The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 30, 2016.

  1. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    troofers will never discuss the numbers of conspirators it would take to accomplish their silly conspiracies ...

    start counting ... controlled demo of three buildings ... switched aircraft and passengers ... phony eyewitnesses ... planted aircraft parts ... DNA trickery ... and on and on ...

    I am still shocked that I wasn't a player in this big scam ...
     
  2. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    6,975
    Likes Received:
    1,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and all the people they had to kill, because they wouldn't go along with it.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually you and millions of others are an integral part of this huge scam. The NIST and 9/11 Commission scams rely on millions of people believing their reports are fact. It would be a huge problem if that wasn't the case. And the scams do work for people such as yourself.
     
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    please say hello to the pachyderm for me would ya ...
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation of what YOU believe that is supposed to be.
     
  6. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    6,975
    Likes Received:
    1,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can dance around all you want, but everyone is waiting for your explanations.

    OH, The Troofers aren't, red is green, is black, is grey, anything is OK, as long as it is anti-government.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  7. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    that's easy Bob ... the truther belief in all things which would require 10s of thousands of conspirators with none of them giving up the ghost ... don'y play stupid Bob ... why not just address it? ... you can play your "legitimate investigation" card all you like but please don't deny that you believe explosives were involved in the destruction of the towers ...
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because I address the Official Conspiracy Theory, the official conjecture, not YOUR conjectures. I can ask you the same question. Why are you playing stupid and failing to address the many frauds perpetrated by the 9/11 Commission and NIST as published in their reports? These are documented demonstrable facts, not theory, despite that you insist on characterizing them all as "conspiracy theory" promoted by "troofers". And the problem is these facts do not go away just because you theorize about 10s of thousands of conspirators. Neither the 9/11 Commission or NIST is made up of 10s of thousands of conspirators. In fact one 9/11 Commissioner resigned calling it a scam and a former NIST employee publicly claims the NIST investigation was a scam.

    These scams were perpetrated no matter what else you or I or anyone else believes or theorizes.

    I would never deny the obvious. But my beliefs have nothing to do with the facts, whether they are correct or not. The fact is the Official Conspiracy Theory embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports is a massive scam, period.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PART 1

    The following was recently posted in another thread:

    So I decided to move this "discussion" where it properly belongs.

    First, I'd like to point out the fallacious claims:

    1. That the above 11 listed assumptions are mine. They are not, they were actually listed in a video presentation of a webinar narrated by Roland Angle called “A Critique of the NIST WTC Building Failure Reports and the Progressive Collapse Theory”. So anyone can review the video and judge for themselves if these 11 points have any basis in validity:



    2. That these 11 listed assumptions claimed to be erroneous are "garbage". Far from it, if any single one of these NIST assumptions is erroneous, it would invalidate NIST's entire WTC7 collapse theory formulated following their research and published in their “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7”. And that has far reaching and extremely serious implications. These implications should reveal themselves if the current grand jury investigation is not going to be compromised. Of course there are no guarantees because all of this information has been suppressed by the mainstream media over the last decade+.

    https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.NCSTAR.1a

    The painstaking analysis conducted by many experts over a number of years is being called “garbage”. Yet there is no similar criticism by the same person of the NIST “investigation” and subsequent report which has been proven to use manipulated structural diagrams and invented or distorted data designed to produce a predetermined theory peddled as fact.

    3. That one requires all the calculations and models and must verify them to be 100% correct before determining if all these 11 points are accurate or not. I’ve assessed that perhaps only two of these (#1 and #6) may be necessary if one is inclined to do so, but all of them? Absolutely not since 9 of these are not directly associated with calculations and/or models and are strictly based on plain common sense.

    4. That if the calculations and models cannot be verified, all 11 points are faith based. If anything, NIST refused to release data and models despite FOIA requests so one can ONLY accept NIST’s theory on faith. Exposing NIST’s erroneous assumptions as fact is not faith based, it’s simply fact that can be easily revealed and/or demonstrated as such.

    (continued)
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PART 2

    So as challenged and in pursuit of my personal objective (to expose the OCT as a criminal fraud), I will take each of the 11 assumptions and try to show how and why experts have concluded that correcting each of these invalidates NIST’s theoretical conclusions. I will of course source as much as I can.

    1. A girder bearing seat width of 12 inches not 11 inches at column 79 would prevent girder walk off.

    There is no controversy with respect to NIST’s original claim that the bearing seat width is actually 12 inches and not 11 inches as claimed in their report since NIST admitted their error when they issued an erratum. A video was posted in the very first post of this thread called “The Expanding Lie” which describes a physics equation used to determine linear expansion relative to temperature. The author shows a spreadsheet that depicts these expansion lengths at various temperatures. This is also repeated in the video called “Tangled Webs NIST and WTC7”. A similar explanation can be seen in the Roland Angle video. Anyone who is familiar with physics (or if not use Google to confirm) can verify the equation and anyone who understands spreadsheets can verify/confirm the resulting calculations. This is the first of two points that requires some familiarity with physics and math that anyone can verify the calculations for him/herself. I have worked with computer software, including programming and spreadsheets for decades so this is a simple task for me. NIST’s claim is that the temperature from the heat of the fire reached 600o and caused a thermal expansion of the girder of 5.5 inches. It is calculated that expansion cannot possibly exceed 5.7 inches (at 12 inches, a minimum of 6.1 inches would be required for potential walk off). As such walk off could not possibly take place and consequently there would be NO collapse even if all other aspects of NIST’s walk off theory was correct. It has to be noted that NIST modified the thermal expansion to 6.25 inches without any valid supporting evidence after being made aware of their “error”. Physics proves thermal expansion to 6.25 inches at 600o is simply impossible. Additionally, Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report claims that given the correct structural components and data, any thermal expansion would actually take place in the opposite direction (east) that NIST claims (west) and reach a maximum of 1.92 inches using SAP and 1.85 inches using ABAQUS. This NIST claim is not only impossible with respect to physics but also immaterial with respect to application of the correct structural components (see #2, #3, #4 and #7 below).




    2. The omitted stiffeners on girder A2001 at column 79 would have prevented the flange from folding and eliminated any chance of walk off.

    There is no controversy with respect to NIST’s omission of stiffeners in the structural drawings in their publication. These simply do not match the original Frankel drawings. NIST admitted that they omitted these structural components in a response letter but claimed the omission of the stiffener bears no consequence to their theory. A stiffener is a welded plate that greatly enhances the strength of the girder connection. When stiffeners are present, walk off is rendered impossible so NIST’s claim of no consequence is not valid. There are several detailed explanations with respect to the stiffener plates. These can be found in the video called “WTC7 – The Stiffener Plates Explained”, the Roland Angle video and Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report.



    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf

    3. The thermally expanded girder A2001 could not move past the column 79 side plate.

    Column 79 contained side plates on both sides of the column (see slides #30 and #32 of Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report). These side plates would have trapped the expanding girder and prevented any chance of walk off and subsequently made any chance of collapse as theorized by NIST impossible.

    4. There were shear studs on girder A2001 and this would cause the beams to buckle before pushing the girder off its seat.

    NIST’s final report claimed there were no shear studs even though NIST claimed there were shear studs in their earlier report. But the Frankel drawings that NIST used in their “investigation” depicted 3,986 shear studs per level. Shear studs would have prevented walk off and made any chance of collapse as theorized by NIST impossible. There is a video in the very first post in this thread that explains the shear studs issue in intricate detail, it’s called “Shear Ignorance” for anyone who requires a review.



    5. All west and south girder connections to column 79 were not broken down to the 6th floor.

    The NIST report claims that the girder connections to column 79 were broken down to the 6th floor. This claim does not have any valid supporting basis in fact and is contradicted by NIST’s own report (see Roland Angle video beginning at 24:00). And since according to the NIST report the primary cause of the collapse of WTC7 was due to the failure of column initiated by girder walk off (which as explained was not possible), none of these connections could have been broken as theorized by NIST anyway.

    (continued)
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2018
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PART 3

    6. A northeast corner floor failure could not cascade down eight floors so there is not enough energy to break through the girder connection on the next floor down.

    This point is the second of 2 points that does require the appropriate physics formula that calculates the amount of energy necessary to cause a girder connection failure and it is supplied in Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report. Anyone can verify the formula if one feels it’s necessary to so. Dr. Hulsey demonstrates via physics that the energy required to cause such failure was far too insufficient (see slides #44-#48 ).

    7. There were lateral support beams framing G3005 and they would have prevented it from buckling.

    NIST’s structural drawings shown in their report simply do not match the original Frankel drawings that NIST worked with which clearly show that there were lateral support beams. The missing lateral support beams are best explained by illustrations in slides #36-#38 of Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report.

    8. Beam and girder notching to simulate their buckling due to the fire in the model is not consistent with the time phased weakening fire would produce.

    NIST used data and structure that was inconsistent with reality but necessary to try to support its column 79 failure and subsequent collapse propagation theories. See Roland Angle video at 29:00.

    9. Evidence of temperatures high enough to melt steel as documented by FEMA was ignored.

    FEMA noted that physical evidence showed extremely high temperatures had been attained. Furthermore, there were many eyewitness claims of seeing molten steel, iron or metal that John Gross, a NIST lead engineer and spokesperson claimed he never heard of. This is despite the claim by NIST that they interviewed hundreds of eyewitnesses. So either NIST’s claim is false or those eyewitnesses were ignored. And furthermore, there is a photo of John Gross standing on a pile of WTC7 steel that clearly shows the effect that extremely high temperatures would produce on steel. See also Roland Angle video at 30:00.

    10. The NIST model shows radical deformation of the upper exterior as the east side interior collapses but this is not observed in actual footage of the video collapse.

    This is strictly observational. Anyone can plainly see that the NIST collapse model does not in any way resemble the actual collapse of WTC7 seen in multiple videos. As such NIST’s computer model has no basis in validity. See Roland Angle video at 32:15. IMO the computer generated collapse animation model published by NIST is intellectually insulting.

    11. A simultaneous free fall of all four corners of the roofline does have implications.

    There is no controversy with respect to this point. NIST published the fact that free fall indeed occurred for about 100 feet or 8 stories for a period of 2.3 seconds. NIST also claimed that fires lasted in one area for about 30 minutes then moved on to another area. Furthermore, observation showed that fires were scattered in different areas of WTC7 and that there were no fires in many parts of WTC7. In fact, no fires can be seen in the vast visible portion of WTC7 (3 sides seen on multiple videos) as it was descending. In order for WTC7 to descend uniformly at a rate indistinguishable from free fall (an appropriate description used by physics Professor David Chandler), it would be absolutely necessary for failure to occur simultaneously at the exact same level. This is simply not possible from fire alone. NIST did not address the ramifications of free fall other than claim it was stage 2 of a 3 part collapse stage. See Roland Angle video at 33:50. See also a lengthy article written by Professor David Chandler:

    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e

    So as demonstrated only two of these points may require calculation verification for a reader if necessary to avoid acceptance on faith. However as also explained, the rest of these points are strictly common sense and far from faith based. All these points are sourced from the NIST report itself which is publicly available. In technological terms most of them have long been analyzed and do fully expose NIST’s criminal fraud. A much more thorough detailed analysis will soon be available for peer review and the final publication will be entered into the court record as expert witness evidence/testimony.
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I was googling around to find more info on this guy...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...grees-with-citizen-investigation-team.548562/

    ...and I found this. At the 7:35 time mark he talks about NIST.

    DEETS - audio interview part 3/6



    I haven't listened to very much of the whole talk yet.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=DEETS+-+audio+interview+part+-+AE911Truth.org



    edit ten minutes later
    ---------------------

    This guy talks about NIST too.

    SheltonLankford, Lt. Col. USMC, Ret. - Statement in NY

    (11:05 time mark)
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deets was a NASA aeronautical engineer. Any engineer worth his salt understands the implication of a building descending symmetrically at free fall or near free fall unimpeded acceleration. This is very basic physics and the objective of every successful controlled demolition.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After reading many of the posts in this thread (I still haven't read all of them):

    https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/71yw9v/nist_versus_dr_leroy_hulsey_911_megathread/

    I find that several posters agree with me that Dr. Leroy Hulsey's preliminary study has not proven that fire alone did not cause the "collapse" of WTC7. What Dr. Hulsey did prove beyond any doubt is that NIST's "probable collapse initiation" theory is not valid and impossible. So it's possible that what Dr. Hulsey meant is that he has proven that NIST's fire alone hypothesis is false but his wording does not quite point to that.

    There are other issues that were brought out in the discussion thread (a year ago) such as flashover and gas temperatures being much higher than 600o. However the fact is that NIST chose 600o as a steady temperature and photo evidence shows that while fire may have affected the area that NIST chose for its failure hypothesis an hour earlier, it was out by the time WTC7 was destroyed. The 600o temperature was specifically chosen to try to achieve enough thermal expansion (which it did not anyway). Too high a temperature would have caused sagging and not enough expansion and too little would not have caused enough expansion.

    Other criticisms are that Dr. Hulsey did not model the entire building and that there were other errors in his research and that it was incomplete and the lack of promised transparency. However, even if true, none of these change the fact that NIST's hypothesis relies on missing stiffeners, missing shear studs, missing lateral support beams and missing side plates none of which were actually missing according to the original Frankel drawings from which NIST was working from. Any one of these missing structural components renders NIST's hypothesis invalid and impossible when applied. So it's clearly obvious NIST deliberately left these out in order to try to make their hypothesis "probable".

    Hopefully Hulsey's final report will be more detailed and more specific and any issues will shake out during the peer review process.

    But I do feel the discussion was technical and intelligent for the most part.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An interesting point was raised in the thread about Mick West and Metabunk. I have no way of verifying the claim nor do I care about the "debunking" guru OCT lovers use as their appeal to authority:

    Amazing how many times Metabunk has been cited here already. It's very far from a credible or impartial source.

    One of the first criticisms Metabunk tries to make of Dr Hulsey is that he hasn't released his research yet -- even though, as you say, we all know this is as iterim (sic) report -- without ever once reflecting on the fact that NIST has take (sic) steps to ensure it will never release its research.


    Mick West perpetually locks threads on Metabunk when the discussion starts to present him with difficult problems (he says this is because they go "off topic") and selectively bans or retroactively edits other users' posts if they make points he can't answer.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one seems to want to discuss this critical topic on an intelligent/technical level. Even the usual NIST defenders are afraid to tackle this issue. Their excuse is they're waiting for the final report even though it's not going to deviate significantly from Hulsey's preliminary report. So I'll bring an outside intelligent/technical discussion to this forum.

    Here's a post from a poster who claims to be a fire protection/mechanical engineer (I have no way of verifying his credentials) that describes (in general) Hulsey's study vs NIST perfectly:

    The value of this study is that it removes the study of the 9/11 failures from the realm of kookery and places it back in the realm of engineering analysis which is what has been lacking for the last 15 or more years. I know that the NIST studies were supposed to be that but they were not definitive. They made assumptions as Dr. Hulsey stated and they were essentially conducted to affirm a pre-determined conclusion and not to explore all possibilities or even be open in the sense that they would be led by the physics.

    Dr. Hulsey, alumni of UMR (Go Miners!), did the service of doing what NIST could not do because of their mandate and their status as a government agency. I don't know if anyone remembers but the release of the WTC7 report lagged the report for WTC1 and WTC2 by several years. The reason was that they were looking for a possible reason to explain the collapse where a collapse is so very anomalous. Steel frame buildings do not collapse due to fires alone. There is a long history of high rise fires that establish that. There was no structural damage due to the airplane impact that weakened the column system.

    Dr. Hulsey points out some obvious concerns early in the presentation.

    The major one is where are the fires and how large were they? The building was non-combustible construction type which means that the building itself would not contribute to a fire in a significant way. The fuel sources would be limited to surface finishes, carpeting, and furnishings. There was no jet fuel spread acting as an accelerant or fuel supply to raise temperature exposures. The calculated temperatures don't bring the structural steel members anywhere near failure points. To affirm the assumption that the limited fires brought the building down would require that one has to conclude that thermal expansion stressed the connections in such a way as to cause failure and progressive collapse. There is no other potential mechanism to bring about collapse with the assumptions NIST seemed to make.

    So if that is the mechanism that must be the reason the building came down, did the NIST engineers feel enough pressure to stack the model in such a way as to cause it to affirm the original assumptions? Dr. Hulsey in his analysis, demonstrates that the NIST analysis left out of their model critical structural elements (side plates and stiffeners) that would have prevented the buckling that stressed the connections that they claimed caused the collapse.

    This is what some expected and never had confirmed until now (this point is arguable since this issue was discovered long before Hulsey's study - see post #1 in this thread). If true, NIST committed engineering malpractice in releasing the study with the claim that it explained the failure. This new study is really huge in its implications because it basically calls the NIST WTC7 report a fraud even if the good doctor was too polite to say that.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One poster claims that the NIST report was reviewed by and published by the Journal of Structural Engineering in 2012. But on closer inspection a couple of authors of the review turn out to be Therese McAllister and John Gross, both were NIST employees at the time the review was published and John Gross was the lead engineer and spokesperson for NIST's WTC7 "investigation" and final report. 3 other contributing authors are employees of Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., a defense contractor. It will cost you $30.00 to download John Gross's review of his own work.

    https://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000398
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Addendum.

    The same poster later in the thread insists this was a peer review by JSE. This is 100% false for 2 reasons.

    1. There is no such thing as a self peer review. John Gross cannot peer review his own work.

    2. If NIST refuses to release EVERYTHING they used to arrive at their conclusion (citing that the public release would "jeopardize public safety") then peer review is impossible and all their work can only be taken on faith. And that is contrary to the scientific method and not valid science.

    The fact is none of NIST's work was ever peer reviewed and can't be for reason #2. And IMO the Journal of Structural Engineering should have either rejected the article for failure to provide supporting documentation or published it with a disclaimer that this it is not peer reviewable and that the author of the review is self-reviewing his work, which is of course a blatant conflict of interest.

    And that brings up Dr. Hulsey's concern that he could never be able to get his work published with any "prestigious" American industry publisher so he will be looking to have it published in a foreign publication. And further and even more concerning that JSE is potentially a biased/compromised publisher not to be trusted.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    JSE is a part of a library of literature from the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE).

    https://www.asce.org/publications/

    7. The NIST global collapse theory depends upon the ASCE-published progressive collapse theory by Zdenek Bazant. His theory has been shown to have erroneous input data rendering it non-viable as an explanation for the observed behavior of the vertical propagation. ASCE refuses to acknowledge the errors in the input data of Bazant’s theory.

    https://www.911tap.org/557-news-rel...udulent-paper-they-published-on-wtc-collapses

    And this is also why Dr. Hulsey either isn't going to be able to publish his work or his work will not be treated fairly by the ASCE.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Something I have not seen before (the full PDF document) and once again I'm not in a position to verify the claim. A poster in the thread has provided a link to a PDF file that contains correspondence with NIST with respect to a FOIA request for their data from their research into the destruction of WTC7. Of note is NIST's claim that they have submitted 8,910 files and withheld 3,370 files or 27% of "all responsive records". See below:

    January 6, 2010

    Dear Mr. [REDACTED],

    This letter is the final response to your February 4, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) #09-48 request to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in which you requested a copy of "Case B input and output from the ANSYS analysis as described on page 35 ofNCSTAR 1A, The Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Building 7."

    Enclosed you will find a disc that contains 8,910 files (approximately 73% of all responsive records) that can be released and are responsive to your request for Case B input and output from the ANSYS analysis. The files on the disc contain input files of a version of the 16-story ANSYS model of the World Trade Center (WTC) 7 structure, which does not include the connection models and was analyzed with service gravity loads, and Case B input temperature files.

    We are, however, withholding 3,370 files (approximately 27% of all responsive records. The NIST Director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety. This withheld data include remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS 16-story Case B collapse initiation model, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculation to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


    (See page 35 of the following PDF)

    http://www.governmentattic.org/4docs/NIST-Tracking-09-11_09-48_2008-2010.pdf
     

Share This Page