insane_alien Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 well it only takes a short displacement for concrete to shatter. W=F*D the force would have to be a reasonable size and the weight of the impact of a large chunk of building would be capable of providing many thousands of times that force. but since the displacement is small then the work done will be small.
Babar Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Osama has never claimed responsibility for the events of 911. There is no evidence to this day to connect Osama with events on 911. Here is the FBI list of alleged crimes committed by Osama. Note, 911 is not even mentioned. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm Actually OBL claimed responsibility in a video sent to al Jazeera in November 2004, transcript available at http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403. al Jazeera obviously think it is genuine. Interesting that conspiracists think 9/11 was inside job by the US government but that government cannot get the FBI to ascribe it to OBL on their website!
spivver Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 well it only takes a short displacement for concrete to shatter. W=F*D the force would have to be a reasonable size and the weight of the impact of a large chunk of building would be capable of providing many thousands of times that force. but since the displacement is small then the work done will be small. Forgive me for any possible misunderstanding here Alien, but it has been over 35 years ago that I studied physics, admittedly only to lower university level. Now when I studied the equation 'work = force x distance', my understanding was that this pertained to the work done moving an object, not the pulverisation of it. I seem to remember that we moved bricks, not smashed them into dust. I'll let the next man I see breaking up concrete in the street with a pneumatic hammer know that he is wasting his time, there is such little work to be done. Now another point regarding pulverisation. All you eminent scientists keep telling we "conspiracy nuts" (as Alien likes to refer to us as) that the steel in the columns was so weakened by fire that they simply gave up all their strength, and hence the upper floors could simply collapse through them at near free-fall speeds. But surely one of Newton's laws is that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. A car colliding head on into a parked stationary car will have both their fronts smashed in, is that not so? Now why is it that all your hypotheses seem to be based on just the lower part of the building disintegrating (that is, I assume until the top part of the building hit the floor). Would it not be reasonable to assume that, due to heat rising, the top falling part of the buildings were fiery hot (and we did see smoke coming from the top parts). However your hypothesis assumes that all these upper floors remain intact. But, if a lower floor they hit was pulverised (so dissipating much energy), then why shouldn't the bottom floor of the upper falling part also pulverise? So to take this question further, if the upper floors were also pulverising, then at what stage could the mass become so insubstantial that they could not break through any more floors below. Remember, the lower floors weren't heated to that degree, after all, fire-fighters and people were in the building, and survived (on that note, see my comment below regarding a witness in the building) If there were say 20 floors above, and 80 below, would that not make the general pancaking hypothesis a nonsense, bearing in mind I saw substantial pulverisation of the towers as they fell, indeed, almost all the material in the towers was reduced to dust!! Perhaps you eminent scientists will tell me that what I saw was not what I saw. So pray, and going back to my main point here, from the original finite potential energy of the pre-falling buildings, just where did all this energy come from to smash its way through a building, pulverising all the concrete in its way, throwing out huge clouds of concrete dust, not to mention the forcible ejection of steel sideways, sometimes for many metres, and all this done taking 1.8 seconds (using Alien's calculations) longer than if it were falling through a vacuum. And what energy made the molten pools of steel? For they were steel, not aluminium as someone keeps kidding here? Actually, I have a little confession to make here, not all of my arguments and thoughts are original, see http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml. Now I know that you will simple dismiss this as another "conspiracy site" and hence dodge the issue, but I have had such a struggle in my own mind to counter this physics, which has been written in laymens' language, indeed, I am minded to agree with it completely. So just where are the calculations on this page so in error? Now my comment regarding a witness in the building. I have a Mr William Rodriguez coming to my home to stay this coming week-end. You may have heard of him, if not google it, or else visit our website at http://www.cornwall911truth.info. He entered the North Tower three times, opening stairwell doors, helping firefighters get quite a way up the building, letting many people escape. decorated a hero even by George Bush, shall I ask him just how hot the interior of the North Tower got?? I'll let you know his answer, won't be until next Monday though, so you'll have to be a little patient, just like I am being patient eagerly waiting for Capn's arguments and counter figures for the two papers I have referred him to.
urchin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Actually OBL claimed responsibility in a video sent to al Jazeera in November 2004, transcript available at http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403. al Jazeera obviously think it is genuine. Interesting that conspiracists think 9/11 was inside job by the US government but that government cannot get the FBI to ascribe it to OBL on their website! So it took 3 years for him to confess to the crime. Here is another video released in December 2001 also claiming responsibility. Found by the CIA. an obvious fake. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2065744174333803429&q=video+osama+911&total=2837&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5 The CIA controls al qaeda, trained and funded them. Here... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3975852998814570911&q=al+qaeda++cia+connection&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
urchin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 4-Ton Girders found 190m from towers. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6035795349340615832&q=horizontal+911&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3
insane_alien Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Forgive me for any possible misunderstanding here Alien, but it has been over 35 years ago that I studied physics, admittedly only to lower university level. Now when I studied the equation 'work = force x distance', my understanding was that this pertained to the work done moving an object, not the pulverisation of it. I seem to remember that we moved bricks, not smashed them into dust. I'll let the next man I see breaking up concrete in the street with a pneumatic hammer know that he is wasting his time, there is such little work to be done. okay, take a thin(-ish) plate of glass or ceramic and some thick working gloves. put the plate on two separated bricks. take your hand and apply a force. try to see how far you have to move it before it shatters. the same principle applies as concrete can shatter like glass, it has a greater leeway before it will shatter but its still quite small. once it starts to shatter it then doesn't need much energy input. and, just because a workman has to use a pneumatic drill since it would be hopeless to try a constant force approach with out sending him skyward which then involves a lot of effort does not mean that its outwith the potential work of a building collapsing. you can't compare the two scenarios, different type of force, different scale of force, different scale. infact the only thing the same is that concrete gets broke. ...hence the upper floors could simply collapse through them at near free-fall speeds. But surely one of Newton's laws is that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. A car colliding head on into a parked stationary car will have both their fronts smashed in, is that not so? i've proven that even using the times YOU gave for collapse they fell nowhere near freefall acceleration. 70% of freefall acceleration is NOT NEAR freefall. stop stating this as fact its been proven wrong. the 30% reduction in acceleration went towards pulverization and resistance from the standing structure. Now why is it that all your hypotheses seem to be based on just the lower part of the building disintegrating (that is, I assume until the top part of the building hit the floor) no, it relies on the fact that the bottom part disintegrates WHEN the top part of the building hits it. it really doesn't matter what happened to it before (nothing). Would it not be reasonable to assume that, due to heat rising, the top falling part of the buildings were fiery hot (and we did see smoke coming from the top parts). However your hypothesis assumes that all these upper floors remain intact. they only needed to remain reasonably intact for the first drop of a couple of floors then they only need to stay roughly as a concentrated mass. they could even behave like a viscous liquid and it would still work(thats actually what happened, you see debris flowing over the side). But, if a lower floor they hit was pulverised (so dissipating much energy), then why shouldn't the bottom floor of the upper falling part also pulverise? yes, it would, could and did. though, it doesn't dissipate nearly as much energy as you seem to imagine it did. i have shown why. So to take this question further, if the upper floors were also pulverising, then at what stage could the mass become so insubstantial that they could not break through any more floors below well, seeing as the mass didn't just disappear when the floors disintegrated it actually gained mass. that would cause it to disintegrate the floor below even easier and gain more mass, and go through the floor below even easier and gain more mass and... till it hits the ground. of course, there is the fact that debris spilled over the side, this would imply that it would reach a equilibrium mass and reach a terminal velocity. it might even get stopped. although, we do not have a 10000 story building to test it on. and even if we did we wouldn't be alllowed to test it. If there were say 20 floors above, and 80 below, would that not make the general pancaking hypothesis a nonsense, bearing in mind I saw substantial pulverisation of the towers as they fell, indeed, almost all the material in the towers was reduced to dust!! Perhaps you eminent scientists will tell me that what I saw was not what I saw. why would it make it nonsense? its perfect conditions for pancaking to occur. So pray, and going back to my main point here, from the original finite potential energy of the pre-falling buildings, just where did all this energy come from to smash its way through a building, pulverising all the concrete in its way, throwing out huge clouds of concrete dust, not to mention the forcible ejection of steel sideways, sometimes for many metres, the potential energy, although finitite, was enough. if you want to be pernickity then this potential energy was put into the towers by the cranes that lifted the material up. And what energy made the molten pools of steel? For they were steel, not aluminium as someone keeps kidding here? chemical energy from fires likely. could potentially have been shock heating as well. Actually, I have a little confession to make here, not all of my arguments and thoughts are original, see http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml. Now I know that you will simple dismiss this as another "conspiracy site" and hence dodge the issue, but I have had such a struggle in my own mind to counter this physics, which has been written in laymens' language, indeed, I am minded to agree with it completely. So just where are the calculations on this page so in error? well it does use a number of logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies. also, when translating science to laymens terms there is something lost in the translation. when you get to a certain level of science (like fracture mechanics for instance) you need to have a certain level of knowledge before hand for you to actually understand what happens. without this knowledge you can think you understand it, chances are you got it wrong. shall I ask him just how hot the interior of the North Tower got?? go ahead not that it makes a blind bit of difference, he wasn't up at the heart of the fire now was he. don't care what temp it was at the bottom. could have been a chilly -40*C and it wouldn't have mattered
urchin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 No one is saying they were full.....they did however have a lot more than the little bit needed to land. the designers didn't anticipate the jets being fully fueled which is why the fire proofing failed on the structure(appart from being torn off.) if the jets had been coming into land then they would have stayed standing. and to be fair, the did survive the strike, just not the fire. By the way
insane_alien Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 fine i chose my wording badly. the jets had just taken off not that long ago. they had enough fuel for the trip they were undertaking. they were also considerably bigger than the 707-300's the towers were designed to withstand and they were travelling faster than the 180mph factored into the design.
spivver Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Insane, did the concrete floors crack, or did they pulverise into dust? Never before have I read such poppycock as your last posting, sorry buddy.
insane_alien Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 they pulverised into chunks and dust. i see you have provided an extremely indepth response as to why my posts were poppycock. but, i feel that for some strange reason unbeknown to me that you have not really proven me wrong.
urchin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 okay, take a thin(-ish) plate of glass or ceramic and some thick working gloves. put the plate on two separated bricks. take your hand and apply a force. try to see how far you have to move it before it shatters. the same principle applies as concrete can shatter like glass, it has a greater leeway before it will shatter but its still quite small. once it starts to shatter it then doesn't need much energy input. and, just because a workman has to use a pneumatic drill since it would be hopeless to try a constant force approach with out sending him skyward which then involves a lot of effort does not mean that its outwith the potential work of a building collapsing. you can't compare the two scenarios, different type of force, different scale of force, different scale. in fact the only thing the same is that concrete gets broke. i've proven that even using the times YOU gave for collapse they fell nowhere near freefall acceleration. 70% of freefall acceleration is NOT NEAR freefall. stop stating this as fact its been proven wrong. the 30% reduction in acceleration went towards pulverization and resistance from the standing structure. no, it relies on the fact that the bottom part disintegrates WHEN the top part of the building hits it. it really doesn't matter what happened to it before (nothing). they only needed to remain reasonably intact for the first drop of a couple of floors then they only need to stay roughly as a concentrated mass. they could even behave like a viscous liquid and it would still work(thats actually what happened, you see debris flowing over the side). yes, it would, could and did. though, it doesn't dissipate nearly as much energy as you seem to imagine it did. i have shown why. well, seeing as the mass didn't just disappear when the floors disintegrated it actually gained mass. that would cause it to disintegrate the floor below even easier and gain more mass, and go through the floor below even easier and gain more mass and... till it hits the ground. of course, there is the fact that debris spilled over the side, this would imply that it would reach a equilibrium mass and reach a terminal velocity. it might even get stopped. although, we do not have a 10000 story building to test it on. and even if we did we wouldn't be alllowed to test it. why would it make it nonsense? its perfect conditions for pancaking to occur. Taking this into consideration. Why are so many of the steel girders in reasonably good condition at the base. Apart from being cut. After all they must have been at the point where the greatest amount of mass and energy was concentrated. If it was a pancake collapse http://www.european911citizensjury.com/9-11%20-%20Evidence%20of%20thermite-cut%20columns-e-indicated.jpg http://www.european911citizensjury.com/9-11%20-%20Evidence%20of%20thermite-cut%20columns-b-indicated.jpg http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC-Evidence%20of%20thermite%20on%20column-indicated-b.jpg
insane_alien Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 there a number of reasons why the could still be standing, they are the strongest parts of the building and they are at ground level. this means the debris would not have the chance to knock them about as much. also, they never fell any distance. its the same principle as how a long straw is easy to bend if you push in on both ends but with a short straw its much harder. anything else?
urchin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 fine i chose my wording badly. the jets had just taken off not that long ago. they had enough fuel for the trip they were undertaking. they were also considerably bigger than the 707-300's the towers were designed to withstand and they were travelling faster than the 180mph factored into the design. How much bigger is considerably. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html
insane_alien Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 a couple of 10's of thousands of lbs. though the biggest difference was the impact velocity. that would have thron the energy of impact up immensely.
urchin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 hey insane_alien. If they decide to rebuild the twin towers. They could use thin- ish bits of glass straws and some bricks. Should save them some cash.
Tree99 Posted June 18, 2007 Author Posted June 18, 2007 While everyone is talking about the 'pancaking' collapse, which has been re-dubbed 'progressive' collapse, keep in mind that this hypothesis is completely unproven, since NIST only took it's simulations up to the initiation of collapse. Yes that's right, amazingly the $20 million NIST report did not even attempt to explain the global collapses. They only took their study to the "initiation of collapse". Then we are told "global collapse ensued" as if it could not be otherwise. A couple of quotes from the NIST report “The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower … it does not actually include the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached” (NIST p80) “The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable i.e. was poised for collapse” (NIST, p142). Now that's strange. Why would they not want to progress their simulation through to global collapse? surly they would want to test the theory of 'progressive' collapse, is that not in the remit of science, to test theories, demonstrate repeatability? However, instead of producing a full simulation of the global collapse, NIST relies purely on the mathematical hypothesis put forward by Dr Brazant, but without actually verifying the suitability of application of that hypothesis to WTC 1 & 2. That seems very strange. The following two papers discuss the theory put forward by Dr Brazant: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf and http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154/print So remember, NIST has no evidence to suggest that the theoretical model of progressive collapse applies to WTC 1 & 2, because this theory has never been simulated under the conditions of WTC 1 & 2. And as for WTC7, nearly 6 years after the collapse the best thing the official reports can do to explain it is to say “The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” Could NIST do any better?...... well, NO is the answer to that. I'll quote this extract from Dr Jones After the NIST final report on WTC7 was already long overdue, they solicited proposals for someone else to study the collapse of building 7. The grant went to ARA in New Mexico, and here is the solicitation that went out from NIST regarding the collapse of Building 7: “Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) at the World Trade Center Building Seven.” We want to understand the collapse of this building, yet NIST is asking whoever accepts the contract to put blinders on and only consider “floors 8 to 46.” That, to me, is not a very scientific way to proceed. As a scientist, what does this make me want to do? Of course I want to know, “what happened below floor 8? Why should I not consider what happened below floor 8, or above floor 46?” Can anyone explain why NIST should NOT want to run global collapse simulations of WTC 1 & 2 applying Dr Brazant's mathematical model, and why NIST wants to limit the outsourced investigation of WTC7 to floors 8 through to 46?
insane_alien Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Now that's strange. Why would they not want to progress their simulation through to global collapse? surly they would want to test the theory of 'progressive' collapse, is that not in the remit of science, to test theories, demonstrate repeatability? because their primary aim was to find out why it collapsed. we know how it collapsed. we seen it. Can anyone explain why NIST should NOT want to run global collapse simulations of WTC 1 & 2 applying Dr Brazant's mathematical model, and why NIST wants to limit the outsourced investigation of WTC7 to floors 8 through to 46? because we have already seen what happened. we don't really need a model of it. this was not the primary aim in any case. to do so would have been a waste of money.
Tree99 Posted June 18, 2007 Author Posted June 18, 2007 because their primary aim was to find out why it collapsed. we know how it collapsed. we seen it. 'insane_alien' seeing something happen does not translate into knowing how it happens, we have to be able to explain how it happend and then test that explanation in order to verify it. Running a simulation to the initiation of collapse does not explain how it collapsed, nor does relying on an untested mathematical theory. If your studying a scientific discipline you should understand the importance of this concept better then most. because we have already seen what happened. we don't really need a model of it. this was not the primary aim in any case. to do so would have been a waste of money. NIST’s mandate was made clear in the NCST Act: to “establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure.” See 15 U.S.C. § 7301(b)(2)(A). Implicit in the foregoing section of the NCST Act is that the failure of the entire building must be explained. So I will restate the questions you just dodged: Can anyone explain why NIST should NOT want to run global collapse simulations of WTC 1 & 2 applying Dr Brazant's mathematical model, and why NIST wants to limit the outsourced investigation of WTC7 to floors 8 through to 46?
insane_alien Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 its in the mandate you quoted there establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure. causes, not effects. we know the effects. we seen them. all they had to do was get to the point where the building started to collapse and then the rest was inevitable. to model the collapse itself would have been superfluous, a waste of resources and outwith the scope of the inquiry. by the way, spivver, still waiting for reasons why my post was poppycock.
spivver Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 okay, take a thin(-ish) plate of glass or ceramic and some thick working gloves. put the plate on two separated bricks. take your hand and apply a force. try to see how far you have to move it before it shatters. the same principle applies as concrete can shatter like glass, it has a greater leeway before it will shatter but its still quite small. once it starts to shatter it then doesn't need much energy input. and, just because a workman has to use a pneumatic drill since it would be hopeless to try a constant force approach with out sending him skyward which then involves a lot of effort does not mean that its outwith the potential work of a building collapsing. you can't compare the two scenarios, different type of force, different scale of force, different scale. infact the only thing the same is that concrete gets broke. It's poppycock because you have not even started to address just how much energy would be needed to break up the concrete, pulverising it into dust. I'm not talking about breaking a ceramic tile in two. It's poppycock because you and your eminent scientific colleagues were earlier arguing that steel weakens at high temperatures, now it seems it can do so at -40* or whatever temperature you quoted. Actually, it is quite clear that you are making things up as you go along. Not very scientific. I won't bother with wasting my time with the rest of your student drivel in that posting. I have to work to earn a living. And maybe you should do much more research into NIST before you reply to Tree.
Tree99 Posted June 18, 2007 Author Posted June 18, 2007 its in the mandate you quoted there.....causes, not effects. we know the effects. we seen them. all they had to do was get to the point where the building started to collapse and then the rest was inevitable. to model the collapse itself would have been superfluous, a waste of resources and outwith the scope of the inquiry. According to your logic 'insane_alien' there did'nt need to be any investigations at all, you would ask that we should simply be happy that we observed two planes hit the towers and then they fell down. Cause and effect explained purley on the observations of the human eye. And to suggest that explaining the colapse of the towers would be a "waste of resources" is ridiculous. Three structures collapsed completly that day, and you don't think it's important to know how those collpases were propegated? Explanation of global collapse validates the hypothesis put forward for the initiation of collapse. establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure. So this includes explaining how the building failed globaly, not just stating how it was initiated, as this does not describe the cause of the rest of the buildings faliure. If it had said "establish the faliure of the floors where the planes had impacted" then that would be what NIST has given us, but this would not explain how the rest of the building failed.
Babar Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In reply to a number of points that have been made: There is no evidence whatever that the CIA funded al Qaeda at any stage, given OBL's hatred of America it is very unlikely he would have accepted such help, even if he needed it, which as a very wealthy man, he did not. The huge clouds of dust produced when the towers fell were probably mostly gypsum which crumbles very easily, rather than concrete. The story of molten metal beneath the rubble is hearsay anyway, and certainly no one could tell what metal it was.
insane_alien Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 It's poppycock because you have not even started to address just how much energy would be needed to break up the concrete, pulverising it into dust. I'm not talking about breaking a ceramic tile in two. the failure modes are nearly identical the cracks propagate on their own all the energy required is enough for the initial displacement. i cannot address the energies involved with any great accuracy because i know neither the average size of the chunks, and mechanical properties of the floor. but a rough estimate would be easily covered by the 30% reduction in acceleration. also, i imagine the blocks of concrete themselves dropping would cause a good deal of pulverisation. it could be said that the onus is on you to provide evidence that the energy involved was not capable of causing the level of disintigration observed. It's poppycock because you and your eminent scientific colleagues were earlier arguing that steel weakens at high temperatures, now it seems it can do so at -40* or whatever temperature you quoted. Actually, it is quite clear that you are making things up as you go along. Not very scientific. please, point me to where i said it was weakened at -40*C i don't recal saying that. what was meant to be inferred from my statements since you don't seem to see it is that the conditions of the building below the point of collapse wouldn't have mattered much. they were infact in very good condition with nearly no damage at all. if they were weakened then it would have fell faster. please, don't put words in my mouth. I won't bother with wasting my time with the rest of your student drivel in that posting. I have to work to earn a living. i may be a student but it isn't drivel. thats an ad hominem attack. you see, the point is to attack the argument rather than the person giving it. According to your logic 'insane_alien' there did'nt need to be any investigations at all, you would ask that we should simply be happy that we observed two planes hit the towers and then they fell down. no, there does need to be investigation because the planes were not the direct cause of collapse. And to suggest that explaining the colapse of the towers would be a "waste of resources" is ridiculous. Three structures collapsed completly that day, and you don't think it's important to know how those collpases were propegated? the NIST was concerned with discovering the reasons that caused them to collapse. i'm sure that structural engineers, not associated with the NIST are looking into the collapse to find out what happened in there but that was not part of the NIST's inquiry which is why it would have been a waste of resources for the NIST to conduct it. So this includes explaining how the building failed globaly, nope not really. the cause of the failure, not how it did it
Tree99 Posted June 18, 2007 Author Posted June 18, 2007 In reply to a number of points that have been made:There is no evidence whatever that the CIA funded al Qaeda at any stage, given OBL's hatred of America it is very unlikely he would have accepted such help, even if he needed it, which as a very wealthy man, he did not. The late Robin Cook wrote: "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s, he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." Al-Qaida, in the context of a terrorist term, only came in to existence after 9/11.
Recommended Posts