WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by, Mar 13, 2008.

  1. WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
    By Herman Schoenfeld

    In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
    accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
    towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
    as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
    This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
    floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
    upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
    near free fall speed.

    This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
    2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
    seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) and
    (1.10) for details.

    It should be noted that this model differs massively from a "natural
    pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
    is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). A natural pancake
    collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
    to the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".


    A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as

    1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.

    2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
    disabled just prior the collision with the block.

    3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
    increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
    continues to free fall.

    4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.

    Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
    Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
    Let h be the average floor height.
    Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
    Let T be the total collapse time.

    Using the elementary motion equation

    distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

    We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
    of one floor

    [1.1] t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

    where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.

    The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times

    [1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

    Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
    itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
    plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.

    [1.3] m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m

    If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
    floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
    with its below floor is

    [1.4] v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)

    which follows from the elementary equation of motion

    (final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *

    Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
    floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.

    [1.5] m_k u_k = m_(k-1) v_(k-1)

    Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
    [1.6] (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)

    Solving for the initial velocity u_k

    [1.7] u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)

    Which is a recurrence equation with base value

    [1.8] u_0=0

    The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
    collapsing on the 93rd floor. Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
    into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

    [1.9] WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
    11.38 sec
    u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0

    Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
    j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

    [1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
    9.48 sec
    u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0


    "Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
    World Trade Center ",


    This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.
    This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
    _H - the total height of building
    _N - the number of floors in building
    _J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
    floor being the ground floor)

    Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.
    Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.
, Mar 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. This posting doesn't rhyme.

    Please rephrase so it rhymes.
    Johnnie In The Billows, Mar 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements


    Al Dykes Guest


    It *was* a man-made, top-down demolition. It started from the top and
    a Islamist pilot of a hijacked 757/767 caused it.

    In this video, Jowenko, a demolition expert, eplains wht WTC1 and 2
    WERE NOT caused by demolition explosives:

    Meet the Creators of "Loose Change"

    Meet the Scholars for 9/11 Truth

    Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera

    The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts

    WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.

    Les Jamieson and others of disparages the FDNY

    How famous Truth Movement people repond to unfortunate truths that
    show them for what they are

    The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC

    Marks's collapse video

    "The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"

    Anyone that hasn't seen WTC's Ground Zero in NYC and the "Truth
    Movement" kooks that hang out there should look at the first three
    videos. The others should be required viewing by anyone that has an
    opinion about 9/11 and WTC or has never been to NYC.

    Here's an interview in which Jowenko says that WTTC7 could only fallen
    as it did with massive preperation

    This video shows demolitions and preperation.

    Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3 7 minutes

    Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 2 of 3 (7 minutes)

    Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 3 of 3 (8 minutes)
    Al Dykes, Mar 13, 2008

    barnegatdx Guest


    barnegatdx Guest

    A Huge, Invisible Monster , moving north to south., and detouring into
    New York harbor

    caused the Towers to collapse;

    - But first, he threw two airplanes , one into each tower..

    Look at the images of NY harbor after the attack; You can see his

    & The Math I've done supports this theory . .

    barnegatdx, Mar 13, 2008

    RHF Guest


    Everyone knows that Godzilla was on vacation duing 9/11 . . .
    I was Mothra ! {Disguised as a Boeing 767}

    Remember the September 11 Attacks (9/11) and Never Forget
    - Why We Fight Them Over-There ! ~ RHF,_2001_attacks
    RHF, Mar 13, 2008

    BDK Guest

    No. It was the Romulans. Using holgraphically enhanced disruptors to do
    the initial damage to the buildings, then they used their special
    tractor beam to shove the towers down. WTC7 was a "lucky hit".

    Or, it was the two planes that flew into them, and the fires that came
    as a result.

    BDK, Mar 13, 2008

    D Peter Maus Guest

    Thank God....someone finally speaking truth.
    D Peter Maus, Mar 13, 2008
  9. That propaganda shill rag Popular Mechanics actually bowed out of a
    discussion that they couldn't win when, in a live interview, they got caught
    in a completely absurd fabrication. Listen to this interview:


    On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade Center
    (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
    the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
    the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
    straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
    touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
    minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
    damaged remained standing.

    In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
    former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
    "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11,
    2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
    goes beyond the pale."

    We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
    that's "beyond the pale"!

    Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
    phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
    emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
    objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian

    The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
    that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
    a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
    and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
    heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
    significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
    repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
    else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
    According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
    quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
    tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
    repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
    sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.

    There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed

    * It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel core
    columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.

    * The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
    alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.

    Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
    check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
    even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
    pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
    unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
    reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
    such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
    American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.

    How Gravity Acts:

    Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
    noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
    observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
    at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
    magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
    become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
    certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.

    Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
    ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
    same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
    fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.

    So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
    anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
    greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
    falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
    accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per second
    for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
    objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.

    So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
    per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
    falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
    64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so

    Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is falling
    at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
    ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
    16 feet.

    Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
    harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
    high-school physics book:

    * Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)


    * Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D = 1/2
    x G x T x T)

    So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:

    Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet

    So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
    and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

    Checking Our Work:

    We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work, using
    conservation of energy.

    We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
    form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy in
    a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
    gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
    heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
    bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is converted
    into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
    [molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to
    shatter or even pulverize concrete.

    In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
    concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
    potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
    up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is
    holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
    gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
    converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.

    So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.

    The equation for potential energy is:

    * Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x H)

    The equation for kinetic energy is:

    * Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)

    So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a
    mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
    momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

    The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x 144
    = 4608

    The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared = 1/2
    x 9216 = 4608

    So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Seeing
    that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
    simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
    analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
    Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

    One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:

    The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
    perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
    may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
    of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
    a solid metal ball.

    That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
    gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order
    for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
    energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
    32 ft/sec/sec.

    In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
    falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
    energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
    its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
    second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
    overcoming frictional resistance.

    This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
    predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
    limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
    propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
    that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
    increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
    incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the air
    creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
    terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration upward,
    they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is maintained.
    Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the person
    attached to it to float to earth unharmed.

    A Quick Recap:

    Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
    physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
    resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
    without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
    it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
    fall a given distance.

    Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:

    The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
    using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
    free-fall from the towers' height.

    Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)

    With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:

    2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)

    Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)

    Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))

    Time = 9.2

    So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
    ground from the height of the WTC towers.

    Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
    free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over
    200 mph.

    But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.

    Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
    imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
    arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
    objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
    example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
    mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.

    Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
    than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the

    Observations from 9/11:

    On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
    "complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
    seconds. Here is the exact quote:

    "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
    government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
    not lie about this.

    But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
    seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.

    This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
    air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
    undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
    times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
    core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
    despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

    Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
    the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
    Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
    floors less than would, say, a parachute?

    It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
    you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
    minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
    10 seconds!

    What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
    have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
    rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
    physically impossible!

    Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
    high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
    glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
    Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
    energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
    of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
    sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
    to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
    expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
    eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
    The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
    done all these things at once.

    Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE


    In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
    duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
    following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

    * The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
    the collapse.

    * The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
    of energy.

    * The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.

    * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than

    * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.

    None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
    be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
    the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
    of 9/11.

    The Bottom Line:

    The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
    conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
    FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
    collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
    explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.

    It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
    destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
    free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
    collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
    The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
    towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
    came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.

    So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
    story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
    premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
    decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
    presumptions, is also flawed.

    The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
    also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
    similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
    made no attempt to explain it.

    Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
    miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
    basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.

    FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:'s_law_of_black_body_radiation
    Freedom Fighter, Mar 13, 2008

    Jorge Guest

    That makes more sense than anything those psychotic nutter 911 trufers can come
    up with.


    "If Boy George is just an old fruit, then Ron Paul is
    just the same old vegetable."

    -heard on the GOP Campaign Trail 2008---
    Jorge, Mar 13, 2008

    'Key Guest

    hey clueless schoenfeld ,
    just always remember the families and the ones that lost
    their lives...
    stop the stupid finger pointing to something that you are
    clueless about !
    stop your damn cross-posting of bull-shit to groups that
    couldn't care less
    about what your clueless-ass has to say.

    no real need for another of your stupid remarks.
    unless you like pissing in the wind !

    'Key, Mar 13, 2008

    Venger Guest

    Truthers suck. Big time.

    Venger, Mar 13, 2008

    Burr Guest

    Please, try and find some help! Maybe your family Doctor can help with
    a referral.

    We are your friends, we want to help, just ask.

    Burr, Mar 14, 2008

    Mr. Strat Guest

    <tons of psychotic truther bullshit snipped>

    You psychos should be ashamed of yourselves.

    Take a hint and STFU!
    Mr. Strat, Mar 14, 2008

    dave Guest

    dave, Mar 14, 2008

    RHF Guest

    RHF, Mar 14, 2008
  17. Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
    incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
    frustration they resort to childish name-calling.

    Freedom Fighter, Mar 14, 2008

    Al Dykes Guest

    Screw Bush and the Bush administration.
    Screw the "Truth Movement".
    Liars, all of them.

    "Why do I bother with these morons? [the Truth Movement] Because
    they are destroying the movements which some of us have spent a
    long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the
    crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear
    proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in
    parliament or congress; that corporate power stands too heavily on
    democracy; that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held
    to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the
    mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are
    peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.

    The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration
    is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely
    powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11
    truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush
    regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by
    those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political
    - George Monbiot
    Al Dykes, Mar 14, 2008
  19. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible positions.
    Thomas Jefferson
    Government Shill #2, Mar 14, 2008

    Mr. Strat Guest

    No, you truthers are the pathetic ones. Time to tighten up your tinfoil.
    Mr. Strat, Mar 15, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.