Major Tom is putting up some data with background information. He says that it is "never documented before". I would think this is a great opportunity to dispute this stuff with documented sources or a self-developed hypothesis. Can this or will this go beyond "suck-a-bomb", "Ajax Explosives", and the multi-mentioned "Satan"? I do find those comments funny but I would rather have the "Engineer" rebuttal versus the Henny Youngman one liners but that is just me. thx
Major Tom is putting up some data with background information. He says that it is "never documented before". I would think this is a great opportunity to dispute this stuff with documented sources or a self-developed hypothesis. Can this or will this go beyond "suck-a-bomb", "Ajax Explosives", and the multi-mentioned "Satan"? I do find those comments funny but I would rather have the "Engineer" rebuttal versus the Henny Youngman one liners but that is just me. thx
I am an engineer, and based on the study, it is nonsense, like painting river of water after the damn broke. The work is goal free save the fact Major Tom believe 911 was an inside job, CD, etc. There is no engineering here, Major Tom is not an engineer. When I checked with the chief structural engineer for the WTC towers, he said aircraft impacts and fires destroyed the structure. That is the final word from the number 1 expert on the WTC towers. if you study Major Tom you will find he believe there are anomalies about 911; but he is wrong, there are only people who don't have the knowledge to understand what happen so them make up their own science. How can videos taken on 911 become never documented before?
It is useless to study the collapse after initiation. But go ahead, tell us what the experts at your school of engineering say? Why is the chief structural engineer on the WTC towers not studying a gravity collapse for 10 years?
I would rather have the "Engineer" rebuttal versus
There is zero engineering here to give a rebuttal to. As an engineer, what say you? Do you have an example of a building hit by a jet at 500 mph with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, which the impact rendered the fire systems inoperative, and not fire fighting that remained standing?
As for features left out...
Before the collapse...
Aircraft impacted the WTC tower.
Aircraft impact kinetic energy was 2093 pound of TNT.
Aircraft impact was 11 times the design impact energy, of 186 pounds of TNT.
Aircraft impact was an order of magnitude greater than the design could handle, this is an engineering physics term for bad news, in this case.
Aircraft design knocked of significant portions of fire insulation under the WTC floors, which falls off if touched by hand.
Aircraft impact knocked off significant insulation in the core which was a special design of 3 inches of wallboard, gypsum board.
Aircraft impacts destroyed the fire systems, making it impossible to fight the fires, sprinklers system was rendered useless.
Fire were started on multiple floors with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel started at impact by disintegrating jet engines whose parts flying around were hotter than the auto igniting temperature of jet fuel.
Fire burned on multiple floor causing damage to steel structure now essentially unprotected, doomed.
Fires were aided in burning due to large gaping holes and hundreds of windows blow away by a kinetic energy impact 11 times greater than design.
Steel can't stand up in fire, it fails.
The building was doomed at aircraft impacts.
The building design was for a 707 low on fuel, lost in the fog trying to land. This design was verified after 911 by a study, and they found impact threshold for resisting collapse at 200 mph. Some people argue Robertson could not do a study for aircraft impacts in the 70s, but engineers are able to take the strength of their structure and the physics of the aircraft impacts and make do engineer calculations by hand, no computers are needed. Amazing Robertson was right.
As for features left out...
Before the collapse...
I left out all the oxygen generators injected into the WTC tower, these devices have crashed aircraft as the burn out of control.
Don't forget, Before collapse...
66,000 pounds of jet fuel, which was double bad, it was first used as a kinetic energy weapon, and then it started the largest office fires in history. Jet fuel heat energy equal to 315 Tons of TNT, in each tower.
Office fires... So hot people were burning, they were forced to jump vs burn. Have you been in a fire where your skins starts to burn from a fire and you are not in the fire?
If we were adding math and physics to the project of feature list.
We have E=mgh, the available energy to destroy the WTC tower, over 139 Tons of TNT in available energy; which is why things were ejected, air jets were seen, and the structure was destroyed.
From an engineering stand point, all the observables are what you would see in a gravity collapse. Why does Leslie Robertson not study the collapse? Because he already knows the building can't stand up to the impact followed by the fires and failed fire system. He knows the limits of the WTC, he built it.
If we don't understand how the WTC collapse, then learning how it was made, the grades of steel used, how it was a system, then we can comprehend why and how it could collapse. Studying the collapse after initiation is not adding to why it collapsed, it is a waste of time save modeling it for special effects. The physics of collapse can be modeled, but have not use save estimating the safe zone for CD, or other things I have not thought of yet.
There is no engineering with Major Tom, he is using TLAR method, using his eyes and his opinions. No big deal, engineering will not be needed, there will be no math, no differential equations, no physics.
Major Tom is putting up some data with background information. He says that it is "never documented before". I would think this is a great opportunity to dispute this stuff with documented sources or a self-developed hypothesis. Can this or will this go beyond "suck-a-bomb", "Ajax Explosives", and the multi-mentioned "Satan"? I do find those comments funny but I would rather have the "Engineer" rebuttal versus the Henny Youngman one liners but that is just me. thx
Read the rest of this sub forum. It's been done to death. Repeatedly. Major Tom is trying to sneak in through the back door what has already been proven to not fit in through the front door. His pet theory is that explosives of some kind were used to start the collapse. He(nor anyone else) has yet to explain what those explosive devices were made out of, where they came from and how they managed to escape notice before, during and after the events on 9/11. Without that explanation this whole idea is just mental masturbation by the Truthers.
Before the collapse... Aircraft impacted the WTC tower. Aircraft impact kinetic energy was 2093 pound of TNT. Aircraft impact was 11 times the design impact energy, of 186 pounds of TNT. Aircraft impact was an order of magnitude greater than the design could handle, this is an engineering physics term for bad news, in this case. Aircraft design knocked of significant portions of fire insulation under the WTC floors, which falls off if touched by hand. Aircraft impact knocked off significant insulation in the core which was a special design of 3 inches of wallboard, gypsum board. Aircraft impacts destroyed the fire systems, making it impossible to fight the fires, sprinklers system was rendered useless.
Fire were started on multiple floors with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel started at impact by disintegrating jet engines whose parts flying around were hotter than the auto igniting temperature of jet fuel.
Fire burned on multiple floor causing damage to steel structure now essentially unprotected, doomed.
Fires were aided in burning due to large gaping holes and hundreds of windows blow away by a kinetic energy impact 11 times greater than design. Steel can't stand up in fire, it fails.
Before the collapse...
Aircraft impacted the WTC tower.
Aircraft impact kinetic energy was 2093 pound of TNT.
Aircraft impact was 11 times the design impact energy, of 186 pounds of TNT.
Aircraft impact was an order of magnitude greater than the design could handle, this is an engineering physics term for bad news, in this case.
Aircraft design knocked of significant portions of fire insulation under the WTC floors, which falls off if touched by hand.
Aircraft impact knocked off significant insulation in the core which was a special design of 3 inches of wallboard, gypsum board.
Aircraft impacts destroyed the fire systems, making it impossible to fight the fires, sprinklers system was rendered useless.
Fire were started on multiple floors with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel started at impact by disintegrating jet engines whose parts flying around were hotter than the auto igniting temperature of jet fuel.
Fire burned on multiple floor causing damage to steel structure now essentially unprotected, doomed.
Fires were aided in burning due to large gaping holes and hundreds of windows blow away by a kinetic energy impact 11 times greater than design.
Steel can't stand up in fire, it fails.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg[/qimg]
The building was doomed at aircraft impacts.
The building design was for a 707 low on fuel, lost in the fog trying to land. This design was verified after 911 by a study, and they found impact threshold for resisting collapse at 200 mph. Some people argue Robertson could not do a study for aircraft impacts in the 70s, but engineers are able to take the strength of their structure and the physics of the aircraft impacts and make do engineer calculations by hand, no computers are needed. Amazing Robertson was right.
As for features left out...
Before the collapse...
I left out all the oxygen generators injected into the WTC tower, these devices have crashed aircraft as the burn out of control.
Don't forget, Before collapse...
66,000 pounds of jet fuel, which was double bad, it was first used as a kinetic energy weapon, and then it started the largest office fires in history. Jet fuel heat energy equal to 315 Tons of TNT, in each tower.
Office fires... So hot people were burning, they were forced to jump vs burn. Have you been in a fire where your skins starts to burn from a fire and you are not in the fire?
If we were adding math and physics to the project of feature list.
We have E=mgh, the available energy to destroy the WTC tower, over 139 Tons of TNT in available energy; which is why things were ejected, air jets were seen, and the structure was destroyed.
From an engineering stand point, all the observables are what you would see in a gravity collapse. ...
It seems that all of these observables* can't be dismissed as insignificant, especially the airplane impacts, the spilling of tons of fuel, and the big fires.
Major_Tom, why did you leave out the fires, and the damage that the aircraft caused?
* Admittedly, some of these features weren't directly observed, such as the stripping of fireproofing fron the steel. But the plane impact was observed, and it can be deduced that some fireproofing must have been severely affected. So, M_T, would you dismiss the removal of fireproofing as irrelevant for your model?
This is the biggest or at least one of the biggest areas that I am attempting to grapple. Just because it has never happened before does not mean it can't happen. There is always a first time... It reminds me of Joe Dimaggio's hitting streak of 56 games, it was never done before and it hasn't been done since.
It seems that all of these observables* can't be dismissed as insignificant, especially the airplane impacts, the spilling of tons of fuel, and the big fires.
Major_Tom, why did you leave out the fires, and the damage that the aircraft caused?
* Admittedly, some of these features weren't directly observed, such as the stripping of fireproofing fron the steel. But the plane impact was observed, and it can be deduced that some fireproofing must have been severely affected. So, M_T, would you dismiss the removal of fireproofing as irrelevant for your model?
Oystein, you hit the nail on the head. There is no way this event can be discussed without some level of inferences. In this case, the removal of fire-proofing from the structure. That being said, an allowance should be provided to the opposite side for the same. Tell me if I am wrong but it seems from my readings that the removal of fire-proofing materials is a key component...
This is the biggest or at least one of the biggest areas that I am attempting to grapple. Just because it has never happened before does not mean it can't happen. There is always a first time... It reminds me of Joe Dimaggio's hitting streak of 56 games, it was never done before and it hasn't been done since.
Read the rest of this sub forum. It's been done to death. Repeatedly. Major Tom is trying to sneak in through the back door what has already been proven to not fit in through the front door. His pet theory is that explosives of some kind were used to start the collapse. He(nor anyone else) has yet to explain what those explosive devices were made out of, where they came from and how they managed to escape notice before, during and after the events on 9/11. Without that explanation this whole idea is just mental masturbation by the Truthers.
Thanks for providing your insight I can understand the skepticism if you have been down this road before... I will hold back, for now, from reading prior postings as I find this current one by Major Tom fascinating. I have to say, if someone puts this much effort into something... I gotta give it the same attention. Since this stuff is new there may be some information that was previously missing.
Major Tom got me thinking on one of his other posts. I can't quote him verbatim but it was to the affect of "does the observable match up to the NIST report?" I thought that was sage.
Then you should look up old posts by christophera, truthseeker1234 and jammonius, all of whom are renowned for putting an extraordinary amount of effort into something. I won't say what.
Major Tom got me thinking on one of his other posts. I can't quote him verbatim but it was to the affect of "does the observable match up to the NIST report?" I thought that was sage.
Also, to be very clear, I approach research by asking the following 3 questions in order:
1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?
2) Does the visual record match any of the known "truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?
And after these questions are answered honestly, the MIHOP question is addressed:
3) Does the visual record contain evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components behind any of the 3 collapses?
Notice that the first question must be addressed before the others can be addressed. The first question involves the NIST report so in my threads the NIST is always on topic.
The stated goal of the NIST reports is to find the "how and why" of each of the 3 collapses. This is why the first question must be addressed before all others. If the answer is "yes", there is no further need for us to do any research.
If the true "how and why" of the collapses are known, there is nothing for us to debate. Case closed! But if the "how and why" were not discovered by the NIST, each collapse remains a mystery and each building is certainly worth studying in more detail.
It was quite enlightening to compare the visual record to the officlal description of WTC1 early movement. We found that NIST description and cited initiation mechanism does not match the visual record.
In this way the WTC1 feature list leads to a new understanding of our own history. In reality, the NIST couldn't possibly have discovered the "how and why" of WTC1 collapse initiation because they grossly over-estimated the early tilt over which 4 walls and the core originally failed and they failed to notice the important clues the earliest NW corner and antenna movement up to 9.5 seconds before visible movement.
Ironically, the earlier repot by FEMA (2002) noted the early antenna movement and claims that core failure, not south wall perimeter failure probably caused the WTC1. The NIST disagreed with FEMA and claimed to have conclusively shown that south wall failure with the (in)famous sagging trusses, not core failure, was the true mechanism behind the WTC1 initiation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
It is natural to ask the same simple questions of WTC2. If the NIST had ignored all signs of a core-led failure for WTC1 and tried to sell us a south wall failure mechanism with the famous sagging long span trusses like an old used car, could they have missed some important clues of early core-led failure for WTC2 also?
It is easy to understand the proposed NIST failure mechanism for WTC2 since it is basically a "copy and paste" version of the one invoked to poorly explain the WTC1 initiation mechanism.
On the one hand we could compliment the NIST's sense of financial frugality by describing only one initiation mechanism and sharing it between both buildings. However, if the mechanism proved to not match observables for WTC1, why would we expect it to succeed with WTC2?
For WTC2, careful examination of the visual record shows that early core failure of the east side is what seems to have caused the inward pulling of the 81 and 82nd fl east spandrels, not the (in)famous sagging long span trusses.
Then you should look up old posts by christophera, truthseeker1234 and jammonius, all of whom are renowned for putting an extraordinary amount of effort into something. I won't say what.
Thanks for providing your insight I can understand the skepticism if you have been down this road before... I will hold back, for now, from reading prior postings as I find this current one by Major Tom fascinating. I have to say, if someone puts this much effort into something... I gotta give it the same attention. Since this stuff is new there may be some information that was previously missing.
Major Tom got me thinking on one of his other posts. I can't quote him verbatim but it was to the affect of "does the observable match up to the NIST report?" I thought that was sage.
The old attack NIST goal, another goal, this time MT is avoiding attacking NIST, since NIST did not study the collapse. Like study of a flood downstream, when your goal is to fix the dam.
With no goal stated in the OP, no purpose we have to search Major Tom to find out what drives this technobabble study.
... the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric, so inhumane and morally impoverished that the fabled characteristics of Satan come to mind.
Please stay tuned as we discuss each of these factors in detail, while, of course, sticking to the subject originally posted in this thread.
This OP is part of the endless discussion of factors Major Tom sees as proof of the intentional act he fails to define, by people he can't name. We have someone who is not using engineering, no math and no physics to study the collapse; makes up science defined as the complete collapse model, no math, no physics, no engineering.
Skip the nonense...
If you want insight into what happen on 911, go with the #1 expert on WTC tower structural design. You are willing to waste time with Major Tom, when all you need is yourself, google with a rational filter attached, you.
Look how much time the chief structual engineer wasted on study of the collapse of the WTC towers.
... the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.
The engineer who designed the structure spends a few paragraphs discussing the collapse. Major Tom spends many web pages studying the falling debris, the air jets from falling floors, smoke and other worthless observations. Ask an engineer what Major Tom is doing. As an engineer for 37 years and 10 days, the goal free nature of the OP is the first big red flag, woo is coming in large quantities. May as well study the sunset, and make original comments and opinions which will have as much insight on 911 issues as this feature list will. 911 is not the first time buildings have been totaled in fire, and studying the collapse, post initiation is good for what purpose?
Beware, Major Tom is not an engineer, and he likes to attack NIST instead of presenting his "original" opinions based on visual observation of the exterior of the collapse, after the towers were doomed. If you want the reality based story, go to the chief structural engineer who understands how his building failed, without having to make up technobabble science, he used his engineering knowledge and first hand knowledge of his structure.
Read the rest of this sub forum. It's been done to death. Repeatedly. Major Tom is trying to sneak in through the back door what has already been proven to not fit in through the front door. His pet theory is that explosives of some kind were used to start the collapse. He(nor anyone else) has yet to explain what those explosive devices were made out of, where they came from and how they managed to escape notice before, during and after the events on 9/11. Without that explanation this whole idea is just mental masturbation by the Truthers.
This is a common posting pattern on JREF when confronted with new information.
I'll show a classic example of this claim by R Mackey on page 2 of the OOS Propagation Model thread. If you observe the dates of the following 3 posts, you have an opportunity to see the obvious hypocrisy within the same claim by R Mackey.....
It is humorous to note R Mackey's response to the OOS propagation model on 5-13-10 just after the thread was started.
Except, of course, that a large number of the connector flanges from the fire floors (viz. the collapse initiation floors) survived, and none of them were cut at all, let alone by thermite.
The whole line of investigation is ridiculous. What unanswered question does this paper purport to examine? None. Existing, reliable, reviewed scientific literature covers it quite thoroughly. All the made-up acronyms and appeals for attention are no more than fatuous Truther narcissism.
R Mackey at 11:35 and 14:50, "We are talking 8 degrees of tilt. That is what the NIST reports. They report 7 or 8 degrees rotation about 1 axis and 2 to 3 degrees about another."
R Mackey: "At 8 degrees rotation, this is the point at which the hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down....this is what we see on the video".
A total fabrication of the movement of WTC 1. As if he invented a building in his dreams.
Think of it in terms of impulse -- the total change of momentum at a particular impact. Impulse is equal and opposite, by conservation of momentum. Impulse is equal to F delta-T (force times the time over which the force is applied), or M delta-V (the raw change of momentum in its familiar definition P = m V).
When we look at the "upper block," it's delta-V is smaller than the delta-V experienced by the newly broken part of the lower block. As you say, the upper block decelerates by an average 1/3 g, while the lower block accelerates by an average 2/3 g. This is because the participating part of the lower block masses less than the participating part of the upper block -- it really is the compacted mass and upper block versus a small number of floors at a time, not the entire lower block.
The reason only part of the lower block participates at any given time is because the lower block is still a mostly intact sparse structure of braced columns. When it's hit, the columns lose bracing, get loaded eccentrically, shear their welds and bolts, and in some cases are totally overwhelmed and fracture entirely. These pieces break at a stress much too low to actually support the descending mass. This also has nothing to do with the strength of the perfectly intact building -- the descending rubble heap isn't contacting the lower structure at its strongest points, and it's introducing brand new failure modes, so the effective opposing strength of the lower structure is far lower than its ideal carrying capacity. Furthermore, where the lower structure does resist at or near its ideal strength, it can only do so for a very brief delta-T -- until reaching its failure strain, which takes only about ten milliseconds at the speeds of collapse -- and this is not enough to amount to all that much total impulse.
The upper chunk, in contrast, is cushioned by a thick layer of rubble. This is compacted about as far as it can, thus it doesn't have those complex failure modes and it doesn't suffer much more "damage" even at much higher stresses. So the rubble pile remains, and the lower structure gives way. This is for the same reason you don't sink into the ground, even though you can push your finger easily through a cupful of soil.
The "upper block," what remains of it, rides on top of this cushion of debris. It is supported pretty well. It also only decelerates at that lower rate, thanks to the much greater inertia of the upper block + debris. So the only real force it suffers is the inertial force, i.e. its own self-weight times its deceleration, again about 1/3 g. It can be expected to survive this deceleration. It's only when the rubble pile has nowhere else to go and the upper block has to suddenly stop, dissipating all of its momentum in mere milliseconds, that it totally fails.
Again, this is slightly idealized, but you get the point. Unless you're a Truther.
Describing the Bazant crush down, then crush up process. He has no understanding whatsoever of the collapse dynamics.
Thus, he criticizes me for presenting the only known collapse progression model to date that matches all observables in May, 2010, while he appears on a program selling you an old lemon of a tilt model in 2009 and he is still trying to give CPR and "mouth-to-mouth" to the fictitious crush down, then crush up propagation mechanism in 2010.
Once again, there is much new information about details of WTC2 collapse initiation and progression you most probably have not seen before. Why not actually look at it before dismissing it?
It has nothing to do with your like or dislike for me. It is a question of how each reader processes information.
new information. What date were the videos made on? 11 Sept 2001, not May 2011. We have old data from 911, which confirms a gravity collapse after impacts and fire doomed the WTC.
???
Collapse dynamics are good for what? Making a clear zone for evacuation. ... solved 911 again. Why did the dam break? Let us study the down stream flood... right.
new information. What date were the videos made on? 11 Sept 2001, not May 2011. We have old data from 911, which confirms a gravity collapse after impacts and fire doomed the WTC.
???
Collapse dynamics are good for what? Making a clear zone for evacuation. Wow, I solved 911 again. Why did the dam break? Let us study the down stream flood... right.
I could explain in the OOS thread, but, in short, WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics are very important in that it identifies the true general mechansm of global collapse of each tower for the first time.
WTC Twin Tower Collapse Dynamics maps the process of uneven ROOSD destruction along with a log of how each of the 4 walls fell to earth.
It allows us to look at the collapses much more clearly and come to the conclusion that collapse initiation is the key place to look for evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components.
Please place follow-up questions on collapse progression in the OOS Model thread.
I could explain in the OOS thread, but, in short, WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics are very important in that it identifies the true general mechansm of global collapse of each tower for the first time.
WTC Twin Tower Collapse Dynamics maps the process of uneven ROOSD destruction along with a log of how each of the 4 walls fell to earth.
It allows us to look at the collapses much more clearly and come to the conclusion that collapse initiation is the key place to look for evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components. ...
What a load of BS. I was going to ask you what engineering school you went to. But the post answered that question. What are Feature List good for again? The no math model? What was wrong with Bazant's math again? Paper showing Bazant's math was wrong?
What did the chief structural engineer say about the WTC collapse?
And there is the old CD claim in another form, "intentional manipulation of structural components", the paranoid conspiracy theory rises out of the technobabble of non-science, no math, special broke the laws of physics 911 truth excellence at ignoring reality method for doing no-goal studies.
And we find, the only intentional manipulation of structural components was two aircraft speeding with 66,000 pound of jet fuel on board, a key observation left of the work.
When will you stop trying to back in CD?
NIST is always on topic in "original" work because the goal is to bash NIST, and other goverment enities, it must be charter of 911 truth. This is a not so covert goal of this study, but it comes right out.
I like how CD is disguised - "intentional manipulation of structural components". The old inside job stuff is a goal of this work, a covert goal.
Top Ten reasons you need a study of a doomed building collaspe dynamics.
10. You can see what happens when E=mgh, turns to E=1/2mv2 - (for 911 truth, that is physics, just ignore it)
9. You could measure the debris pattern, apply some physics and math to check you model of collapse dynamics.
8. You could skip modeling collapse dynamic or modeling the collapse like Bazant did, and use the debris pattern as your real model.
7. You could match flying object dynamics to theoretical models of things flying like how you can fly a ruler thought the air, and learn why things can go further than simple ballistics often used by truthers to back in CD.
6. You could make up opinions on what caused things you observe on video, low resolution video.
5. You could time the collapse front of floors failing and verify your momentum model of 12.3 seconds was very close to reality.
4. You could make up opinions and declare valid models are nonsense, and not show your math.
3. You can make up opinions and claim it was a CD.
2. You can act like you are doing science to cover up the fact it is the TLAR method of engineering based on what you think you want it to mean, and make no goal, or conclusions, and try to raise doubt and attack other clams not even related to the non-study of whatever it is the study was meant to show.
1. If you find a pile of stuff that looks like the WTC complex, you would know a large building collapsed and someone failed to clean it up.
When we look at the column condition, we see, no explosives, no thermite; only a gravity collapse after aircraft impact and fires. And we can use this if we come across the same debris pattern, we have discovered large buildings collapsed.
What is the conclusion based on the OP? This engineer says gravity collapse. I checked with the chief structural engineer for the WTC towers, he confirms it. I predict only a few fringe engineers who can't figure out 911 in the first place, will say otherwise.
(hint: he is trying to back in CD, the old inside job theory)
If there is one thing we need to remember...
Key new term for CD, could be an original - intentional manipulation of structural components
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
