Home | Community | Message Board


MushroomCube.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinedtugg
Druggie
Male


Registered: 12/24/07
Posts: 355
Last seen: 2 years, 25 days
NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires
    #8808821 - 08/22/08 01:33 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

GAITHERSBURG, Md.—The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

Obviously this will not shut up some 9/11 conspiracy nuts. They will just say that NIST is lying and in on it.

I have one question for anybody that still believes WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Do you think that the FDNY are liars and in on it? For WTC7 conspiracies to be true, fire fighters must be in on it and I will show this if anybody actually answers the question.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinetyler_0_durden
Stranger


Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 1,861
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: dtugg]
    #8808852 - 08/22/08 01:41 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

It seems kind of hard to believe...I'm not saying I'm a nut, but the airplane fuel would have had to fall 100+ stories, somehow fall below the first story of WTC north and south into the underground, and then over three city blocks, ignite, and continue to burn for over a couple hours.

It doesnt seem like it would be able to do that, considering most of the fuel caused that huge fireball from the plane first hitting. I know some of it fell through the elevator shafts and detonated the lobby floor, but how the hell did it travel across the streets to WTC7? Lol...it seems really weird..


--------------------
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."  --Max Planck


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedtugg
Druggie
Male


Registered: 12/24/07
Posts: 355
Last seen: 2 years, 25 days
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: tyler_0_durden]
    #8808935 - 08/22/08 01:59 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Nobody says that jet fuel is what directly caused the fires in WTC7. In fact, I am almost postive that NIST says the fuel was burned off within 10 minutes of the planes hitting.  It did however, almost instantly ignite huge fires in WTC1&2. After they were ingnited, there was plenty of combustable material in the offices to fuel the fires even after the jet fuel burned off. These huge fires in the twin towers started fires in WTC7 when they collapsed.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,851
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 9 months, 14 days
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: dtugg]
    #8808945 - 08/22/08 02:02 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

I think its a conspiracy that it was all caught on film. It just wouldn't have been the media event of the century if it weren't for the video. :tongue:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCoaster
Baʿal
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: fireworks_god]
    #8808962 - 08/22/08 02:04 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

thers a 9/11 nut in here i hope he shows up and confutes this


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: dtugg]
    #8809543 - 08/22/08 06:27 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

From http://ace.mu.nu/archives/271209.php --

A fed study says yes, by gum, WTC 7 did collapse due to runaway fires and thermal expansion of key structural elements.

One surprise: Jet fuel apparently didn't contribute much to the collapse. At least not directly, in a fuel-splashes-over-to-WTC-7 sense.

You know what the Truther's theory is, right? They only imply this, but I believe what they're saying is that Flight 93 was actually supposed to hit WTC 7 -- but it crashed.*

So, alas, the government had a building wired with explosives but without a plane to hit it and "explain" the collapse... and, alas, either those bombs detonated due to fire, or the government decided to detonate the bombs to make sure they weren't found by firemen.

Or the guy who owned the property said "Pull it!" Or something.

I continue to be perplexed why Truthers believe the public wouldn't have been suitably angered by the mere fact of planes full of passengers smashing into the Twin Towers -- why they believe that it was really the collapse of the buildings (long after almost every victim of the disaster had already died, and almost (almost) every living soul in the buildings had been safely evacuated out) -- was really the crucial part of the Fake Pearl Harbor.

That, without the collapses, we would have all just said, "Eh, so Al Qaeda hit our buildings with planes with living hostages aboard and killed 3000 people in total. Big deal. The buildings are still standing, aren't they? Sure they'll have to be demolished due to being structurally compromised, but that will be our decision. Let's just chillax before making any hasty decisions or indulging in loose talk that might hurt Al Qaeda's feelings."

The fill-the-buildings-with-bombs theory only makes sense (in terms of government motivation) if it is postulated that the government believed that the hijackings, crashes, and mass-murders were not a strong enough drink to get us all drunkenly rambunctious for a Trans-Caspian Pipeline (or whatever); no, what we really all needed was the chaser of the collapsing towers. That, and only that, would get us hot for vengeance.

Because, otherwise? What fucking sense does it make to take the huge risk of filling buildings inhabited by tens of thousands of workers all day every day with enough explosives to put a battleship into low orbit?

Anyway. I'm sure this new finding from the US government, which by the way murdered 3000 people as a goof, will finally settle the issue.

* Actually, it didn't crash; it safely landed in Cleveland all passengers aboard were evacuated off, spirited to a prison island, and then murdered, and then the plane was sent back into the air with a remote-control pilot and lots of already-dead corpses as "passengers," but then it somehow disappeared, and a crash that never actually happened was faked, or... something.

I don't know. They change their stories on this a lot, and their stories never make much sense in the first place.


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMinstrel
Man of Science
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 1,974
Loc: Hogtown
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: dtugg]
    #8809853 - 08/22/08 09:41 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

I think coaster is referring to me?

They never could have done any comprehensive engineering investigation of the buildings, especially building 7.  All the evidence was destroyed immediately in the twin towers, due to the rescue effort, but also immediately in WTC7 because...........they knew there was no one in the wreckage to save?  Because getting wall st. open again is more important than investigating the most anomalous collapse of a steel framed building in history? Nothing they did was consistent with trying to find out what might have happened.

NIST has demonstrated enough willingness falsify data, to lie to the public and to withhold visualizations of their simulations; why should they be trusted now?

NIST still hasn't come up with a good explanation of the extremely high temperatures observed in all wreckages.  This heat has to come from somewhere.

>I have one question for anybody that still believes WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Do you think that the FDNY are liars and in on it? For WTC7 conspiracies to be true, fire fighters must be in on it and I will show this if anybody actually answers the question.

Let's have it.  No, they are not 'in' on it.


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


Edited by Minstrel (08/22/08 11:39 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedtugg
Druggie
Male


Registered: 12/24/07
Posts: 355
Last seen: 2 years, 25 days
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: Minstrel]
    #8809944 - 08/22/08 10:15 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Minstrel said:
Let's have it.  No, they are not 'in' on it.




Why do fire fighters, especially Daniel Nigo who was chief of operations that day, say that they were worried that WTC7 would collapse on it's own, and thus evacuated the area around it?

The only way for it to be a controlled demo is if these fire fighters are lying when they say there were worried about it coming down on it's own.


Edited by dtugg (08/22/08 10:18 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMinstrel
Man of Science
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 1,974
Loc: Hogtown
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: Minstrel]
    #8810106 - 08/22/08 11:28 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

I invite you to take the time to read this paper. 
Waiting for Seven:
WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Graeme MacQueen

January 11, 2008
Abstract


On September 11, 2001 there were numerous advance warnings of World Trade
Center 7’s collapse, and many people have argued that these warnings are evidence that
the building was subjected to controlled demolition. But other researchers feel the
warnings are compatible with the hypothesis of natural collapse from damage that the
building sustained throughout the day. In this article I examine the arguments of one
researcher, Ryan Mackey, who argues, using the oral histories of the New York Fire
Department, that the collapse was natural and the warnings rational and based on direct
perception. Although I agree with Mackey that the damage to Seven was serious and
must be acknowledged as such, I argue that a close reading of the FDNY oral histories
does not support his claims and does not remove the cloud of suspicion that hangs over
the collapse warnings. The majority of FDNY members did not rationally conclude, on
the basis of direct perception of damage to the building, that it was in danger of collapse;
they accepted that it would collapse on the basis of what they were told.

Full Paper Here

I'm sorry, but if the arguement is that WTC 7 can't be a controlled demolition on the simple basis that you'd be labeling firefighters as liars is weak and fallacious.  It's clearly an attempt at emotional bullying, not legitimate appraisal of physical evidence. 


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


Edited by Minstrel (08/22/08 11:32 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedtugg
Druggie
Male


Registered: 12/24/07
Posts: 355
Last seen: 2 years, 25 days
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: Minstrel]
    #8810200 - 08/22/08 11:54 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Sorry, I don't buy that somebody (of course the author dosn't mention who it could have been) could have tricked the FDNY into believing that the building was going to collapse when it really wasn't in that danger. Maybe you think that they are stupid instead of liars.

Here is what Chief Danil Nigro says about it:

Quote:

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. 
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. 

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro





I see three possibities here:

1) He was right, that the building was in danger of collapsing because of the reasons he gave. He is a hero and saved many peoples lives.

2) He is part conspiracy, lying and convering up for people that killed hundreds of his collegues.

3) He is stupid, and was easily mislead to believe that the building was going to fall on its own by an unamed conspirator. It was then CD'd without him noticing.

And Journal for 9/11 Studies? What a fucking joke. They claim to be a peer-reviewed journal, but it really isn't. For them, peer review means that another idiot truther says it's OK.


Edited by dtugg (08/22/08 11:56 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMinstrel
Man of Science
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 1,974
Loc: Hogtown
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: dtugg]
    #8810235 - 08/22/08 12:02 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

dtugg said:
And Journal for 9/11 Studies? What a fucking joke. They claim to be a peer-reviewed journal, but it really isn't. For them, peer review means that another idiot truther says it's OK.




I suppose you'd care to support your claim?  Your being hostile and your intimidation arguments about ill thoughts towards firefighters doing you any favors. 

I'm going to ignore your insolence and hold off posting about this while I take the time to read NIST's report and give some time to let some commentary and critiques be done.  They need to have a damn good explanation for the severely high temperatures found in the rubble for me to change my mind.  But I'm still going to take it with a grain of salt, since they have been exposed as data falsifiers.


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


Edited by Minstrel (08/22/08 12:16 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedtugg
Druggie
Male


Registered: 12/24/07
Posts: 355
Last seen: 2 years, 25 days
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: dtugg]
    #8810377 - 08/22/08 12:28 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Minstrel said:
Quote:

dtugg said:
And Journal for 9/11 Studies? What a fucking joke. They claim to be a peer-reviewed journal, but it really isn't. For them, peer review means that another idiot truther says it's OK.




I suppose you'd care to support your claim?  Your being hostile and your intimidation arguments about ill thoughts towards firefighters doing you any favors. 

I'm going to ignore your insolence and hold off posting about this while I take the time to read NIST's report and give some time to let some commentary and critiques be done.  They need to have a damn good explanation for the severely high temperatures found in the rubble for me to change my mind.  But I'm still going to take it with a grain of salt, since they have been exposed as data falsifiers.




Peer review would mean that the submitted their articles to experts in the fields that they are talking about for criticism. I have seen no evidence that they do this. For them "peer" means fellow truthers. In fact, I would bet money that the only people that read their articles are truthers and a few people that make a hobby out of debunking 9/11 myths.

Why do you guys keep going on about the high temperatures in the rubble? It is not as if this is evidence for a controlled demolition. Name one where this was the result. If you wanna talk about thermite, thermite does not leave things burning extremely hot for weeks and months. By far the simplist answer is that the rubble behaved like a blast furnace. I'm not sure if they talked about this in their report. It wouldn't surpise me if they don't because their mandate was to find out the mechanics of the collapse and the state of the rubble weeks and months afterward have very little to nothing to do with that.


Edited by dtugg (08/22/08 12:53 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: dtugg]
    #8810583 - 08/22/08 01:11 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

That's cuz peer review is largely an empty label hoisted up by folks that try to sound smart or elitist, often enough.


Yes, peer review is nice if it mandates good data and conclusions supported by such, but as a process the merits are enivetably tied to the quality of the review.

Being peer reviewed seems like an empty label really, and no excuse to justify or ignore a paper.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMinstrel
Man of Science
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 1,974
Loc: Hogtown
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: Minstrel]
    #8810638 - 08/22/08 01:25 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Right, it exists for better or for worse.  You have access to the information, and you can decide what you believe and what you don't.  No organization can co-op your judgment.

Same goes for information put out by the government.  Dtugg, you  seem to suggest that '(always nutty) conspiracy theorists' should just put down their objections and reason because the government (being some sort of authority; albeit by barrel of a gun) has got a brand NEW story on what happened, so suddenly everything fits!  After 7 years, wherein the first report didn't seem to think the world needed to know about WTC7 (FEMA), and the second report, wherein their WTC7 story obviously just wasn't good enough.  Their best estimate for the cause of collapse admittedly 'has only a low probability of occurring')



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


Edited by Minstrel (08/22/08 01:33 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedtugg
Druggie
Male


Registered: 12/24/07
Posts: 355
Last seen: 2 years, 25 days
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: dtugg]
    #8810742 - 08/22/08 01:48 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

I believe that conspiracy nutjobs should be put down because they have zero evidence to support their claims. There is no other evidence like you claim. It is all speculation, misrepresentation of real evidence, and sometimes out right lies.

This isn't a brand new story, it is a study that proves their story (that the WTC collapses were not due to a controlled demo) is right. There is a difference. The reason it took seven years is because they first had to work on the WTC1&2 reports which were much more important. And because the whole thing is very complicated and need a lot of man hours to complete.

And saying that the government is an authority is stupid because the government is composed of millions of individuals who may or may not be an authority on any given subject. The scientists and engineers at NIST who worked on the WTC reports are definitely much more of an authority on the subject than any 9/11 denier will ever be.


Edited by dtugg (08/22/08 01:50 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: johnm214]
    #8810754 - 08/22/08 01:49 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

That's cuz peer review is largely an empty label hoisted up by folks that try to sound smart or elitist, often enough.




:doh:  Man, arnt you in school to be a scientist?  Peer review, besides being the bomb, is the best check against bad analysis humans have yet invented.  Fact is, not one peer review article has ever supported the troofers claims.  People are so desperate to demonize the government (because of the pot thing) that they contrive and invent these complicated conspiratorial webs.  They add unnecessary and wild assumptions to facilitate their belief that they are victims of the government.

Oddly enough, a little psychology here, troofers and people who feel generally victimized nearly always fall into the class of people who have an external locus of control.  LINK




edit- meant to be for reply to john


Edited by Qubit (08/22/08 02:04 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMinstrel
Man of Science
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 1,974
Loc: Hogtown
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: dtugg]
    #8810807 - 08/22/08 02:00 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

dtugg said:
I believe that conspiracy nutjobs should be put down because they have zero evidence to support their claims. There is no other evidence like you claim. It is all speculation, misrepresentation of real evidence, and sometimes out right lies.

This isn't a brand new story, it is a study that proves their story (that the WTC collapses were not due to a controlled demo) is right. There is a difference. The reason it took seven years is because they first had to work on the WTC1&2 reports which were much more important. And because the whole thing is very complicated and need a lot of man hours to complete.

And saying that the government is an authority is stupid because the government is composed of millions of individuals who may or may not be an authority on any given subject. The scientists and engineers at NIST who worked on the WTC reports are definitely much more of an authority on the subject than any 9/11 denier will ever be.




Thank you, you just proved everything I had suspected about you.  I won't waste my time with someone who advocates mass murder, for any reason.  But mass murder just because they don't agree with you?


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


Edited by Minstrel (08/22/08 02:05 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMinstrel
Man of Science
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 1,974
Loc: Hogtown
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: DieCommie]
    #8810818 - 08/22/08 02:03 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

That's cuz peer review is largely an empty label hoisted up by folks that try to sound smart or elitist, often enough.




:doh:  Man, arnt you in school to be a scientist?  Peer review, besides being the bomb, is the best check against bad analysis humans have yet invented.  Fact is, not one peer review article has ever supported the troofers claims.  People are so desperate to demonize the government (because of the pot thing) that they contrive and invent these complicated conspiratorial webs.  They add unnecessary and wild assumptions to facilitate their belief that they are victims of the government.

Oddly enough, a little psychology here, troofers and people who feel generally victimized nearly always fall into the class of people who have an external locus of control.  LINK




I'm not the one who said it was elitist.  I hold peer review to be the gold standard of science.


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


Edited by Minstrel (08/22/08 02:07 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: Minstrel]
    #8810833 - 08/22/08 02:06 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Sorry, I clicked the wrong button that was for john.

(But newton didnt invent peer review, in fact he was against it many times!)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMr.Al
Alphabet soup
Male


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,380
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: NIST concludes that WTC7 collapsed due to fires [Re: Minstrel]
    #8810837 - 08/22/08 02:07 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quite frankly it tickles the shit out of me to see supposed "drug users" defend the government...  The same government that tells people they don't have the right to do what they will with their own consciousness.  They probably will even tell you the J.F.K., M.L.K., and R.F.K. assasinations were not inside jobs...  Just bizarre, this defense of the government.  Don't worry folks, Uncle Sam always has your best interests in mind!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* National Institue of Science & Technology's (NIST) Official 9/11 WTC7 Investigation PookztA 705 10 12/20/09 08:25 AM
by PookztA
* So, after 7 years, we finally know what happened in WTC7
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Minstrel 3,890 72 09/04/08 03:09 AM
by pINNhEAD
* Scientific Study Concludes that Ecstasy Harms the Brain of First Time Users
( 1 2 all )
JackTackle 5,669 26 12/06/06 11:09 AM
by badchad
* Possible to ionize fire? Baby_Hitler 1,218 17 07/13/04 03:16 PM
by gnrm23
* fire walls DrewBaccA 916 7 10/29/04 11:18 AM
by KoOs
* Players on Fire?!? relativexistance 568 5 10/12/04 12:18 AM
by Redstorm
* Fire -) Batteries? Locus 422 3 03/20/05 03:07 AM
by RuNE
* Comp freezes up due to Wi-fi USB connector Liquid_Dimension 553 3 02/24/07 03:00 AM
by Liquid_Dimension

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Lana, trendal, automan
3,981 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Edabea
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2018 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.063 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 21 queries.