Update on the WTC 7 report release

UPDATE: The NIST 9/11 WTC 7 report was released Aug. 21, 2008. Read more about it here.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology now says that its draft report on the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse (officially entitled “WTC 7 Structural Analysis and Collapse Hypotheses”) will be released for public comment this fall. When I contacted the NIST press office this week, they told me that NIST plans to issue its final WTC report by the end of 2006.

This should bring relative closure to the scientific/engineering investigation of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack–and the additional lessons learned should aid in the design of future skyscrapers in a world where terrorism will remain an ugly fact of life.

Those 9/11 conspiracy theorists who continue to argue that the WTC 7 was destroyed by a rigged explosion (often claiming it was part of a sinister governmental scheme) won’t be satisfied; they’ll be angered by any report that doesn’t expose the alleged grand plot behind the tragic events of 9/11. Nonetheless, the NIST WTC 7 report should offer enough scientific detail to convince some of the well-meaning gullible (often found, sad to say, on American college campuses) to reject the full-blown paranoid fantasies about what happened.

There are several credible theories about the WTC 7 collapse (all of which involve physics, not fantasy). While the 47-story building wasn’t directly hit by the jetliners, falling debris from WTC 1 apparently started fires in WTC 7. To their credit, the scientists and engineers initially looking at this have admitted they aren’t sure how the fires caused the collapse. They will now look at several hypothesis and test models to try to find out what happened, relying on the scientific method.

A number of websites offer striking video of WTC 7 collapsing, and conspiracy proponents argue that buildings won’t implode so neatly unless there are demolition charges involved (the hapless Charlie Sheen raised these suspicions publicly); but Dr. Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor and engineer who studied the collapse of the Twin Towers has an explanation for this, one he gave NOVA a few years ago. (It also applies to WTC 7.)

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, “How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?” They said, “Oh, it’s really how you time and place the explosives.” I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that’s not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there’s no other way for them to go but down. They’re too big. With anything that massive — each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons — there’s nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

Eager’s “back-of-the-envelope” theory seems logical (you can find his original paper here and the NIST report on WTC 1 and WTC 2 here.) He also has some interesting things to say about the intensity of the fires in the WTC disaster.

The NIST WTC 7 report in the fall will no doubt shed more light on this aspect of the 9/11 tragedy. Applied Research Associates, Inc., the firm responsible for the draft report, will include the findings of structural engineers and physicists who have studied dam and building failures, and the results of a number of computer simulations and materials tests.

While the report will effectively end the scientific investigation of what happened at the World Trade Center in New York in mid-September 2001, we will continue to struggle for emotional closure over 9/11 and its aftermath. That will take much, much longer.



Copyright © 2006 Jefferson Flanders
All rights reserved

Add to Technorati Favorites!

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Update on the WTC 7 report release

  1. I AM SORRY YOU ARE NOT A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. IF YOU WERE, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TRAINING IN PHYSICS AND CHEMISTY. ALL OF YOUR FAKE SCIENTIST FRIENDS KEEP FORGETTING THAT ALL OF THE COLLAPSED BUILDINGS HAD STEEL SUPERSTRUCTURES WITHIN. IMPOSSIBLE TO COLLAPSE. IMPOSSIBLE TO “PANCAKE”, IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE STEEL TO MELT. EVEN IN 8.2 EARTHQUAKE, WITH FIRE AND TORNADO WINDS, THESE BUILDINGS COULD NOT HAVE COLLAPSED. YOUR WEBSITE IS FAKE, YOUR FRIENDS ARE FAKE, YOUR MATH IS WRONG, AND YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN AND PART OF THE PROBLEM. BE PART OF THE SOLUTION, DO THE WORLD A FAVOR, QUIT TRYING TO SELL US PISS AS LEMONADE.

  2. Dear John,

    I’m not selling anything…You will have access to the NIST WTC 7 report like any other American citizen and you can accept it or continue to believe that it is part of some monstrous conspiracy to hide the truth.

    No, I am not a structural engineer. But the scientific method is accessible even to the layman and it suggests that starting with a hypothesis and evidence and then replicating the “experiment” can lead to understanding.

    That’s what the NIST scientists did with the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and will also do with WTC 7.

    As to your steel melting claim, here is what Popular Mechanics had to say in its “Debunking the 9/11 Myths”:

    “Melted” Steel

    CLAIM: “We have been lied to,” announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. “The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.” The posting is entitled “Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC.”

    FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength–and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”

    “Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent.” NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

    But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

    “The jet fuel was the ignition source,” Williams tells PM. “It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.”

    You can find the entire article at:
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4

  3. […] A number of websites offer striking video of WTC 7 collapsing, and conspiracy proponents argue that buildings won’t implode so neatly unless there are demolition charges involved […] but Dr. Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor and engineer who studied the collapse of the Twin Towers has an explanation for this, one he gave NOVA a few years ago. (It also applies to WTC 7.) […]

    I reviewed the explanation given to NOVA. You are wrong; this explanation does *not* apply to the collapse of WTC 7. The NOVA explanation describes the collapse of the North and South Towers, and concludes that the aircraft impact to both these buildings played a vital role in comprising their structural integrity. This explanation is not transferable to WTC 7. WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft.

    A USA government contract company, Applied Research Associates, Inc., has been given the contract to investigate WTC 7’s collapse.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm

  4. Dear River,

    I would encourage you to reread my blog post. I specifically say that WTC 7 was NOT hit by the jetliners, but by falling debris.

    My point about Dr. Eager is that he notes that high-rise buildings can “fall in on themselves,” which is what happened with WTC 1, 2 and WTC 7.

    On your last comment: are you suggesting that since Applied Research Associates have been awarded government contracts in the past, that we can not believe whatever the results of their investigation? I disagree with that presumption.

    When the final NIST report on WTC 7 is released, let’s look at the facts, the analysis and the conclusions first.

    BTW, here’s the Popular Mechanic article explanation for the WTC 7 collapse.

    WTC 7 Collapse
    CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: “The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one.”

    FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA’s preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. “The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,” NIST’s Sunder tells PM. “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom–approximately 10 stories–about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.” NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7’s upper stories and its southwest corner.

    NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST’s analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of “progressive collapse,” a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or “kinks,” in the building’s facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

    According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building’s failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” Sunder notes, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.”

    There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building’s other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

    Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. “There was no firefighting in WTC 7,” Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: “Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time.”

    WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors–along with the building’s unusual construction–were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

  5. Stuff like this always cracks me up. As if scientists and engineers are so noble that they can’t be bought or coerced into fixing data. ‘Proving scientifically’ that the buildings collasped soley by fire does not rule out all the other supporting evidence for a conspiracy. It’s a small part that unfortunately too many people focus on. That’s a mistake, because you will never convince anyone that you know more than a scientist or engineer. Unless, of course, you are a scientist or engineer not on a government or corporate payroll. Unlike all the folks at NIST.

  6. Dear Brandon,

    And where is the evidence of bribery or coercion?

    My experience is that many scientists tend to be independent and resistant to pressure; witness all the stories of scientists complaining about global warming reports being edited by Bush administration appointees. If there was attempted coercion, we would hear about it….

    JF

  7. >

    WTC#7 sustained a lot of damage from the collapse of WTC1. The top of WTC1 didn’t fall symmetrically. It tipped over a bit before the whole building gave way. This sent a lot of debris towards WTC7, which sustained damage to the front of the building up to the 26th floor.

  8. Well when that report comes out in the fall of last year, it will prove you nutters wrong with bona fide science. I wonder what could possibly have happened to delay it? Surely with an issue as important as 9/11 the report should be made as soon as possible. 5.5 years and counting, they must be making sure its really thorough and scientific…..

  9. The Popular Mechanics – yellow journalism Hearst rag has been debunked so many times and so effectively I wonder that any thinking person still refers to it.

    NIST’s 10,000 page report has also been thoroughly studied and, interestingly, it’s conclusions ignore the data derived from its own empirical studies as well as reams of testimony and data from other sources that did not fit into the official government conspiracy theory….and not only does NIST not make the case for collapse initiation, it purposefully ignores (avoids discussing) the collapse itself.

    Further, focusing on the WTC demolitions ignores the huge mass of other data, other events on that date that all point to complicity of some elements of the government and perhaps forces from other nations as well.

    9/11 was simply another in that long long list of false flag/’psyop’ operations that governments have used to terrorize their own populations into supporting increased militarization, wars against other nations and, in most cases, increased fascism within their own borders. That has certainly been the case in the U.S. with the derogation of Constitutional rights via the obscene Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Warner Defense Authorization Act, Presidential Directives (esp. #51) and now the new ‘thought crimes’ bill sitting in the senate.

    Remember, as well, that the military and logistical forces had already been put in place to invade Afghanistan -prior- to 9/11. The plans for invasions were on Bush’s desk ‘prior- to 9/11, other countries were aware (such as Australia) months – prior – to 9/11 that the U.S. intended to invade Afghanistan in Oct. ’01. The Taliban refused to allow Enron and the oil companies to build the pipeline across Afghanistan to carry the recently discovered 500 billion barrels of oil and natural gas out of the Caspian Sea basin… too bad for them, eh? Oh, and while peaking oil (and other natural) resources were certainly driving the desire to fabricate an excuse for invasion and war, it must be noted as that the CIA certainly did not like the Taliban’s curtailing the opium crops… profits from which had supported CIA black ops for years.

    Oh, and by the way, the Patriot Act was written before 9/11 as well. And the senators’ offices to receive anthrax were those of Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.… both objecting to the Patriot Act and standing in the way of its passage. Go Figure.

    All of this information is well referenced and available for perusal. You might begin with Paul Thompson’s timeline and/or many other journals. But there is so much well-documented information available that it is hard to ignore. But there will always be those who hesitate to look because they are afraid to see. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful psychological force supporting denial. But interestingly, millions upon millions of people in the U.S. and world wide are beginning to open their eyes and actually look around themselves…. and what they are seeing about the U.S. and allied transnational corporate and financial powers ain’t a pretty sight.

    Only the Mockingbirds (remember the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird – it hasn’t gone away you know), Pentagon operatives (see Mike Whitney’s and BBC FOIA obtained data in – ‘The Pentagon’s War on the Internet’) argue in support of the government’s ‘official’ conspiracy theory any more. Oh, and perhaps some rubes.

    Always ask, cui bono? And there is only one answer.

    I’m sorry Jefferson. You just strike me as terribly naive and woefully uninformed.

    dr. r.w., forensic neuropsychologist, neuroscientist

  10. There is plenty of evidence building 7, like buildings 1 and 2 were intentionally destroyed by explosives or other means. Also, there are plenty of suspects besides simply “the government.” Claiming that Bush is too dumb to have done it, is overly simplistic and avoids the issue. Read Peter Dale Scott for more information. Also, the destruction of the buildings are only the tip of the iceburg with regard to 9/11. Why didn’t the secret service immediately remove Bush from the school? Why do Cheney and Mineta’s testimony disagree? Why does the FBI claim to have no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11? Why did Bhutto say Bin Laden was dead? Why did the former president of Italy say 9/11 was an inside job? Why did those responsible for the “failures” get promotions? Why do many family members of those who died believe 9/11 was an inside job? Why was the Patriot Act and plans to invade Afghanistan drawn up before 9/11? Why was the Pentagon totally undefended? Why were the CIA tapes destroyed? Why haven’t we found Bin Laden? Why was Iraq linked to 9/11? What is COG? All of this is relevant. And none of it has been answered.

  11. For some reason you keep reffering to popular mechanics on this wtc 7. They are not experts BTW. And their reasoning as to what happened is false. If you would like some proof you(and everyone else) can just listen to the most recent meeting of the NIST investagors discussing the work on the progress of their report, held Dec 18 2007 The theory that popular mechanics puts foward in regards to the fuel tanks is shot down. The reason the building crumbled into nothing is just normal building fires. And these fires lasted no more than 20 minutes in any particular spot. Here it for yourself it’s at the 19:00 mark, and the 20 minutes thing is around 1:01 mark.

    http://origin.eastbaymedia.com/~nist/asx/nist-wtc-121807.asx

  12. BTW..I think that normal building fires lasting no more than 20 minutes in any particular spot causing a 47 story skyscraper to freefall into a pile of rubble is going to be a tough sell.

  13. This is a fantasy blog. Flanders, you do not want to be on the wrong side of this issue when it reaches critical mass, and that time is fast approaching. Visit Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth, watch Richard Gage’s presentation, and join the millions of true patriots brave enough to alter their world view.

  14. To recent commenters (R.W., Beecham, James D. and R.J.),

    As discussed in my latest blog post (Jan. 4, 2008) on the WTC 7 report, NIST’s working hypothesis is the following: fire and/or debris caused damage to a critical column and triggered a progressive and “disproportionate collapse of the entire structure”—essentially that the wounded building fell in on itself.

    I am content to wait until the report is released to see the evidence that NIST provides, which will include computer simulations of the entire collapse, from initiation to completion.

    As to the other comments, I think columnist Matt Taibbi has provided a hilarious send-up of 9/11 conspiracy theories at AlterNet. Taibbi imagines the “conspirators” George Bush, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney plotting the 9/11 attacks (as many conspiracy buffs believe they did):

    RUMSFELD: Well, I’m sold on the idea. Let’s call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington DC fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI-5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we’ll need to pull this off. There isn’t a moment to lose!

    BUSH: Don’t forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They’ll be thrilled to know that we’ll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we’re going to make martyrs — why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn’t the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

    Taibbi captures the absurd “logic” behind these theories, and I am beginning to believe that humor may be the best way to deal with them.

    Jefferson

  15. That was pretty funny. Hey I used to make fun of the 911truthers too, and tell them Bush was the 20th hijacker and the secret service had to restrain him from flying Air force one into the sears tower. But I did the research and yea there is allot of BS to wade through but there is just to much evidence, that isn’t BS. You don’t really think Al Qaida had a multi million dollor bioweapons research facility in America before 9/11 do you? I wonder where that anthrax came from? Come on…..and I sent you the link…..NORMAL BUILDING FIRES caused the initial failure to start the collapse of the WTC building 7 is the current working hypothesis. A little hard to believe.

  16. Yo Jeff….U R AN IDIOT!! OBVIOUSLY PAID BY SOMEONE TO SPEW PURE GREEN PEA SLOP!! I AM A 20 YEAR VETERAN WEAPONS EXPERT USAF FIGHTER PILOT INSTRUCTOR and 911 TRUTHER!! THE ONE MUNITION THAT THE JOINT MUNITIONS EFFECTIVENESS MANUAL SAYS NOT TO USE TO DEMOLISH A STEEL/CONCRETE BUILDING IS NAPALM (JELLIED JET FUEL)!!! OH AND BY THE WAY, NIST HAS FORMALLY ACCEPTED EVIDENCE FROM ME CONCERNING TEMPERATURES, EXPLOSIONS, COUNT DOWNS, PRIOR NEWS MEDIA COVERAGE OF A BUILDING COLLAPSED THAT HAS NOT YET DONE SO….WHAT, DO U BELIEVE IN TIME WARPS TOO (WHO IS FROM A DIFFERENT PLANET HERE?)?? OH YEAH, I ALSO GAVE THEM SOME DETAILED INFO ON SILVERSTEIN, THE TERM PULL IT AND HIS INSURANCE FRAUD GAMES AND MARVIN BUSHS QUEER INVOLVEMENT IN SECURITY FOR THESE BUILDINGS…I READ SOME OF YOUR OTHER ARTICLES….I HAVE TO COMPLIMENT YOUE ON ONE THING..YOU ARE CONSISTENT!!

  17. Mr. Razer,

    Ignoring the invective, here is a response to your claims:

    Whatever the “Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual” may say about napalm is immaterial. NIST’s working hypothesis is that falling debris and fire caused the collapse of WTC 7; it may be that fuel within the building contributed to the weakening of the structure.

    I am assuming you are referring to the BBC video, which had a commentator saying WTC 7 had fallen before it actually had, which somehow proves that there was a conspiracy. Wrong. Here are the points the BBC’s Richard Porter, head of World News makes:

    1. We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

    2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

    3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

    4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.

    5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… ”

    His remarks are at:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

    As to the Larry Silverstein “pull it” quote: he has clarified that he was talking about pulling the firefighters away from the building; and demolition industry experts all say that it is not a term used for controlled demolition.

    I’ll take your comment about my consistency as a compliment.

    JF

  18. Too the author, nice try. You and NIST are on thin ice. Several hundred thousand tons of evidence will prove you wrong.

    A review of thousands of photographs, especially from illicit pictures taken by engineers, EMT’s and firefighters who worked on the scene for months, show some interesting details.

    Evidence of explosives recorded in the removal of the red oxide paint coatings which existed on all steel within WTC1 and 2 (not sure about WTC7, and fewer pictures exist of the steel). The paint coatings were hit by high speed, high temperature gases as well as a slurry of concrete dust. This left tell tail signs of removal of the paint as well as corrosive effects of the elements involved in the explosions and subsequent exposure to rain. The effects of explosives vs fire damage are quite different on the structural steel and paint coatings. There are also numerous pictures available which show another damage morphology which appears to be consistent with use of thermite. This could be described as steel beams and plate structural materials with irregular burned holes as well as remains of slag and burned paint (differentiated from heat/flame exposed steel where the steel never approached it’s melting temperatures).

    The evidence of a “structural” collapse vs explosive disassembly would be expected to be quite different. Joint boundaries in a collapse could be expected to show stress strain patterns in the surrounding steel as well as in the paint coatings. While these do exist just by nature of the complex structure and limited explosives used, we still would not expect to see the scrubbed steel which are present.

    The fact that shortly after the tragedy, it rained, this helped to expose the evidence of the paint coating removal. While the entire contents of the buildings were reduced to dust, the steel remained as evidence. The paint coating might be compared to a “carbon paper” leaving the patterns of the events which may have happened in milliseconds.

    Collections exist on the web which demonstrate the paint coatings retain useful details of what happened at the WTC on 9-11-2001. Please add to this theory at will. Any contributions welcome.

    Flashes

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri9Uz1Wa-Xc
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-ieXC_EGV3s
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fWi1fmxCGAw
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4NGkBi3eXM
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0xu0MKQTI
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fdyt7M37dJg
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CczO4kKjpPY
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yUnqUt0Ay8Y
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ktTFn_A0A6M
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BCQyxyV7Y4U
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1QMpRX-rEA4
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hShLw98qyew
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BvvUKZc58Gc
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=stqHETs4qt8
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2qYxWI38Q
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=soRbQvCLlco
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CBWm5Xs6p98

    Explosions

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5Sla9MjdtZ4
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0HYqsWapo2M
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JmQE1z_ro6U
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uthrDvlBC9E
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7nqIf3Pazxc
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PGRWQCTFKG8
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GGBIa4IznTU
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zuq0ANHxvlM
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B9OpZjlmIeI
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ3SHp-Lmew
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LURmSctrNjI
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=drjcERodJOk
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U90ySUwX-xA
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ynaJbJKKtBY
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qraALi7Flnc
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jrUosvSNLC

Comments are closed.