9/11 Paper Accepted to Major Conference

Good news ! The architects & engineers 4 911 truth just informed me the Ansgar Schneider
will be able to attend the IABSC conference in NYC and personally deliver
and/or present his paper "Structural dynamics of the Worldtrade catastrophe"
I donated the requested $20.00 and added an extra $5.00 for Ansgar's lunch.
A small price to pay to hear his evidence.
 
wild speculation based on massive ignorance gets donations? lol

Fonebone said:
Good news ! The architects & engineers 4 911 truth just informed me the Ansgar Schneider
will be able to attend the IABSC conference in NYC and personally deliver
and/or present his paper "Structural dynamics of the Worldtrade catastrophe"
I donated the requested $20.00 and added an extra $5.00 for Ansgar's lunch.
A small price to pay to hear his evidence.
Click to expand...
that is funny

His evidence is the empty set, leading to a dumbed down paranoid conspiracy theory conclusion. Wild speculation at best, or a sign of massive ignorance? Both.

Ignore the 19 terrorists, blame others based on zero evidence. Why do 9/11 truth followers blame people than can't name? Failed physics? Failed education?

It is sick to blame others for the acts of 19 murderers. It takes ignorance in the fields of fire science, steel, structural engineering, physics, math, and logic.

Where is the evidence for the failed conclusion? Right, it does not exist, never did. Another way to have people fund a trip, or conference visit, or lunch, by spreading lies based on speculation, ignorance and the ability to ignore reality and actual evidence.

invisible evidence
 
Fonebone said:
Good news ! The architects & engineers 4 911 truth just informed me the Ansgar Schneider
will be able to attend the IABSC conference in NYC and personally deliver
and/or present his paper "Structural dynamics of the Worldtrade catastrophe"
I donated the requested $20.00 and added an extra $5.00 for Ansgar's lunch.
A small price to pay to hear his evidence.
Click to expand...
If his evidence consists solely in pointing out errors in Bazant's work, what do you think that will prove?
 
pgimeno said:
If his evidence consists solely in pointing out errors in Bazant's work, what do you think that will prove?
Click to expand...


I'm a student. Any evidence Mr Schneider provides will prove the truth-seeker movement is making progress
towards the TRUTH concerning the events of September eleventh 2001.
 
who did 9/11 according to the latest pusher of a woo paper

Fonebone said:
I'm a student. Any evidence Mr Schneider provides will prove the truth-seeker movement is making progress
towards the TRUTH concerning the events of September eleventh 2001.
Click to expand...
Is not a truth seeker movement, it is a who can publish the dumbest paper based on wild speculation and ignore facts and evidence.

The truth is, 19 terrorists (gullible idiots) were instructed by UBL's buddies on how faking Hijcaking (Means) in the USA would give them time to take over jets by killing pilots who sit facing forward in their seats. Then take jets and crash into building to kill Americans. A promise UBL made in the 90s, the intent to kill Americans when and where he could. UBL promised to do this - did you miss this Motive? UBL and his hate for the USA.

Thus a paper thinking Bazant's paper was about 9/11 fails. 9/11 was a crime, not a science paper. The fires which resulted after aircraft impacts caused the collapse of the WTC, any person capable of research and understanding can figure out fire caused the collapse - If the 9/11 truth paper claims aircraft impacts and fire can't do it, failed.

Unfortunately 9/11 truth lies based on ignorance will continue to have idiots like Ansgar thinking there is some official theory, and try to refute reality with a paper which ignores who did 9/11, 19 terrorists.

The key to 19 terrorists scoring 75 percent on their targets was how the USA responds to Hijackings... DBCooper, etc, etc. There are still hijackers avoiding extradition from the 60s or 70s in the USA. Do you have knowledge of why the terrorists suceeded in faking the hijacking. Any clue why they failed to get Flight 93 to the target, because the first people in a position to take action on the truth of fake hijacking, it was murder, stopped the terrorists risking all, paying the price to stop failed UBL followers, which remind me of 9/11 truth followers - unable to think for themselves, 19 terrorists are like 9/11 truth followers, gullible.

The key to 9/11 was how the US reacts to hijacking - a fact 9/11 truth could not figure out from the beginning.

The truth about 9/11 is 19 terrorists, not a study of why building fail in fire, or 9/11 truth failure to understand fire, steel, and science.

The dolt Ansgar (a dolt with respect to all things 9/11).
(Ansgar - "there is only one scientific explanation, namely that all three skyscrapers were intentionally destroyed.")
Click to expand...
Yes, but the 19 terrorists had no clue the towers would collapse due the impacts and fire, but it was intentional, 19 terrorists wanted to kill Americans.

It is sad to see another failed 9/11 truth nut ignore fire, and who did 9/11. BTW, Bazant's paper was academic, the WTC failure in fire is a fact seen on 9/11, and 99.9 percent of all engineers agree (it was fire). Most engineers, and people in general understand steel fails in fire. A short study of the towers reveals why they towers failed due to the impacts.

If the paper fails to discuss what and how the steel of the WTC was protected from fire - we have a paper with a failed conclusion.
(Ansgar - "there is only one scientific explanation, namely that all three skyscrapers were intentionally destroyed.")
Click to expand...

There is no evidence for Ansgar's conclusion, unless he means the terrorists did it, the 19 in the planes. How does he explain flight 77 and 93?

If 19 terrorists did not do 9/11, better give your evidence to the FBI. Oops, you and the new guy have no evidence. No Pulitzer for the new guy. He can get a woo award.

UBL was a suspect (according to me) when I understood a second plane impacted the WTC. I speculated he had bought his own planes and filled them with explosives, until I figured out the speed of impact which gave the planes the energy of a two ton bomb at impact (and the fact four jets with passenger were taken).

Yes, be the best student, ignore the murderers who callously took four planes and intending to end the passengers lives using them, the plane, their baggage, the fuel, all as kinetic energy weapons - murdering crew and pilots to take the planes. Ignore the bad guys, go with woo. The best anti-intellectual action to take, and it dovetails with 9/11 truth's goal, spread lies, apologize for 9/11 murderers, 19 terrorists fooled by UBL.

Did you miss UBL promise to kill Americans? Were you alive in the 90s?
 
how old is the latest expert nut who did the paper to prove 9/11 truth remains nuts

How old is this new Messiah for 9/11 truth?

Wow, facebook page for AE911T exposes a lot of NUTS.

https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth...earn-last-month-that-his-n/10156344772001269/

Now that might be the most massive presentation of facebook comments with respect to insanity, ignorance, gullibility, etc

Poor ansgar, has no clue the towers failed due to fire, and the fact the floors did not hold up other floors. The WTC shell and core held up the floors. The progressive collapse after initial failure continued because a floor of the WTC can only hold the mass of 11 to 12 floors statically, less if the mass is moving. BINGO, the death of Ansgar's claims is due to ignorance, on many levels.


Don't forget gullible 9/11 truth nuts, send in 25 dollars soon, and get a free gift! The gift of gullibility based on massive ignorance, usually free, but proved by your donation of 25 dollars to Gage's travel fund. Wow - now I have a headache from reading stupid stuff from AE911T commenters - are they fake russian bots.

The ironic part of AE911T facebook page, is the WTC 7 study, showing the penthouse failing, falling into WTC 7 in a photo advertising the "fire can't cause the collapse woo paper". Where did the penthouse go 9/11 truth nuts?

Why do I think about zombies when I think about 9/11 truth followers. ?

He also has a book, it cites many 9/11 truth loons, and has this quote, "—for nature cannot be fooled." - be he is.
 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
I'm a student. Any evidence Mr Schneider provides will prove the truth-seeker movement is making progress
towards the TRUTH concerning the events of September eleventh 2001.
Click to expand...


Today is the last day of the New York City conference of the IABSC structural engineers.
Ansgar Schneider and his paper "Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe"
are not even mentioned on any of the major search engines as being delivered or rejected
by the conference.
 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
Today is the last day of the New York City conference of the IABSC structural engineers.
Ansgar Schneider and his paper "Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe" are not even mentioned on any of the major search engines as being delivered or rejected by the conference.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the paper was given all the attention it deserves.
 
Fonebone said:
Today is the last day of the New York City conference of the IABSC structural engineers.
Ansgar Schneider and his paper "Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe"
are not even mentioned on any of the major search engines as being delivered or rejected
by the conference.
Click to expand...

Was he con artist, just need the travel funds. Why do gullible people send money to people with fantasy conspiracy theories.
 
My old English teacher would sometimes glance at my homework from across another table, see I wrote 2.5 instead of the required 1 page, and say "oh, many words! Very good!", and give me a good grade.

I wonder if some conference attendees do something similar - spot lots of math in Ansgar's paper, and think "oh - lotsa math - must be good!"
 
Fonebone said:
Today is the last day of the New York City conference of the IABSC structural engineers.
Ansgar Schneider and his paper "Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe"
are not even mentioned on any of the major search engines as being delivered or rejected
by the conference.
Click to expand...



There's not even a mention of it on their own news page, why would anyone else mention it?
 
Oystein said:
My old English teacher would sometimes glance at my homework from across another table, see I wrote 2.5 instead of the required 1 page, and say "oh, many words! Very good!", and give me a good grade.

I wonder if some conference attendees do something similar - spot lots of math in Ansgar's paper, and think "oh - lotsa math - must be good!"
Click to expand...

The problem here as most of us can identify, math is exact but math application may not be exact. Just because the math solves a situation, does not indicated that it is the exact equation and some other math equation might solve the same situation. Unless rigorous understanding of the problem is achieved than the solution will be at best a possible, not the final.
 
bknight said:
The problem here as most of us can identify, math is exact but math application may not be exact. Just because the math solves a situation, does not indicated that it is the exact equation and some other math equation might solve the same situation. Unless rigorous understanding of the problem is achieved than the solution will be at best a possible, not the final.
Click to expand...

If the mathematical model does not work analogous and proportional to reality, the most precise and correct solutions will fail to inform us about what happened in said reality.

Such is the problem with Schneider's math: He elaborates on Bazant et al's ca. 2008 model, which had for years already outlived their usefulness for understanding what actually happened with the twin towers on 9/11.

Bazant, and in his wake Szamboti, and in Szamboti's wake Schneider, have this fetish for 3-hinge buckling of every column on every level, and the silly idea that energy dissipation would happen through that mechanism.

It didn't happen much at all. Mostly, the columns were simply bypassed.

If you have a math model that simulated the hellishly fiery breath of dragons and the dynamics of King Kong stomping on WTC's roofs, the most ingenuous and precise manipulations of this math model will not yield any useful conclusions about the collapses that happened in historical time.
 
I want to submit to a conference a scientific paper on the psychology of conspiracy theorists, with this forum being my main source.
 
Oystein said:
My old English teacher would sometimes glance at my homework from across another table, see I wrote 2.5 instead of the required 1 page, and say "oh, many words! Very good!", and give me a good grade.

I wonder if some conference attendees do something similar - spot lots of math in Ansgar's paper, and think "oh - lotsa math - must be good!"
Click to expand...
Well said. Historically I avoided reading the academic papers because they seem to be written to confuse. Lots of maths and obscuring other fog - to hide the fact that the base principles are wrong. I even spotted the "trick" in one of T Szamboti's papers - commented in my very first internet post:
The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.
Click to expand...
At that stage I knew nothing of T Szamboti. It was years later that I recognised that "false starting premises" was his SOP - he still plays it overlaid in recent years by false dichotomy "I have proved [someone] wrong which means I am right". Which is also one of the false generalisation errors underpinning Hulsey's paper.

It wasn't until 2010 and on this forum - prompted by an unlikely combination of pgimeno and Major_Tom - that I decided to get serious and look at the limitations and shortcomings of Bazant's work. No surprise that path not popular on this forum. ;) :) :mad: :rolleyes:
 
Oystein said:
If the mathematical model does not work analogous and proportional to reality, the most precise and correct solutions will fail to inform us about what happened in said reality.

Such is the problem with Schneider's math: He elaborates on Bazant et al's ca. 2008 model, which had for years already outlived their usefulness for understanding what actually happened with the twin towers on 9/11.

Bazant, and in his wake Szamboti, and in Szamboti's wake Schneider, have this fetish for 3-hinge buckling of every column on every level, and the silly idea that energy dissipation would happen through that mechanism.

It didn't happen much at all. Mostly, the columns were simply bypassed.

If you have a math model that simulated the hellishly fiery breath of dragons and the dynamics of King Kong stomping on WTC's roofs, the most ingenuous and precise manipulations of this math model will not yield any useful conclusions about the collapses that happened in historical time.
Click to expand...
A good summary.

It describes an endemic problem with engineers, other applied scientists. The preference to dive for the maths BEFORE working out what they are trying to quantify. Which leads to "trees versus forest syndrome" - counting leaves on branches when you are in the wrong forest. It has beset 9/11 debate for all the history I am familiar with - starting 2007.

In reality and especially for Twin Towers there is little need for any quantification to prove what happend. The real mechanism of Twin Towers collapses is sufficiently in view on the video record to almost totally support the relevant hypotheses viz "The physics says impact damage plus unfought fires caused collapse" AND "No CD help was needed". The energies and forces so obviously overwhelming that there is little need for any quantification other than ball park guesstimates. IF the floor joist connectors are going to be hit with a gross overwhelming overload it matters not if it is 30 times or 50 times overload. (Or as many would prefer 37.56932 times :boggled: )

What really matters it recognising that the columns did not take the load. That the real mechanism actually did overload the floor joist and beam connectors. And that the forces were overwhelming. And failing to look at the real mechanism was the main problem where both branches of "debunker" research took wrong paths in the era circa 2006-7.

Just a few exceptions where numbers may be significant. For example Bazant & Zhou's limit case MAY have been in error on the available energy. But that - if true - is still just a bad ball park guess. Not multi decimal places backed by FEA et al.
 
Fonebone said:
Today is the last day of the New York City conference of the IABSC structural engineers.
Ansgar Schneider and his paper "Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe"
are not even mentioned on any of the major search engines as being delivered or rejected
by the conference.
Click to expand...


Every thing on the three major search engines reports nothing less than a month old about Ans Schneider's paper
"Structural dynamics of the Worldtrade catastrophe " to be delivered to the conference of
the IABSC structural engineers in New York City this week.
Did Ans even make it to America ?
 
Fonebone said:
Every thing on the three major search engines reports nothing less than a month old about Ans Schneider's paper
"Structural dynamics of the Worldtrade catastrophe " to be delivered to the conference of
the IABSC structural engineers in New York City this week.
Did Ans even make it to America ?
Click to expand...

Richard Gage thanks you for your donation.
 
MileHighMadness said:
Richard Gage thanks you for your donation.
Click to expand...


It's worse than that !
I kicked in an extra fin so Ans could buy a Peanut&Jelly sandwich with a
cup of bug-juice during the intermission between the presentation and the question/answer period.

Small price pay to hear his research and logical
thoughts on various 9-11 related topics.
 
Fonebone said:
Did Ans suddenly mysteriously find himself on a no-fly list ?
Click to expand...



If he did, don't you think that every remaining truther site would be trumpeting that from the rooftops by now?


It's far more likely that what I posted way back when is correct: he had a minor presentation, such as a poster in the poster session, and literally everyone who stopped to read it long enough to figure out what he was talking about reacted by laughing, calling him an idiot, or explaining in minute detail why everyone else was laughing at or insulting him.

And this result has the distinct advantage of explaining why the entire 9/11 community has been completely silent about his experiences at the conference, without requiring an appeal to mysterious sinister forces working in the shadows.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Ansgar Schneider was indeed denied a Visa to enter the United States (source).
Click to expand...

Fonebone <
I could only find this...
"The talk by Ansgar Schneider took place - via Skype."


Good news anyway - Ansgar was able to defeat the censorship attempt using
21st century technology. Any word on how the international engineering conference
accepted his presentation ? Maybe Ansgar will be able to deliver his analysis and
computations in a more free and open society like North Korea.
On a side note- Gurggle , Bong, and Duk Duk reports ansolutely NOTHING on their
searches engines younger than 30 days about Ansgar schneider and his paper.


Free speech my tuckus - Not in America
 
Last edited:
^ I found an interview with him published on Monday which deals with the denied Visa, and, as you said he gave the presentation by video conference and it shall be in the conference documentation.

Nachdenkseiten said:
Und jetzt wurden Sie zu dem Kongress nach New York eingeladen, aber die amerikanischen Behörden lassen Sie nicht in die USA einreisen. Wieso denn das? Normalerweise darf doch jeder Deutsche ohne Visum nach Ausfüllen des ESTA-Formulars (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) einreisen!

Ja, normalerweise. Der ESTA-Antrag wurde aber nicht genehmigt. Man bekommt keinen expliziten Grund für die Absage mitgeteilt, aber es ist wahrscheinlich, dass das passiert ist, weil ich schon mehrfach zu wissenschaftlichen Konferenzen im Iran war. Letztes Jahr war ich eingeladener Sprecher auf der Jahresversammlung der iranischen mathematischen Vereinigung in Teheran. Die Botschaft der USA gibt nun auf ihrer Website an, dass ein ESTA-Antrag abgelehnt wird, wenn man nach 2011 im Iran war. Vermutlich ist das also der Grund.

Und wenn der ESTA-Antrag abgelehnt wird, kann man nicht mehr einreisen?

Dann kann man mit dem abgelehnten Antrag ein Visum beantragen. Das wurde aber auch abgelehnt, obwohl den US-Behörden bekannt ist, dass ich als Sprecher zu einer wissenschaftlichen Konferenz eingeladen bin, denn das Einladungsschreiben der IABSE habe ich mehrfach eingereicht.

Wurde das Ablehnen des Visums irgendwie begründet?

Ich habe ein vorgedrucktes Papier ohne persönliche Anrede bekommen, das feststellt, dass ich nicht geeignet sei, in die USA einzureisen, weil ich nicht an mein Heimatland gebunden sei. Mehr kann ich nicht dazu sagen, außer dass diese Begründung natürlich völlig grotesk ist, alleine schon deshalb, weil mich niemand gebeten hat, Gegenteiliges zu begründen, und natürlich jeder Deutsche normalerweise einfach mit einem ESTA-Antrag einreisen darf, egal, ob er irgendwie an Deutschland gebunden ist oder nicht, was auch immer das heißen soll.

Der Iran oder die Konferenz wurden nicht weiter erwähnt?

Nein, erwähnt wurde das nicht. Ob das eine Rolle gespielt hat, weiß nur die Person, die den Stempel auf den Vordruck gemacht hat.

Die Konferenz musste jedenfalls ohne Ihre persönliche Anwesenheit stattfinden, aber immerhin wurde Ihre Vortragspräsentation per Video gezeigt und es erscheint ein wissenschaftlich begutachteter Konferenzband mit Ihrer für den Kongress vorgesehenen Arbeit. Wie beurteilen Sie Ihren Fall denn im Hinblick auf die Freiheit und Austausch der Wissenschaft?

Es gibt keine bessere Möglichkeit des wissenschaftlichen Austausches als das persönliche Gespräch mit Kreide und Tafel bzw. mit Bleistift und Papier. Da kann ihr Gegenüber ihnen direkt reingrätschen, genau sagen, was es nicht versteht oder was vielleicht falsch ist und Sie können ihm direkt darauf antworten. Sie können Missverständnisse maximal schnell klären, weil Sie sehen, wo er ihrer Argumentation folgt und wo nicht. Kurzum: Der wissenschaftliche Austausch wird hier sehr deutlich behindert und das bei einem so wichtigen Thema!
Click to expand...


In short, he has attended mathematical conferences in Iran in recent years and that denied him the simplified process Germans usually can go through to visit the US. The full Visa process was ended with the ridiculous "reason" that he didn't prove to have enough bindings to his home country to make it believable that he will return, although the reason for his visit was known.

PS: "Nachdenkseiten" where the interview was published has been the most popular blog in Germany for years. Dunno if it still is, but it certainly still has a huge audience.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
^ I found an interview with him published on Monday which deals with the denied Visa, and, as you said he gave the presentation by video conference and it shall be in the conference documentation.




In short, he has attended mathematical conferences in Iran in recent years and that denied him the simplified process Germans usually can go through to visit the US. The full Visa process was ended with the ridiculous "reason" that he didn't prove to have enough bindings to his home country to make it believable that he will return, although the reason for his visit was known.

PS: "Nachdenkseiten" where the interview was published has been the most popular blog in Germany for years. Dunno if it still is, but it certainly still has a huge audience.
Click to expand...
an excerpt from the interview...https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=54662
"
Q. Klaus-Dieter Kolenda: Mr. Schneider, the IABSE invites you to
speak at its annual congress about the destruction of the
World Trade Center. Are you the world's leading expert in this
field?



A. Ansgar Schneider: You flatter me, that's nice, but I have a very
general dislike for such superlatives and the word "expert". I've
made a small contribution to understanding the destruction of the
World Trade Center. That could have been done by someone else who
mastered classical mechanics. If it was different, it would not
be science. After all, science is what everyone can understand in
principle, where anyone who can read and write and has an intelligent
mind and enough time can make a contribution.
You do not need a papal absolution."
 
Childlike Empress said:
Ansgar Schneider was indeed denied a Visa to enter the United States (source).
Click to expand...

Keeping out crazies, is this the only good thing trump had done by accident.

Ansgar is an idiot on this issue, he thinks bazant's work describes how the WTC collapsed. He is a math major who can't add up the strength of the WTC tower floor connections to the core and shell to figure out why the collapse after initiation continued. Another clueless idiot fails.

He has no clue what the official story is. His paper is useless, the same as 9/11 truth.
 
Fonebone said:
He reached the modest monetary goal set to cover the airline tickets and hotel room.
Did Ans suddenly mysteriously find himself on a no-fly list ?
Click to expand...

Did AE 9/11 refund the money that was gathered for him to travel? Or is it bonus money for Gage?
 
"expert" claims 9/11 was an inside job - and proves his education failed

Childlike Empress said:
Just published two-and-a-half hours lecture by Mr. Schneider entitled (translated from German) "Science and societal denial". ...
Click to expand...

Science - What has to be ignored to believe 9/11 truth idiot claims.

Schneider is a dolt, proved when he claims 9/11 was an inside job. Another expert dolt who fails to do more than fool other nuts and dolts.

It is sad someone who appears to have a PhD in physics can't do math or understand why the towers fell due to gravity. Thus, I assume his practical physics knowledge is limited to quantum mechanics, useless to save him from his paranoid conspiracy theory of an inside job. Maybe he failed to comprehend how the towers were constructed and why they failed. Guess he has no clue on the design, because the collapse once started based on the impact zones, would not stop. His inability to do simple math based on mass. Another clueless expert overcome by woo.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Just published two-and-a-half hours lecture by Mr. Schneider entitled (translated from German) "Science and societal denial". Enjoy:

Click to expand...

I often chuckle because of the unintentional irony of such titles. The brochure titled "Beyond Misinformation" is still in the lead, but Ansgar's video likewise is an apt label for his contents.
 
ozeco41 said:
Actually he refutes the energy quantification that Bazant & Zhou relied on. BUT seems to accept the remainder of the limit case mechanism.

Both errors identified on this forum many years back. He makes the same error as Szamboti's main error with missing jolt - in that both take the limit case mechanism literally i.e. as what actually happend.

And he identifies that Bazant's energy calculations may have been wrong. The same point that Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns identified in their paper. Which was also many years too late. BUT AFAIK the claim of "wrong energy calcs" has not been rebutted as I have reported numerous times on this and other Forums.

So take care of what gets thrown out. There is a baby in his bathwater.
Click to expand...

Ten Years old would be 2010, David B Benson knew their would be no missing Jolt in the theortical case in about 2008 when he proposed the equations for off center strikes on pend beams as the main failure mode once collapse initiated.
Caculating the actual energy to sheer the reinforced mechanical floors.
Miss DBB.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Ten Years old would be 2010, David B Benson knew their would be no missing Jolt in the theortical case in about 2008 when he proposed the equations for off center strikes on pend beams as the main failure mode once collapse initiated.
Caculating the actual energy to sheer the reinforced mechanical floors.
Miss DBB.
Click to expand...

There were several members who made positive contributions and had much to offer - from either side of that 2008 "split" off JREF >>> to form 911Forum. It is a pity that none of them stayed around to learn once the actual progression mechanism was identified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom