• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

9/11 Anniversary



Funny how the blind deniers always only have ad hominem attacks and nothing else when attempting to deny the facts.

Is it because you lack the courage to seek the truth, fearful of what it will illuminate? Do you just not have the courage to face the truth? Like not seeking the truth is one of cowardice and unfulfillment. Do you want your children and grandchildren know you lacked the courage to seek the truth?
 
Last edited:
hamster said:
Pathetic describes your half baked, sophomoric, conspiracy delusions.
Click to expand...

You are either exceptionally low intelligence or cowardly - neither trait is desirable. But I was a duped patsy when only living in Western PA as well, so maybe that is it.

For you to actually buy the official govt. story takes excessive gullibility. In your world, steel-framed building just implode into their own footprint at free-fall speeds. How did you even pass highschool?
 
[video]http://www.trueactivist.com/its-official-european-scientific-journal-concludes-911-was-a-controlled-demolition/#.V9aTUF356hs.facebook[/video]

Yup, sane people realize the obvious.
 


Pretty simple: Fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel, and NEVER before or SINCE 911 have steel-framed buildings come down due to fire.

Thus, some else must have taken the buildings down. You can't avoid that fact.
 
POP said:
Pretty simple: Fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel, and NEVER before or SINCE 911 have steel-framed buildings come down due to fire.

Thus, some else must have taken the buildings down. You can't avoid that fact.
Click to expand...

That's why, when we mine for steel, it's important to look for those I-beam veins.
 
Wood charcoal melting steel.

 
It appears that somebody is about 2 months from climbing a clock tower.
 


What's funny is how many anonymous messages I am getting, telling me to "shut up" but no one is able to answer my very straight forward questions about this.

Everyone seems to just run, and not want to discuss the subject. I wonder why that is?

So........jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, yet there were stream of molten steel observed by the first responders. How is this possible? None of you can answer that.

WTC 7 was never struck by a plane, period. Yet it also fell at free fall speeds, which would require that every support beam gave out simultaneously. It is physically impossible for that to happen
just from fire. The ONLY way that can occur is from explosives used for demolition. They also knew BEFOREHAND that 7 was going to come down. How is that possible unless it was being
demolished? Also, demolishing buildings takes weeks of preparation from a professional demo team. Firefighters have no training in demolition so it was impossible for them to have done
it on that day. IMPOSSIBLE. How did 7 fall at freefall speeds without demolation? It is physically impossible for it to have imploded from mere fires.

Also, in Shanksville, there is no plane, period. Just a big hole, nothing else to be seen. No wings, engines, luggage, bodies, seats, nothing. No plane crash in history has looked like the supposed crash site
in Shanksville. None. That was likely a cruise missile, definitely not a crashed jumbo jet.

This is what was at Shanksville.

15-9l-shanksville-hole.jpg


This is what a legit plane crash looks like.

10crash20.jpg


site-3_3489334b.jpg
 
I will never completely disregard conspiracy theories, be it the bermuda triangle, alien visitations, JFK, whatnot. For the simple reason that I strongly believe we know much less about the world than what we think we know and understand.

The aftermath of 9-11 including the never-seen-before, instant free-fall of massive skyscrapers, along with rather bizarre crash sites at the Pentagon & Shanksville are intriguing and raise legitimate questions. On the flip side, I could never wrap my head around the thought the US government would construct such a massive, detailed plot murdering thousands of its own citizens. For what? To give us a reason to start wars, attack Iraq, keep the military-industrial coffers filled to the brim? To drum up public support for such an endevour? I just can't imagine that happening, not even for a second. And mind you, I strongly disagreed with everything Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld were doing at the time. But even for them, I could never assume they'd be capable of such horror.

So that's led me back to seeing 9-11 for what (I think) it was, a brutal, ruthless attack by Islamic terrorists masterminded by Bin Laden and carried out by Al Qaeda operatives. The questions though remain, and I find the analysis and ongoing discourse of the improbability of the towers coming down and the inconsistencies at the crash sites - et al - mildy fascinating.
 
Tibs said:
I will never completely disregard conspiracy theories, be it the bermuda triangle, alien visitations, JFK, whatnot. For the simple reason that I strongly believe we know much less about the world than what we think we know and understand.

The aftermath of 9-11 including the never-seen-before, instant free-fall of massive skyscrapers, along with rather bizarre crash sites at the Pentagon & Shanksville are intriguing and raise legitimate questions. On the flip side, I could never wrap my head around the thought the US government would construct such a massive, detailed plot murdering thousands of its own citizens. For what? To give us a reason to start wars, attack Iraq, keep the military-industrial coffers filled to the brim? To drum up public support for such an endevour? I just can't imagine that happening, not even for a second. And mind you, I strongly disagreed with everything Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld were doing at the time. But even for them, I could never assume they'd be capable of such horror.

So that's led me back to seeing 9-11 for what (I think) it was, a brutal, ruthless attack by Islamic terrorists masterminded by Bin Laden and carried out by Al Qaeda operatives. The questions though remain, and I find the analysis and ongoing discourse of the improbability of the towers coming down and the inconsistencies at the crash sites - et al - mildy fascinating.
Click to expand...

Some Muslims got lucky that day. It's no more complicated than that.
 
POP said:
[video=youtube;YGHg1bQk9-o]So........jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, yet there were stream of molten steel observed by the first responders. How is this possible?
Click to expand...

First, more than just jet fuel burned, POOP. Further, that noted Rothschild-funded false-flag propagating source, Popular Mechanics, analyzed your claims and responded:

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

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

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

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

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

As to WTC 7, the world-banking and finance propaganda arm of the false-flag devotees (Popular Mechanics) noted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Finally, the pictures of the plane crash ... were the other crashes used for comparison those involving a pilot intentionally flying the plane at a steep angle at high speed into the ground?? Because that is what happened on flight 93.

Oh yeah ... AND PASSENGERS ON THE PLANE REPORTED THAT THE MUZZIES HAD HIJACKED THE GODDAM PLANE, POOP. Were they "in on it" as well???

Some other material you should read:

http://www.news.com.au/world/six-re...bout-six-seconds/story-fndir2ev-1226717737311

http://townhall.com/columnists/mary...ruther_myths_you_should_be_prepared_to_debunk

The Internet allows ignorance to blossom as it has for the 9/11 Truth movement. To the naive their arguments can seem compelling but when you actually analyze their claims with hard science and facts, they completely fall apart. I was not only trained in computer information systems but also architecture. This is why absolutely nothing about any of the building collapses looked suspicious to me. I have nothing but contempt for the "truthers" who push propaganda on the naive. Their claims are just ignorant: "the WTC fires were not hot enough to melt steel" (they didn't have to be, just hot enough to weaken it's load bearing ability); "WTC 7 fell at free fall speed" (it didn't - it fell 40% slower); "WTC 7 was a controlled demolition" (zero evidence to support this); "Aircraft hitting buildings should leave a cartoon cutout" (hollow aluminum aircraft hitting high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns will leave no such shape) and on and on. I literally laughed out loud the first time I saw "Loose Change" and that idiot Dylan Avery claimed pressure releases from the weight of the WTC towers collapsing on themselves were a controlled demolition. Only someone absolutely ignorant of structural design and engineering would believe these ridiculous claims. Unfortunately this appears to be a significant number of people which compelled me to write this.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html
 
Even if there was thermite set up and detonated after the planes hit the buildings, wouldn't the first assumption be that the terrorists found a way to get access to those places to set the charges, rather than jump to the ridiculous conclusion that the government did it?
 
Tibs said:
On the flip side, I could never wrap my head around the thought the US government would construct such a massive, detailed plot murdering thousands of its own citizens. For what?
Click to expand...

I have a much more basic reason to disbelieve the conspiracy theorists: Any plot of that size would involve hundreds, or more likely thousands, of co-conspirators.

What is the likelihood that all "x" thousands of people remain silent for 15 years?? Yep, less than zero.
 
Tibs said:
I will never completely disregard conspiracy theories, be it the bermuda triangle, alien visitations, JFK, whatnot. For the simple reason that I strongly believe we know much less about the world than what we think we know and understand.

The aftermath of 9-11 including the never-seen-before, instant free-fall of massive skyscrapers, along with rather bizarre crash sites at the Pentagon & Shanksville are intriguing and raise legitimate questions. On the flip side, I could never wrap my head around the thought the US government would construct such a massive, detailed plot murdering thousands of its own citizens. For what? To give us a reason to start wars, attack Iraq, keep the military-industrial coffers filled to the brim? To drum up public support for such an endevour? I just can't imagine that happening, not even for a second. And mind you, I strongly disagreed with everything Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld were doing at the time. But even for them, I could never assume they'd be capable of such horror.

So that's led me back to seeing 9-11 for what (I think) it was, a brutal, ruthless attack by Islamic terrorists masterminded by Bin Laden and carried out by Al Qaeda operatives. The questions though remain, and I find the analysis and ongoing discourse of the improbability of the towers coming down and the inconsistencies at the crash sites - et al - mildy fascinating.
Click to expand...

One would think that, IF W/Cheney and crowd masterminded it as a reason to go to war in Iraq, they would have use Iraqi's and not Saudi's. Unless they are so super smart they can concoct this huge conspiracy but leave that one detail?

Makes no sense to me.
 
Steeltime said:
First, more than just jet fuel burned, POOP. Further, that noted Rothschild-funded false-flag propagating source, Popular Mechanics, analyzed your claims and responded:

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

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

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

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

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

As to WTC 7, the world-banking and finance propaganda arm of the false-flag devotees (Popular Mechanics) noted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Finally, the pictures of the plane crash ... were the other crashes used for comparison those involving a pilot intentionally flying the plane at a steep angle at high speed into the ground?? Because that is what happened on flight 93.

Oh yeah ... AND PASSENGERS ON THE PLANE REPORTED THAT THE MUZZIES HAD HIJACKED THE GODDAM PLANE, POOP. Were they "in on it" as well???

Some other material you should read:

http://www.news.com.au/world/six-re...bout-six-seconds/story-fndir2ev-1226717737311

http://townhall.com/columnists/mary...ruther_myths_you_should_be_prepared_to_debunk

The Internet allows ignorance to blossom as it has for the 9/11 Truth movement. To the naive their arguments can seem compelling but when you actually analyze their claims with hard science and facts, they completely fall apart. I was not only trained in computer information systems but also architecture. This is why absolutely nothing about any of the building collapses looked suspicious to me. I have nothing but contempt for the "truthers" who push propaganda on the naive. Their claims are just ignorant: "the WTC fires were not hot enough to melt steel" (they didn't have to be, just hot enough to weaken it's load bearing ability); "WTC 7 fell at free fall speed" (it didn't - it fell 40% slower); "WTC 7 was a controlled demolition" (zero evidence to support this); "Aircraft hitting buildings should leave a cartoon cutout" (hollow aluminum aircraft hitting high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns will leave no such shape) and on and on. I literally laughed out loud the first time I saw "Loose Change" and that idiot Dylan Avery claimed pressure releases from the weight of the WTC towers collapsing on themselves were a controlled demolition. Only someone absolutely ignorant of structural design and engineering would believe these ridiculous claims. Unfortunately this appears to be a significant number of people which compelled me to write this.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html
Click to expand...

I didn't read all of that, does it mention the materials that are often used to build planes to make them more lightweight and still strong enough to fly? I don't know if it is true of Commercial plans, but one of the protocols for a Navy jet catching fire on the deck of an aircraft carrier is to jettison it overboard. This is because there are metals like Magnesium used to build the jet (strength and lightweight) that will burn right through the metal deck and all the way through the ship. If you spray them with water, the metal is burning so hot, it will separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules and make a big boom. **** up your whole day.

If commercial airliners have the same (or similar materials) which caught fire and came in contact with water (you know from a sprinkler system), it could be bad and cause explosions.
 
Steeltime said:
I have a much more basic reason to disbelieve the conspiracy theorists: Any plot of that size would involve hundreds, or more likely thousands, of co-conspirators.

What is the likelihood that all "x" thousands of people remain silent for 15 years?? Yep, less than zero.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

The two things I find odd is that there is only one video of the Pentagon attack and you can't tell what the object is (although the eyewitnesses do not refute it was a plane). Also, what appears to be absolutely no debris at the Shanksville site is odd. Then again, what do I know.
 
Buster said:
Bingo!

The two things I find odd is that there is only one video of the Pentagon attack and you can't tell what the object is (although the eyewitnesses do not refute it was a plane). Also, what appears to be absolutely no debris at the Shanksville site is odd. Then again, what do I know.
Click to expand...

There is very little video evidence of the first airplane crash into the WTC. The second plane was depicted in so many videos only because cameras were trained on the ongoing fire in the first tower.

Also, as to the lack of debris in Shanksville ... I don't claim to know the answer, and simply asked POOP earlier if photos of other crashes showed the results after a plane was intentionally driven into the ground at very high speed. I do recall that one witness saw a large commercial airliner go right over her house shortly before the crash of flight 93, and "plunging" towards the earth. If flight 93 simply disappeared, or was taken aboard an alien space craft, what did that witness see?
 
Steeltime said:
There is very little video evidence of the first airplane crash into the WTC. The second plane was depicted in so many videos only because cameras were trained on the ongoing fire in the first tower.

Also, as to the lack of debris in Shanksville ... I don't claim to know the answer, and simply asked POOP earlier if photos of other crashes showed the results after a plane was intentionally driven into the ground at very high speed. I do recall that one witness saw a large commercial airliner go right over her house shortly before the crash of flight 93, and "plunging" towards the earth. If flight 93 simply disappeared, or was taken aboard an alien space craft, what did that witness see?
Click to expand...

Some of you really disappoint me. To carry out the ruse, of course they would have large jets fly over Shanksville and DC. That way they would have witnesses see those planes and buy the bull ****. Witnesses, which comments have since been scrubbed, saw a large plane fly OVER the Pentagon and then hit full thrusters to climb and flee. But to the onlookers who only saw a large plane fly low, leave sight and then hear the cruise missile hit, they assumed the plane had hit.

Oh, and this nonsense about a plane diving into the ground, making all parts completely disappear is science nonsense. I don't care how fast it was crashed into the ground, that would not make all those parts, luggage and bodies just disappear. I have never heard anything more preposterous. There no way the entire thing just evaporates. That is completely ludicrous.

This is an overlay of what the plane's size is at is would crash into that supposed crash site.

shanks-757-scale.1.jpg


This is supposedly all that was left of a 757....but you think that can be explained away by it crashing directly vertical into the ground? That is imbecilic.

Schwanksville.jpg


Real plane crashed leave tons of debris. This, nor the Pentagon, were real plane crashes.

911_shanksville_crash_sak.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Aaron Rodgers has familiar request for Jets: 'Stay relaxed'
Replies
0
Views
18
Fox Sports NFL
F
SteelerNation.com News
6 Great Steelers Nominated For Hall Of Fame In Senior Category
Replies
0
Views
23
SteelerNation.com News
SteelerNation.com News
SteelerNation.com News
Steelers May Have Perfect Trade Partner For Dan Moore Jr.
Replies
0
Views
18
SteelerNation.com News
SteelerNation.com News
Djfan
Steelers amongst 11 nfl teams quiet on pride month
Replies
24
Views
692
Steelr4evr
S
Drink IRON City
CBS' win / loss predictions for AFC.......................................... you guessed it
2 3
Replies
51
Views
1K
slashsteel
slashsteel
Top