Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

chrismohr said:
Good point MM. I've often asked 9/11 Truth people, what would it take to convince you that natural collapse explains the destruction of the three WTC Buildings? If not my 235 reasons in my YouTube videos, then what?

I don't expect to find thermite in the dust, but Oystein et al, what kinds of tests would convince YOU that thermite was in the dust, if the tests came up Positive? Here's a problem I'm running into: the experts among us are not agreeing at all on how to move forward. Let's say I go ahead with X-Ray diffraction and the lab comes back and says OMG it's thermite! Would many of you say, no that was the wrong test? Can we agree among ourselves on a course of action here so we are prepared to at least initially accept the results?

A positive result may not mean CD right away for all of us. We may suspect tainted samples, for example. I think it incredibly unlikely, but IF the test is positive, I hope that would at least get our attention and make us take the possibility more seriously than we do now.
Click to expand...

I am in contact with some of the participants in the Bentham paper and I would be willing to link them to any posted findings that appear to be worth their attention.

My experience here in JREF is that they will argue black is white before they would ever make a concession that lends credibility to the Bentham paper.

I am hopeful that we can expect to hear the results of red chip ignition testing in inert gas and vacuum conditions in the not too distant future.

MM
 
Oystein said:
No, it most likely isn't the same as samples a-d, at least there is absolutely no data in the paper to support that assertion. Yes, they "believe" (as in "speculate without evidence") that the vastly different XEDS spectrum is due to contamination, but it has a remarkable resemblance with Tnemec, as you can see in data presented by Steven Jones late in 2009: http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html

Yes, that is not 100% proof, but why should this chip be contaminated with Tnemec to such an extent that it resembles Tnemec almost to a T? If it was the same as a-d and only contaminated with traces of Tnemec, then the Ca, Zn and (unlabelled at 1.25keV) Mg peaks shouldn't be nearly as high as they are in Fig. 14.
Harrit e.al. did not show that the MEK chip is the same material as a-d. Instead, they present data with very obvious dissimilarities. The best and most rational conclusion would be to assume that they are NOT the same, or at least to NOT assume that they are the same!


Wrong on bith counts.
See again http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html
Fig 14. is a string match for Tnemec, as Steven Jones showerd in November 2009, and Fig. 14. does cotain an unlabelled peak at 1.25keV that is very likely magnesium. So yes, the MEK chip does very likely contain magnesium.


Since the MEK soaked chip isn't similar to a-d, and since we have no information that Tnemec or the MEK soaked chip contain kaolinite, the above thoughts are moot.

Where do you see a 3:1 ratio of Al:O ???
In fig. 7 (chips a-d), peak height ranges roughly from 1:1 to 1:2 (O peak higher on average than Al peak), in Fig. 14 (chip MEK), O-peak is many (maybe 7) times higher than Al peak!
in post 830 The Almond posted a simulation (prediction) of the XEDS spectrum of LaClede primer paint, given its formulation as specified by the designers of the WTC. In it, we see that the O-peak slightly exceeds the Al-peak. The Almond used weight percentages of the various elements as I provided them in post 754. Since O is not only found in aluminium silicate, but also in the organic binder and iron oxide, the weight proportions of Al:O are in fact about 1:9.
Click to expand...

You look quite confused, Liberty.
Just for your record:
Basic data on silicon and aluminum compounds in chips, according to specifications found in NIST reports:
- Laclede primer paint (probably chips a to d) contained: only some aluminosilicate (not specified, but probably kaolinite - according to Sunstealer).
- Tnemec primer paint (probably MEK chip) contained: "diatomaceous silica", "crystalline silica", "talc", "calcium silicates and aluminates" and "amorphous silica". Exact proportion between them is unknown, since composition of Tnemec was "proprietary". Bear it in mind.

MM: OK, thanks for your offer:o)
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
I am hopeful that we can expect to hear the results of red chip ignition testing in inert gas and vacuum conditions in the not too distant future.
Click to expand...

Does this constitute an admission that the omission of these measurements was a weakness in the original paper, or do you just enjoy hearing about measurements that you believe are completely unnecessary?

Dave
 
Liberty said:
My question was about elemental al, i described the matrix and the material. I asked the director at Nanoprobe Beamline, Argonne National Laboratory Center for Nanoscale Materials.
Click to expand...
That would be these people? The Nanoprobe Beamline at Argonne National Laboratory Center doesn't have a "director", only an (acting) Group Leader, Gary Wiederrecht. Or are you talking about the division director of the Center for Nanoscale Materials, Amanda K. Petford-Long?

Liberty said:
I have no background in chemistry, but this is pretty basic stuff, when i researched this study, i talked with alot of experts and got alot of opinions on things, which is helpful.
Click to expand...
Yes, talking to experts is a good thing, but I doubt that this makes the endeavour "pretty basic stuff".

Liberty said:
As to where i see a 3:1 ratio of Al:O, it is stated in the report on page 18. Also the al particles are 40 nm thick, nano is nano, how can you say that the chips contain no nanosized particles?... And no, nanosized particles is NOT used in paints for skyscrapers, its always micron sized particles, most paints use aluminum in the 10 micron size range, they have no thickness of 40 nm.
Click to expand...
If you would kindly look at this image:
http://www.springerimages.com/Images/Geosciences/1-10.1007_0-387-30842-3_9-0
It shows a Scanning electron micrographs of authigenic clay minerals: A. kaolinite. Bluesky formation, AlbertaBluesky formation, cretaceous, N.W. Alberta
Authigenic means a "mineral or sedimentary rock deposit ... that was generated where it is found or observed". In other words, these plate stacks of kaolinite formed in nature.
Please notice the scale bar in the lower left corners of the two photos: they indicate 2µm and 4µm. These kaolinite plates have a width in that range, and a thicknes then deep down in the nano-range.

If you image-google "kaolinite micrograph", you get more results like this, for example
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fei_company/5643602139/in/photostream
http://www.mineralatlas.com/SEM/SEM kaolinite.htm
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWD8u5e1CNf06b-em5eK7Sv9yxnbzdvWsc00-AkcsHZt2Lp7fT

In short, you will find that kaolinite forms naturally all over the world in plates whose thickness is measured in nanometers or even Angstrom.

And YES paint is a main application for kaolinite. That includes skyscrapers.
WP: "Kaolin ... is also used in paint to extend titanium dioxide (TiO2) and modify gloss levels; in rubber for semi-reinforcing properties; and in adhesives to modify rheology.["

Liberty said:
Oystein.....

You write, quote,
"Since the MEK soaked chip isn't similar to a-d, and since we have no information that Tnemec or the MEK soaked chip contain kaolinite, the above thoughts are moot."

Then you write, quote,
"There is no nano-aluminium in those chips. There clearly is kaolinite, a mineral found in nature and containing stacks of aluminiumsilicate platelets just the shape and size as shown in Farrer's photomicrographs."

At least you unlike your buddy, admit that, quote, "Yes, that is not 100% proof" you have no proof that the MEK sample IS the primer paint, and it is reasonable to assume that it is paint contamination. I also just told you that paints with kaolin will not behave the way the MEK chip did, so the kaolin-paint theory is pretty much debunked.

But i agree, we absolutely need more analysis!, there is much speculations because they didnt use any advanced techniques for analysing the samples.
Click to expand...
You are still confused about the different chips and the different paints.
  • Chips a-d clearly contain kaolinite, which is an aluminiumsilicate (Al2Si2O5(OH)4 - note that this formula contains 2 parts of Al and 2 parts of Si). The evidence is in the Harrit paper in Fig. 7 (which shows Al and Si are present in equal molar amounts, as in the chemical formula for kaolinite, and as evidenced by the peak for the slightly heavier Si slightly exceeding the Al peak.), Fig. 8 (you can see the peculiar stacks of platelets that are a couple of µm wide and whose thickness is deep in the nanometer range, excactly like natural kaolinite as seen in the images a linked to above) and Fig 10c+e (where the spatial distribution of Si and Al are almost identical, indicating that the equal amounts of Si and Al go together in chemical binds of a uniform material, an aluminiumsilicate)
  • The primer paint for the floor joists, produced and painted by LaClede steel company, is specified to contain alumniniumsilicate (41% of the pigments, or 11.7% of the paint including matrix). The specification doesn't say which alumniniumsilicate, but as kaolinite is an alumniniumsilicate often used in paints, it is an obvious kandidate.
  • We have no data indicating that the MEK-soaked chip contains kaolinite ot any other alumniniumsilicate. Unfortunately, we have no photomicrograph of that chip in a fine enough resolution to see kaolinte plates if they were present. However, Fig. 15 has evidence that, at least mostly, Al and Si are not bound in the same compound, suggesting that there is no kaolinite in that chip. This distribution which differs markedly from the one in Fig. 10 is another proof that the material that the MEK chip consists of is totally different from chip a.
  • We know from Harrit's letter "Why the red/gray chips are not primer paint" that Tnemec does not contain any Al-Si-compounds. It does however contain Al-compounds and Si compounds, so there is absolutely no surprise that we find both Al and Si in the MEK soaked chip, but not together.

In short:

  • Chips a-d are the same material, and they are different from the MEK soaked chip.
  • There is kaolinite in chips a-d
  • There is no kaolinite in the MEK chip
  • a-d are most likely LaClede primer paint - their XEDS spectra are a good match with theoretical prediction, and so is their optical appearance
  • The MEK chip is most likely Tnemec, a paint formulation that was painted on columns by a different steel company - its XEDS spectrum is an excellent match with the Tnemec spectrum presented by Steven Jones in his November 2009 talk.

I hope you are clear now and understand now why your statement "I also just told you that paints with kaolin will not behave the way the MEK chip did, so the kaolin-paint theory is pretty much debunked" is not very clever: We knew already that the MEK chip contains no kaolin - it's different from the other chips that do!
 
Miragememories said:
I am in contact with some of the participants in the Bentham paper and I would be willing to link them to any posted findings that appear to be worth their attention.

My experience here in JREF is that they will argue black is white before they would ever make a concession that lends credibility to the Bentham paper.

I am hopeful that we can expect to hear the results of red chip ignition testing in inert gas and vacuum conditions in the not too distant future.

MM
Click to expand...

MM,

you must have missed post 948, where I offered you a chance to win US$ 200, if you are right an I am wrong. Let me repeat the bet:

I now offer to pay Miragememories US$ 200 if he agrees to the following conditions:
  • Chris' lab finds significant amount of thermite, according to their standards and methods
  • The report indicates clearly that they looked for the chemical bonds of aluminium, and found a significant portion of the Al to be chemically unbound
  • Miragememories agrees to exchange PayPal details beforehand, and that any payments will be made via PayPal
  • Miragememories offers to pay me at least US$ 20 if Chris' lab finds NO thermite.

Please note that this bet places no constraints on the lab other than indicating an obvious condition for thermite, namely the presence of elemental aluminium. Please note also that I will not question the lab's methods in any way, shape or form. Please note further that I do not demand that MM's money offer meets mine - I am satisfied if he only offers 10% of my amount, but of course I expect MM to be a man of honour and confidence and at least equal my amount.



I hope you understand that presence of elemental Al is indeed elemental to any thermite hypothesis - no Al, no thermite.
Whereas any thermic effect would forever be inconclusive. Why do you think the participants in the Bentham paper are going for the DSC under inert gas now? Clearly, that's better than the totally incompetent stuff they did so far, but do you believe it's good enough and conclusive? I hope you agree with them that most of the 1.5-7.5 kJ/g they observed under air was due to the organic matrix. Right? I thinj you will agree that we will definitely expect to get a much lower energy output when there's no atmospheric oxygene - I mean it HAS to be under 1.5kJ/g, right? So what if we get 0.x kJ/g - what would that mean? Conversely, what if you get no exotherm - will YOU be willing to admit finally that Harrit and friends were wromng from the beginning?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Does this constitute an admission that the omission of these measurements was a weakness in the original paper, or do you just enjoy hearing about measurements that you believe are completely unnecessary?

Dave
Click to expand...

Not at all David.

If you aren't interested in the results from further testing, I won't bore you with the results.

MM
 
Oystein said:
MM,

you must have missed post 948, where I offered you a chance to win US$ 200, if you are right an I am wrong. Let me repeat the bet:

I now offer to pay Miragememories US$ 200 if he agrees to the following conditions:
  • Chris' lab finds significant amount of thermite, according to their standards and methods
  • The report indicates clearly that they looked for the chemical bonds of aluminium, and found a significant portion of the Al to be chemically unbound
  • Miragememories agrees to exchange PayPal details beforehand, and that any payments will be made via PayPal
  • Miragememories offers to pay me at least US$ 20 if Chris' lab finds NO thermite.

Please note that this bet places no constraints on the lab other than indicating an obvious condition for thermite, namely the presence of elemental aluminium. Please note also that I will not question the lab's methods in any way, shape or form. Please note further that I do not demand that MM's money offer meets mine - I am satisfied if he only offers 10% of my amount, but of course I expect MM to be a man of honour and confidence and at least equal my amount.



I hope you understand that presence of elemental Al is indeed elemental to any thermite hypothesis - no Al, no thermite.
Whereas any thermic effect would forever be inconclusive. Why do you think the participants in the Bentham paper are going for the DSC under inert gas now? Clearly, that's better than the totally incompetent stuff they did so far, but do you believe it's good enough and conclusive? I hope you agree with them that most of the 1.5-7.5 kJ/g they observed under air was due to the organic matrix. Right? I thinj you will agree that we will definitely expect to get a much lower energy output when there's no atmospheric oxygene - I mean it HAS to be under 1.5kJ/g, right? So what if we get 0.x kJ/g - what would that mean? Conversely, what if you get no exotherm - will YOU be willing to admit finally that Harrit and friends were wromng from the beginning?
Click to expand...

I have no interest in your money or your bs proposals Oystein.

Chris sounds somewhat trustworthy, but your interest in 9/11 is too much that of a game player ohne Menschlichkeit.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Not at all David.
Click to expand...

Well, either you think the measurements are worth bothering with or you don't. If you do think they're worth bothering with, then you must think they were worth bothering with in the first place. If you don't think they were worth bothering with in the first place, then there's no reason why they should be worth bothering with now. The fact that you refuse to admit to either of these possibilities suggests rather strongly that you now realise you were wrong about the importance of running the DSC tests in an inert atmosphere, but you don't want to admit it.

Miragememories said:
If you aren't interested in the results from further testing, I won't bore you with the results.
Click to expand...

If the tests show a resulting exotherm somewhere in the range from about 50-200J/g, then they'll suggest there might possibly be a thermitic reaction. If they show a significantly larger exotherm, that'll prove that the results are dominated by an exotherm that wasn't from a thermite reaction. And if they show a smaller one, then they'll be clear proof that there isn't a significant amount of thermite reaction going on. All that depends, of course, on what the detection limit is. Having read that, it's up to you whether you want to present any results you get.

Dave
 
Miragememories said:
I have no interest in your money or your bs proposals Oystein.

Chris sounds somewhat trustworthy, but your interest in 9/11 is too much that of a game player ohne Menschlichkeit.

MM
Click to expand...

This is due to the fact that you can't put what's in your head into writing, which is "I don't actually believe in the Conspracies, I'm just here to be contrary"
 
Miragememories said:
I have no interest in your money or your bs proposals Oystein.

Chris sounds somewhat trustworthy, but your interest in 9/11 is too much that of a game player ohne Menschlichkeit.

MM
Click to expand...

Well I think I know exactly your confidence level in your stated claims. Zero. But hey, fair enough, you are under no obligation to put your money where your mouth is.



But since you trust Chris more, why have you not given an actionable reply to this:
Chris Mohr said:
Good point MM. I've often asked 9/11 Truth people, what would it take to convince you that natural collapse explains the destruction of the three WTC Buildings? If not my 235 reasons in my YouTube videos, then what?
Click to expand...

I on the other hand did reply to the same question Chris asked of us debunkers:
Chris Mohr said:
I don't expect to find thermite in the dust, but Oystein et al, what kinds of tests would convince YOU that thermite was in the dust, if the tests came up Positive? Here's a problem I'm running into: the experts among us are not agreeing at all on how to move forward. Let's say I go ahead with X-Ray diffraction and the lab comes back and says OMG it's thermite! Would many of you say, no that was the wrong test? Can we agree among ourselves on a course of action here so we are prepared to at least initially accept the results?

A positive result may not mean CD right away for all of us. We may suspect tainted samples, for example. I think it incredibly unlikely, but IF the test is positive, I hope that would at least get our attention and make us take the possibility more seriously than we do now.
Click to expand...
My answer in short was:
I'll accept the result of any test that Chris' lab will suggest and run, as long as they explain that, and how, this test identifies a significant amount of elemental aluminium. I'll not even argue with the explanation.

And to show I mean this, I backed up my words with an offer of real money.

Lurkers and posters may now make up their minds about who of us really means what he says and is confidently arguing with the goal of coming to a conclusion, and who is the one who avoids making claims and resolving them.



This is my final reply to you. No need to waste further time on someone I simply despise. You are talking about Menschlichkeit??? Pah!
 
Miragememories said:
I am in contact with some of the participants in the Bentham paper and I would be willing to link them to any posted findings that appear to be worth their attention.

My experience here in JREF is that they will argue black is white before they would ever make a concession that lends credibility to the Bentham paper.

I am hopeful that we can expect to hear the results of red chip ignition testing in inert gas and vacuum conditions in the not too distant future.

MM
Click to expand...

The Bentham paper never had any credibility. The publisher has no credibility as its been proven they are willing to publish nonsense papers

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html

Jones just proved that again with his "paper". It might prove useful in the sanitation industry but that's about it.
 
Dave Rogers said:
For those of us whose German is limited to the lyrics of the Lumberjack Song, could you let us know what Miragememories is talking about?

Dave
Click to expand...

Literally "Humanness".
Someone who shows "Menschlichkeit" is acting compassionately. On the other hand, a "Crime against Humanity" is a "Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit". The word conveys less the idea that all humans are somehow personally affected, but that all humans are equal in dignity and their capacity to act compassionately and empathically. MM calling me a "player ohne Menschlichkeit" is portraing me as a monster, devoid of empathy. I shall write you a short private message to let you know why this accusation is particularly spiteful and deserving of nothing but utter contempt. MM ist simply the most un-menschliche poster I have come across the JREF forum so far.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Does this constitute an admission that the omission of these measurements was a weakness in the original paper, or do you just enjoy hearing about measurements that you believe are completely unnecessary?
Click to expand...
No way, he will argue black is white before he would ever make a concession that undermines the credibility of the Bentahm paper.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Now that should be an amusing response.

MM
Click to expand...

Well, one more reply after all.

It is very fitting that you, knowing my personal situation, expect to find amusement in my post on the subject of Menschlichkeit.

Dave and Ivan know too.

They are perfektly able now to judge your and my Menschlichkeit.




Have a good life.
 
Oystein,

Thanks for your offer. I've noted the elemental aluminum issue. I also agree that the nitrogen or argon atmosphere issue is not the way to go because it doesn't prove anything after all.

Here's another question: the idea of cooking the chips in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere was a way of trying to say, "this is not therm*te because of x." It's a negative test. It seems that conclusively proving thermite requires a number of tests. But maybe disproving it is easier: "These chips should have reacted in this way or shown this spectographic pattern or whatever, and they didn't so they are not thermitic." If the test fails to disprove thermite, we can go from there. Does this approach make more sense from the standpoint of simplicity?

Another variation on this: look for just one thing at a time, such as elemental aluminum. If the results DISPROVE thermite, stop there. If they show a possibility of thermite, move on to a second test.

I have credibility in this endeavor only because I am completely open to either outcome. I am not interested in talking about how awful the Bentham paper was. I'll just say I question the results and would like to see an independent test of their claims. Where I lack credibility is in my utter lack of training in chemistry. What I am trying to do here is come up with a way to move forward that has scientific credibility, and for this I think I need an ally with better credentials. Our goal: to execute an affordable and credible way to test the claim that the red-gray chips have unignited thermitic material in it, either by disproving thermite or fully analyzing exactly what the chips are made of. Preference given to nondestructive tests. Then, take that test proposal to the original experimenters, and ask for a sample of their dust. If they say no, find another sample and move forward. I can help try to keep all this honest (and help raise the money). I do need someone else to guide me through the testing process.
 
chrismohr said:
I don't expect to find thermite in the dust, but Oystein et al, what kinds of tests would convince YOU that thermite was in the dust, if the tests came up Positive?
Click to expand...
I think that there is, in a sense, a real difficulty because materials characterisation, a bit like failure analysis or forensic metallurgy, relies upon building up a picture whereby many techniques can be used to do so.

For example in the Harrit et al paper a number of different clues suggest that the platelets are kaolin. (off the top of my head)

  • Morphology (shape and size of particles)
  • EDX spectra of red layer showing Si to Al peak height ratios being close
  • EDX of individual platelike particles showing Si to Al peak height ratios as being close
  • along with corresponding O peak
  • The BSE image and corresponding XEDS element maps that show an excellent correlation between Si and Al strongly suggesting association.
Select only one of these in isolation and you can't really form any useful conclusion.

And that is only one part of the analysis yet that part is made up of smaller clues and cues.

We also have other data thanks to The Almond regarding monte carlo simulation of Laclade red joist primer paint containing aluminosilcates as per the specification that match the data in Harrit et al.

Whilst determining that no elemental Al is present i.e. it's bound to Si and/or O (or something else), will show that a thermite reaction cannot take place, I am hesitant to hang everything on a single test using a single method due to the nature of the material.

The sample is not homogeneous. There is a "gray" metallic layer that appears to be iron oxide (oxidised steel), the red layer comprising an unknown organic matrix/binder material, hexagonal plate-like structures (kaolin/aluminosilicates), rhombohedral Fe2O3 and other unknown particles. (No analysis was present on the organic matrix or other observable particles in the Harrit et al paper even though it may have been performed).

The sample is small

At approximately 2.5 mm in length, the chip in Fig. (2a) was one of the larger chips collected. The mass of this chip was approximately 0.7mg.
Click to expand...
Page 10

and remember that this is the total weight of a chip not just the red layer nor just the platelets containing Al.


I have some concerns regarding the method.

  • Cost. There's no point in suggesting methods that are prohibitively expensive.
  • What method is appropriate given the nature of the sample and its size.
  • What data can be obtained from the method.
  • Whether that data will be conclusive.

I haven't included "what conclusive data will truthers (including Harrit/Jones/Farrer etc) accept which shows that the material is not thermite" because I don't think that is possible.*

There is no point in spending money on an inconclusive test, similarly there's no point in spending little cash on an inconclusive test.

* On the flip side, as per the above quote, "what test would convince me that thermite was present?" then I'd have to say that I don't know of a singular test that could show that this was thermite. A range of additional testing would have to be performed or samples of claimed thermitic material would have to be examined by several independent labs.

I have always said that if I thought that the material was thermite that I would not only say so, but back that up with analysis, sources (and reasoning that others could follow) just as I have done with regard to saying it's not thermite but paint. I have no problem with being wrong. It's happened before and it will happen again.

There are a number of reasons why I primarily suggest FTIR analysis although this doesn't rule out any other technique.

  • Cost - should be cheap respectively.
  • Widely used in (forensic) analysis of paint.
  • Accommodates sample size and nature.
  • Will determine nature of the organic material. (this has never been done to our knowledge and if the organic material is shown to be a material that is used in paint (specifically Laclade) then that is a strong indicator that the material is paint and it will be upto Harrit et al to show how this material is used in thermite, nano or otherwise.
  • Should show the presence of Fe2O3, Kaolin, Strontium Chromate etc in the spectra.
  • Uses a database of known materials and their IR spectra to determine compounds present.
  • Usually non-destructive. (sample can be returned to the owner).

Whilst it won't, as far as I'm aware, show "elemental" Al, I think that FTIR will strengthen beyond reasonable doubt that the material is paint and that it is a test that a lab can perform and give a conclusive result. The ball will then be back in the truther's court so to speak.

I think that it is worthwhile sending any lab information on the type of sample they are expected to analyse. So size and shape, difference in observable composition (metallic [gray] and red layer) etc, rather than a "can you determine if this is thermite?" question. A simple optical photo with scale should suffice.

This maybe a question to pose in the scientific forum on JREF purely as a purely technical post because you never know if there's a lurker or poster that has another idea. More thought is required before that occurs though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom