Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
3683 replies to this topic

#1816    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 04 June 2013 - 04:04 AM

View PostW Tell, on 04 June 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

If flying is that easy... why doe's anyone need to pass a test?

Just ******* with you Sky. Just so you know.

Maneuvering an airplane in flight is simple, but doing so with precision requires additional practice, but there is much more to flying an airplane than just maneuvering in flight.

That are a number of regulations to understand because the FAA can be very unforgiving in where violations are committed, especially if there are violations through prohibited and controlled airspace without  permission. I should also mention that you definitely do not want to come anywhere near Air Force One, so it is imperative that a pilot check the NOTAMs.

A pilot must have a basic knowledge of aerodynamics, weather, and aircraft performance under a variety of atmospheric conditions, temperatures and altitudes and working knowledge of center-of-gravity calculations regarding their aircraft. They must understand what a datum is, and how it applies to weight and balance of their aircraft. There is much more but basically speaking, maneuvering an aircraft in the sky is very simple, but precision flying requires additional practice and of course, a pilot must understand the basics of navigation and the difference between center-of-pressure and center-of-gravity in addition to angle-of-incidence and angle-of-attack and the difference between anhedral and dihedral, and understand the functions of the flaps, ailerons, elevators, rudder and trim tabs.

In propeller-driven aircraft, a pilot must understand how engine torque and P-factor affects an aircraft during take-off and during slow flight above a stall, and a pilot must understand his instruments and proper radio communication and emergency procedures. If you want to move up to complex aircraft, then you must learn how to operate a constant-speed propeller-driven aircraft and retractable gear operations.. Anyone with a desire to fly can be taught to handle an airplane in flight in less than an hour, however, more precise maneuvers, power-on, power-off stalls, accelerated stalls, spin recovery, slow-flight maneuvering above a stall, take-offs and landings require additional practice and hitting the books during ground school, and I should mention the ability of maintaining control of an airplane in zero visibility conditions in case a pilot finds himself in such conditions unexpectedly. Takeoffs are simple but landings can be a challenge to a number of student pilots, especially in cross-winds.

Now, if you want to obtain an instrument rating, then you are talking a whole new approach to flying and what I mean by that is, flying under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) requires precise aircraft handling and a new set of regulations that must be understood and requires additional time in ground school and more test from the flight examiner.

So once again,  simply maneuvering an airplane in flight doesn't require a lot of hours in ground school.



Edited by skyeagle409, 04 June 2013 - 04:07 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1817    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 04 June 2013 - 12:55 PM

View PostW Tell, on 04 June 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

If flying is that easy... why doe's anyone need to pass a test?

Just ******* with you Sky. Just so you know.

Sky is the best crew chief pilot ever produced by the USAF.  Best picture collection of anybody on the internet.  Likes to compare apples and oranges, but some pilots are funny that way. :tu:


#1818    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 04 June 2013 - 06:05 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 04 June 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

Sky is the best crew chief pilot ever produced by the USAF.  Best picture collection of anybody on the internet.  Likes to compare apples and oranges, but some pilots are funny that way. :tu:

Let's just say I use many years of experience as a pilot, C-5 DCC, airframe technician/inspector, facts, and evidence to backup what I present.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1819    ali smack

ali smack

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:51 PM

I can't watch the video. it's been removed


#1820    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 08 June 2013 - 09:18 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 02 June 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

Does that mean that you agree that no explosives were used?


No, it doesn't.

View Postskyeagle409, on 02 June 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:


What are you referring to when you say; "most critical steel?"


The impact/fire zones.

No steel was procured/analysed from those areas. None was found, because it was illegally removed and shipped to Asia from Ground Zero..


#1821    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:51 PM

View Postturbonium, on 08 June 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

The impact/fire zones.

No steel was procured/analysed from those areas. None was found, because it was illegally removed and shipped to Asia from Ground Zero..

It would not have made any difference, and I have to repost the following reasons why:

1. No bomb explosions in the WTC videos

2. No bomb explosions heard before, nor during the collapse of the WTC buildings

3. No bomb explosions detected by seismic monitors in the area.

4. No evidence of explosives found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

In order for explosives to be effective against tall steel structured buildings, explosives must be firmly attached to the steel structures otherwise they will not be effective in collapsing a building. Here are some examples what happens when explosives are not firmly attached to the structure of a building.

Quote

Posted Image

100-foot bomb crater beneath WTC1 in 1993

Posted Image

Posted Image


What Seismic Data Revealed about the Collapse of the WTC Buildings

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the SouthTower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

http://www.southernc...org/41/9-11.htm



Edited by skyeagle409, 08 June 2013 - 07:42 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1822    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 June 2013 - 07:19 PM

View Postturbonium, on 08 June 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

No, it doesn't.

Then, go here and understand why explosives were not responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings because NO evidence of bombs was found in the WTC rubble. In other words, no detonation cords nor blasting caps found by WTC clean-up crews.

Quote

Detonation Cords

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


Blasting Caps

Posted Image


Posted Image

Posted Image


Now, let's take a look at what it takes to demolish a steel frame building.

Quote

How to Demolish a Steel Frame Building

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

To ignite both RDX and dynamite, you must apply a severe shock. In building demolition, blasters accomplish this with a blasting cap, a small amount of explosive material (called the primer charge) connected to some sort of fuse. The traditional fuse design is a long cord with explosive material inside. When you ignite one end of the cord, the explosive material inside it burns at a steady pace, and the flame travels down the cord to the detonator on the other end. When it reaches this point, it sets off the primary charge.

http://science.howst...-implosion1.htm

Now, let's do a recap.

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
* No bomb explosions seen on video

* No bomb explosions heard on audio

* No bomb explosions detected on seismic monitors

* No evidence of explosives recovered from the WTC rubble

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

To sum it up; NO evidence of explosives of any kind was ever recovered at ground zero.


Edited by skyeagle409, 08 June 2013 - 07:37 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1823    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 09 June 2013 - 04:12 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 June 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:


It would not have made any difference, and I have to repost the following reasons why:

1. No bomb explosions in the WTC videos

2. No bomb explosions heard before, nor during the collapse of the WTC buildings

3. No bomb explosions detected by seismic monitors in the area.

Point 1: Wrong. The videos show 'squibs' coming out of the windows, which are classic signs of explosives. This is NOT caused by downward pressure of the collapsing structure. We know this because the 'squibs' are blasting out from floors WELL BELOW the collapse line. Any downward pressure would not funnel several floors down inside the building before blowing outward. It would blast out from the next floor below the collapse line. And that's not what we see in the videos.

Point 2: Wrong. There are several first-hand witnesses ON RECORD who mention hearing explosions/bomb blasts prior to the collapse. You can claim they are not hearing explosives, it doesn't change the fact that they reported hearing explosions/bomb blasts. They were on the scene, they all said the explosions sounded like bomb blasts. They were independent witnesses who corroborated this while at different locations near the towers. Their honest, unbiased testimonies far outweigh your highly biased personal opinion..

Point 3: Wrong. The seismic data shows the greatest spikes occurred prior to the collapsing structures hitting the ground. That is, the largest spike was NOT when the buildings' mass hit the ground, which would be the case if your 'no-explosives-used' claim was correct  

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 June 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:


4. No evidence of explosives found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

I had to separate this point, because it's related to the issue at hand. Which is the illegal removal of steel from Ground Zero.

Your point is ridiculous, because much of the debris was already removed beforehand. That's like removing evidence of bullets from a crime scene before an investigation begins. You'd be able to say 'There was absolutely no evidence of bullets being fired'!!  You'd be right, but you'd know the evidence was already removed. It's an utterly worthless claim.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 June 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:


In order for explosives to be effective against tall steel structured buildings, explosives must be firmly attached to the steel structures otherwise they will not be effective in collapsing a building. Here are some examples what happens when explosives are not firmly attached to the structure of a building.


You're talking about conventional explosives, first of all. You aren't in a position to know about undisclosed cutting-edge weaponry / explosives, which could have been used, either alone or in combination with other methods.


But you're really not getting the important point here, which was the illegal removal of evidence.

For you to shrug it off by saying "It would not have made any difference" reveals that you are not after the truth, and that you are not bothered by your own government committing a crime (ie: orchestrating the illegal removal of WTC evidence).

Thanks for showing where your allegiances really are.


#1824    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 09 June 2013 - 04:51 AM

View Postturbonium, on 09 June 2013 - 04:12 AM, said:

Point 1: Wrong. The videos show 'squibs' coming out of the windows, which are classic signs of explosives. This is NOT caused by downward pressure of the collapsing structure. We know this because the 'squibs' are blasting out from floors WELL BELOW the collapse line. Any downward pressure would not funnel several floors down inside the building before blowing outward. It would blast out from the next floor below the collapse line. And that's not what we see in the videos.

The squibs are the result of compressed air, which is within the laws of physics when you take the building's construction into consideration. Any planted explosives would have been dislodged from the structures when struck by the B-767s. In fact, the collisions were so violent that they knocked off the fire protection and once again, no evidence of explosives seen on video, which should have told you that the squibs were not the result of explosives. Check it out. Explosions make a lot of noise and create blast waves that can be felt.

Quote

WTC Squibs

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe.  The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them.  It's said that the towers were about 95% air.  But not all the air went so easily out the window space.  

There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns.  So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core.  The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up.  Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could.  According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...



Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”


Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.

http://www.acfd.com/...r_company_6.htm


Quote

Point 2: Wrong. There are several first-hand witnesses ON RECORD who mention hearing explosions/bomb blasts prior to the collapse. You can claim they are not hearing explosives, it doesn't change the fact that they reported hearing explosions/bomb blasts. They were on the scene, they all said the explosions sounded like bomb blasts. They were independent witnesses who corroborated this while at different locations near the towers. Their honest, unbiased testimonies far outweigh your highly biased personal opinion..

Just because someone says they heard what sounded like explosions doesn't mean explosives were responsible. Check it out and notice the sounds they heard were not attributed to explosives.

Quote

Explosions

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

http://www.debunking.../explosions.htm


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in thewhat I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://www.911myths....uote_abuse.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------


So once again, just because someone heard the sound of explosions, is not evidence that bombs were involved.
And just because someone heard...
  • Rivets popping.
  • Floors Collapsing.
  • An explosion that blew out the floors which wasn't an explosions.
Nothing there indicating the use of explosives. There is no video of bomb explosions and no audio of bomb explosions and no evidence of bombs within the rubble of the WTC buildings and no seismic data of bomb explosions.

Verdict!! No bombs.


As you can see, the sounds they heard were later attributed to things that had nothing to do with explosives.

Quote

Point 3: Wrong. The seismic data shows the greatest spikes occurred prior to the collapsing structures hitting the ground. That is, the largest spike was NOT when the buildings' mass hit the ground, which would be the case if your 'no-explosives-used' claim was correct  

Let's take a look, because the monitors were in use by demolition experts who have stated for the record there was no evidence of explosives at ground zero..

Quote

Posted Image
Posted Image

As you can plainly see in the seismic readings above, there are no indications of bomb explosions.

Quote

I had to separate this point, because it's related to the issue at hand. Which is the illegal removal of steel from Ground Zero.

That doesn't make any difference because no evidence of explosives were found nor recovered by clean-up crews at ground zero anyway. The fact that no bomb explosions were detected by seismic monitors should have told you that none of the WTC  steel structures were affected by explosives otherwise the signals would have shown up on the seismic monitors. In other words, no explosives were attached to the steel structures that would have been recorded on the seismic monitors and if explosives are not firmly attached to the steel structures, then the blast waves will simply flow around the steel structures like wind around the wing of an airplane, which is why WTC1 remained standing despite the detonation of a huge bomb directly below the building. in 1993

Quote

Your point is ridiculous, because much of the debris was already removed beforehand.

False! No one saw any explosive evidence within the rubble of the WTC buildings and demolition experts were also present at ground zero and since there were no bomb explosions recorded by the seismic monitors, shows that no explosives of any kind were attached directly to the steel columns..

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 June 2013 - 05:37 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1825    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 09 June 2013 - 05:19 AM

View Postturbonium, on 09 June 2013 - 04:12 AM, said:

For you to shrug it off by saying "It would not have made any difference" reveals that you are not after the truth, and that you are not bothered by your own government committing a crime (ie: orchestrating the illegal removal of WTC evidence).

Thanks for showing where your allegiances really are.

Facts are facts which cannot be denied. No evidence of explosives simply says it all and remember, the initial collapse began in the general area of the collisions and when the aircraft struck, there were no secondary explosions indicating planted explosives.

Now, let's take a look at the construction of the WTC towers.

Posted Image

As you can see in the next photo, the WTC tower is NOT falling at free fall speed despite what 911 conspiracy websites have falsely claimed. You will notice that debris and dust plumes have outpaced the collapse of the WTC tower, which is a very clear indication that the WTC tower is by no means falling at free fall speed.

Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1826    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:40 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 30 May 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

Simple. Higher temperature and contents from within United 175, including the oxygen generators, seat cushion, plastics and fiberglass, and contents within WTC2.
Sorry but no cigar!



View Postskyeagle409, on 30 May 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

No it doesn't because at its lower melting point aluminum is silvery, however, at higher temperatures, aluminum glows.
But you said the temperature were not high enough to melt steel and now you are saying that temperatures were much higher than you originally projected once it had been pointed out to you that the colour of the metal shows us temperatures of at least 1200C minimum. lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 30 May 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

Let's do a review.

Molten Aluminum Chart

Posted Image


Using the temperature chart, provide us with the temperature levels of molten aluminum in the following photos.

Molten Aluminum

Posted Image
Well considering that most of that it is orange, I would say that the temp is around 930c.

However, there is a problem. There is a section of the aluminium as it is being pour from the back which shows the metal to be white hot, yet look how quickly the colour changes in the vat/container because it loses it's heat very quickly.

This is why we know that the metal in the WTC was not aluminium because that doesn't exhibit that behaviour. lol

Simples...;) lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 30 May 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

Posted Image

It is very clear that the molten aluminum is by no means, silvery in color.
That is because it is not in daylight conditions, its inside a building which doesn't have much natural light. If it was outside, chances are the metal would be silvery and not as orange as it appears on here.

View Postskyeagle409, on 30 May 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

What you need to understand it that at its initial melting point, aluminum is silvery in color, but at higher temperatures, aluminum will glow at a variety of colors and that depends on its temperature level
No, I understand that perfectly, what you do not understand is that the metal from the WTC is gloopy, so therefore it cannot be aluminium because at these temperatures, it wouldn't be gloopy.

Another reason why it isn't aluminium is because the metal retains its heat. lol

2 obvious reasons why it isn't aluminium which you would know if you knew anything about metals, which you clearly don't. lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1827    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:49 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 30 May 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

Apparently, any planted explosives and even thermite would not have survived the impact of United 175 at that corner of WTC2.  
Apparently you do not know much do you?? lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 30 May 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

BTW, you don't see molten metal flowing other locations on WTC2 building, which is another hint that thermite was not responsible for the flow, but the wreckage from United 175 because the point of the molten flow is where the main wreckage of United 175 came to rest.
You don't see molten metal flowing other locations on WTC2 building, which is another hint that thermite was responsible for the flow because the point of the molten flow is where the steel was exposed.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1828    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:56 PM

Sky

The last picture in your post 1825 above shows clearly that the collapse of the towers was really an explosion of the towers.  That picture clearly shows that whatever brought down the tower, it WAS NOT jetfuel and gravity.

That is an explosion, and anybody that claims otherwise is fooling himself.


#1829    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 11 June 2013 - 07:54 PM

View PostStundie, on 11 June 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

But you said the temperature were not high enough to melt steel...

That's right.

Quote

...and now you are saying that temperatures were much higher than you originally projected...once it had been pointed out to you that the colour of the metal shows us temperatures of at least 1200C minimum.
Well considering that most of that it is orange, I would say that the temp is around 930c.

Okay, let's take a look here.

930 degrees C. = 1706 degrees F.

Which is far below the melting point of steel. As proof, what is the melting point of steel. I might add that the silvery color indicates the lower end of the melting point of aluminum?

Quote

However, there is a problem. There is a section of the aluminium as it is being pour from the back which shows the metal to be white hot, yet look how quickly the colour changes in the vat/container because it loses it's heat very quickly.

The molten flowing from WTC2 was losing heat quickly as well, which can be determined by the fact the molten flow is turning into silvery droplets as it cools.

Posted Image

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 June 2013 - 07:55 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1830    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:02 PM

View PostStundie, on 11 June 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

Apparently you do not know much do you??

Of course I do. The collision was so violent that it knocked off fire protection from the steel columns.

Quote

You don't see molten metal flowing other locations on WTC2 building,...

No you don't, which slams the door on claims that molten flow is steel. The molten aluminum is flowing ONLY from the location where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest, which was exposed to temperatures above its melting point but far too low  to melt steel.

Quote

...which is another hint that thermite was responsible for the flow because the point of the molten flow is where the steel was exposed.

Impossible, simply because the location of the flow of molten aluminum is exactly where the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest and the silvery droplets seen in videos and photos are indicative of molten aluminum, not steel

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX