selection here: the strongest possible case in favour of controlled demolition would have to rest, in my opinion, on hard physical evidence. This excludes everything mentioning motivations, alleged stupidity, and circumstantial evidence. (Note, of course that even if the strongest possible case fails, the weaker case may still be sufficiently convincing, and moreover true. It's just that for the moment I am not interested in it.) 5) Sudden onset of the collapse, instead of gradual failing as one might expect in a steel construction; 6) Total collapse, into small pieces, rather than substantial parts of the structures still standing; 7) Demolition rings (series of small explosions running rapidly around a building). Griffin adds a footnote here: "For visual evidence of this and the preceding characteristics (except sliced steel), see Hufschmid’s Painful Questions; Hufschmid’s video “Painful Deceptions” (available at www.EricHufschmid.Net); Jim Hoffman’s website (<a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html);">911research.wtc7.net/index.html);</a> and Jeff King’s website (<a href="http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html),">home.comcast.net/~jeffrey...ml-.html),</a> especially “The World Trade Center Collapse: How Strong is the Evidence for a Controlled Demolition?” Other 'hard' evidence cited by Griffin seem less convincing, and I'll briefly say why: - Sliced steel: segments in the rubble were of convenient length. However, the construction elements originally used were of convenient length. Of course; they had to be transported to the site in the first place! It can also be seen on pictures of the construction. Reynolds: Convenient length in construction is irrelevant. The WTC parts were bolted and welded into a massive, powerful structure. Joints generally are stronger than non-joint sections because architects, engineers and construction personnel worry a lot about failure there. Ever heard of an oxyacetlylene torch? At over 3,000 degrees Celsius, it’s the only gas mixture that will burn hot enough to cut steel. <a href="http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/AnthonyCheedie.shtml.">hypertextbook.com/facts/2...die.shtml.</a> The towers were an icon, and vastly stronger than other structures because the world spotlight was on them. It’s only human nature to do your absolute best under these circumstances. Demolition companies ask what length the customer wants steel debris for easy transport, just like the 30 feet and under lengths at Ground Zero. What a surprise! The ends of all the WTC steel beams look like they were sheared off by shaped charges because shaped charges caused the simultaneous breaks at steel joints. FEMA and Rudy Giuliani made sure none of the beams were tested for explosive residue. - pulverization of concrete: Greening is able to account for this, in the excellent paper on energy transfer refferred to above under point 1. Reynolds: Resort to authority again. The author does not explain how this pulverization happened in layman’s terms. Brumsen: I would deny that there is an obligation to do so. Expert authority is relevant, and some facts and explanations are counterintuitive to the lay person. Reynolds: Gravity cannot supply enough energy to turn an estimated 100,00 tons of steel-reinforced concrete in each tower into talcum powder. There was virtually no broken concrete at Ground Zero, plus no office furniture, paper, computers, virtually nothing that you would recognize from offices at the bottom of the “pancake collapses” because all the material but steel was exploded all over lower Manhattan. Salvage experts marveled at how small the debris stack was. I repeat, the towers were blown to kingdom come. The data are completely inconsistent with the absurd “pancake” theory. - dust clouds: idem. Remember also that there was a lot of gypsum, that would have been pulverised. Reynolds: Gypsum was pulverized by the pancake crusher too? Baloney. A step-by-step accelerating pancake collapse would break gypsum up but most of it would be plenty recognizable as gypsum at the bottom, just like broken concrete would. But no, explosives turned gypsum and concrete alike into a pyroclastic cloud to blot out the sun and frighten folks into a telegenic sprint for dear life, Hollywood-blockbuster style. - horizontal ejections: pancaking would have expelled air sideways violently - including any objects. Reynolds: Very forcible ejections, indeed, from air allegedly expelled sideways solely by 12 foot collapses per floor. Tens of thousands of tons of steel were ejected horizontally hundreds of feet. Now that takes real energy, unavailable from mere gravity and compressed air. One bit of steel weighing a feathery 600,000 pounds, more than twice the 140-ton estimated weight of the alleged Boeing 767, traveled an impressive 390 feet to lodge into a nearby building. How much wind was there that day! Check it out: <a href="http://www.gallerize.com/WINDY_TOWERS_OF_9-11_1.htm">www.gallerize.com/WINDY_T...9-11_1.htm</a> - sounds produced by explosions: not hard evidence, in that it relies on eyewitness accounts. Moreover, structural failings might well give explosive-like sounds. Reynolds: Might this be “anything to avoid the truth.” Photos and videos of the collapses show “demolition waves,” meaning “confluent rows of small explosions” along floors (blast sequences). Get any 9/11 video like Painful Deceptions or Loose Change or visit websites like <a href="http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/.">www.plaguepuppy.net/publi...20update/.</a> Yes, many witnesses like the WTC hero Willie Rodriguez and FDNY personnel testified that explosions occurred within the buildings. Physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony but in this instance all point to the same conclusion. Additionally there is of course the mystery of WTC7; how could it come down, when there was no plane impact there? However, this is of course an item separate from discussion on WTC1 and WTC2. Or in other words: any refutation of, or lack of vindication for, the controlled demolition hypothesis for WTC1 and WTC2 has no logical implication for any other foul play or cover-up that may or may not have taken place. Nor the other way around of course. Reynolds: These were entirely separable events? I wonder if the author even believes his own stuff. I doubt it. He’s like a defense attorney with a bad case, all the facts against him, so he floats up anything to the jury, no matter how ridiculous, in the vain hope of snagging a “reasonable” doubt in one or more jurors. The only steel-framed skyscrapers in history to collapse from fires all fall on the same day at the same location? Quite a coincidence! No sense being a conspiracy theorist when the alternative of being a “coincidence theorist” is so seductive based on, hmmmm, plausibility and stuff. Coincidence, yes, that’s what the WTC7 collapse was. Or maybe the building was depressed by the loss of its neighbors, the twin towers, and fainted. Detectives hate coincidences because they are almost never true. Possible motives to bring down WTC7 were many, given tenants like the CIA, IRS, SEC, Secret Service, etc., but the Office of Emergency Management for the City of New York is the prime suspect. The perpetrators almost certainly used Mayor Giuliani’s sealed OEM “bunker” on the 23d story to conduct the tower implosions and then had to destroy WTC7 and its evidence to cover up their crimes, just as a run-of-the-mill murderer sets his victim’s dwelling ablaze. Rudy’s “undisclosed secret location” was perfect because it had been evacuated by around 9:30 that morning, it enabled unmolested work, provided a ringside seat, was bullet- and bomb-resistant, had its own secure air and water supply, and could withstand winds of 160 mph, protection from the wind blasts generated by collapsing skyscrapers. The perps probably wanted to knock WTC7 down under cover of the second dust cloud from the WTC1 implosion but something went wrong, they finally fixed it and blew WTC7 late in the afternoon. Most Americans do not even know about the WTC7 collapse because the government’s echo chamber, the phony “free” and independent media, remains silent about it to this day. Thank you for thinking along with me. Reynolds: You’re WELCOME, Michiel. Our main conclusion is that the Greening model supports demolition, not your conclusion, Brumsen: I believe it supports neither, but does at least give potential explanations how some evidence might be consistent with the official story, and should therefore not be used as argument by 9/11 truth seekers. Reynolds: but here are some additional questions to think about: why did officials lie, fabricate evidence, destroy evidence and resist and manipulate independent investigations after 9/11? Allow me to suggest an obvious answer: because they wanted to cover up their crimes. And who benefited from 9/11, and therefore who had motive? Who had the means to pull it off? Who had opportunity? Selected elements at the top of the U.S. government, aided by certain outsiders, that’s who. Brumsen: I agree. However, motive nor opportunity imply action. It does imply the obligation to investigate very scrupulously whether this motive was in fact acted upon. No official investigation has done this, but I believe that it should be done. Reynolds

Morgan Reynolds blows FR GReening out con collapse

Morgan Reynolds blows FR GReening out con collapse

Who is online