|
At the risk of simply repeating others' comments, it seems pretty precious to smear a group of people as "criminal" -- without any support whatsoever -- and then lecture another poster on "basic courtesy."
|
| -Bazant's progressive collapse math is bogus. |
eomer |
Nov-05-09 04:48 AM |
#0 |
 -
Gourley is an idiot. |
AZCat |
Nov-05-09 06:12 AM |
#1 |
| -
Gourley described his JEM publishing experience |
procopia |
Nov-05-09 07:25 AM |
#2 |
  -
He was given just enough rope. n/t |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-05-09 08:31 AM |
#3 |
| -
So JEM provides "rope"??? |
procopia |
Nov-05-09 09:25 AM |
#4 |
| -
JEM's motivation |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-05-09 09:53 AM |
#5 |
| -
This is its motivation |
procopia |
Nov-05-09 10:19 AM |
#9 |
| -
LOL. |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-05-09 09:56 AM |
#6 |
| -
I don't see eomer calling you out here |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-05-09 11:23 AM |
#11 |
| -
What need did eomer have to repost my response to him? |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-05-09 11:55 AM |
#16 |
| -
shrug |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-05-09 12:07 PM |
#18 |
| -
you're so veddy veddy important. |
Algorem |
Nov-06-09 07:11 PM |
#45 |
| -
Oh |
BeFree |
Nov-07-09 08:22 AM |
#61 |
| -
Bazant is a tool |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-05-09 10:12 AM |
#7 |
| -
lol |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-05-09 10:18 AM |
#8 |
| -
Smells like bias-laced idol worship in here |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-05-09 10:21 AM |
#10 |
| -
lol |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-05-09 11:53 AM |
#14 |
| -
Being a tool has nothing to do with one's credentials. |
procopia |
Nov-05-09 11:49 AM |
#13 |
| -
Just letting the people know the person you're smearing. n/t |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-05-09 11:53 AM |
#15 |
| -
No one has questioned his credentials. |
procopia |
Nov-05-09 11:59 AM |
#17 |
| -
Link to previous discussion ---> |
AZCat |
Nov-05-09 11:39 AM |
#12 |
| -
thanks, I guess I missed this back in October '08 |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-05-09 12:11 PM |
#19 |
| -
Neither do I. |
AZCat |
Nov-05-09 03:33 PM |
#23 |
| -
That reminds me... |
William Seger |
Nov-05-09 12:39 PM |
#20 |
| -
Thanks, that really an eye opener. |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-05-09 12:46 PM |
#21 |
| -
"Bogus" is too kind a word to use for the "truth movement's" lame attempts to refute Bazant |
William Seger |
Nov-05-09 12:59 PM |
#22 |
| -
The ignorance it BURNS!!! |
Realityhack |
Nov-05-09 03:39 PM |
#24 |
| -
Meaningless ad hominem fallacy. |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-05-09 04:54 PM |
#25 |
| -
Of course we know something about you |
William Seger |
Nov-05-09 06:32 PM |
#26 |
| -
Who is "we"? |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-05-09 06:42 PM |
#27 |
| -
"basic courtesy"? |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-05-09 06:47 PM |
#28 |
| -
I believe you're trying to change the subject. |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-05-09 07:10 PM |
#29 |
| -
I'm responding to your posts |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-05-09 07:13 PM |
#30 |
| -
The substantive point is that Bazant is lying. |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-05-09 07:21 PM |
#31 |
| -
OK, I can hardly believe that you believe all that |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-05-09 07:44 PM |
#32 |
| -
But you have no trouble believing |
procopia |
Nov-06-09 10:27 AM |
#33 |
| -
Insanity |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-06-09 11:26 AM |
#34 |
| -
seriously? |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-06-09 11:26 AM |
#35 |
| -
Seriously! |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-06-09 11:44 AM |
#36 |
| -
funny, that |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-06-09 12:11 PM |
#37 |
| -
Simple answer: You are wrong. |
William Seger |
Nov-06-09 11:42 PM |
#53 |
| -
You OCT myna birds only seem to know what you are talking about |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-07-09 07:15 AM |
#54 |
| -
LOL, you're a trip, whatcha |
William Seger |
Nov-07-09 09:44 AM |
#62 |
| -
This? |
procopia |
Nov-07-09 10:04 AM |
#63 |
| -
"hardly resembles what we witnessed on 9/11" |
William Seger |
Nov-07-09 11:20 AM |
#71 |
| -
No, it doesn't resemble the WTC tower collapses-- |
procopia |
Nov-07-09 11:29 AM |
#73 |
| -
It totally collapsed... |
William Seger |
Nov-07-09 02:54 PM |
#74 |
| -
Except for the part that didn't, |
procopia |
Nov-09-09 08:24 PM |
#123 |
| -
do you realize how wildly you're misrepresenting that NIST letter? |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-09-09 09:11 PM |
#124 |
| -
Thanks for providing the context... |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 06:10 AM |
#125 |
| -
I stand by my statements, and you offered no substantive response |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 06:57 AM |
#126 |
| -
Does "not able" mean "can't"? |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 07:46 AM |
#128 |
| -
do you really not get it? |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 08:07 AM |
#129 |
| -
Do you not? |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 08:36 AM |
#132 |
| -
you still refuse to answer my simple question |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 09:11 AM |
#133 |
| -
Your question is irrelevant |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 09:45 AM |
#134 |
| -
no, it's crucial to understanding NIST's meaning |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 10:07 AM |
#135 |
| -
I don't have to "figure out" what the sentence means |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 02:16 PM |
#147 |
| -
you don't need to know what NIST meant in order to know what NIST meant? |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 02:30 PM |
#150 |
| -
I know what the fricking sentence means, OK? |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 02:41 PM |
#152 |
| -
no, you don't |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 03:02 PM |
#153 |
| -
Why would you think |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 03:15 PM |
#154 |
| -
"because of the magnitude of the deflections and the numbers of failures occurring" |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 03:44 PM |
#155 |
| -
NIST admits it is unable to explain the total WTC collapse |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 04:18 PM |
#156 |
| -
because the stated objective is much too complex for computer modeling |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-10-09 04:24 PM |
#157 |
| -
NIST neither modeled nor explained the total collapse |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 04:31 PM |
#158 |
| -
because such a task was impossible as they explained. n/t |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-10-09 04:44 PM |
#161 |
| -
Impossible to explain? nt |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 05:00 PM |
#162 |
| -
No, impossible to model and thus produce the kind of explanation you've set up as the goalpost. |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-10-09 05:28 PM |
#163 |
| -
do you ever find yourself getting really annoyed with other posters? |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 04:41 PM |
#160 |
| -
with apologies to Gary Larson: |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 10:31 AM |
#137 |
| -
You totally misrepresented NIST's admission |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 01:05 PM |
#139 |
| -
riiiiight, I totally misrepresented it by quoting it in context |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 01:13 PM |
#140 |
| -
You left out this part: |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 01:41 PM |
#143 |
| -
OK, you've veered into self-parody n/t |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 01:56 PM |
#146 |
| -
OK, so you included the admission, even though |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 02:26 PM |
#148 |
| -
oh, brother n/t |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 02:29 PM |
#149 |
| -
I know it was difficult for you |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 02:32 PM |
#151 |
| -
as I mentioned previously, you've veered into self-parody n/t |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 04:39 PM |
#159 |
| -
There's really no point in engaging posters like this. |
AZCat |
Nov-10-09 06:38 PM |
#164 |
| -
well, it also sears the cluelessness into my memory, perhaps |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 06:52 PM |
#165 |
| -
It is difficult, because they mostly claim to value the pursuit of knowledge. |
AZCat |
Nov-10-09 06:59 PM |
#166 |
| -
haha |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 07:56 PM |
#168 |
| -
Maybe you learned something then. |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 08:10 PM |
#170 |
| -
since "full" and "total" are meaningless, that makes perfect se-- oh, wait |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 08:32 PM |
#172 |
| -
Actually |
procopia |
Nov-10-09 09:03 PM |
#173 |
| -
actually |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-10-09 09:25 PM |
#174 |
| -
Actually, there is no reason to believe it means anything other than what it says |
procopia |
Nov-11-09 06:07 AM |
#178 |
| -
you're flat-out wrong |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-11-09 07:11 AM |
#180 |
| -
Speaking of veering... |
procopia |
Nov-11-09 08:00 AM |
#181 |
| -
this precisely supports my point that you complained about below |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-11-09 08:34 AM |
#187 |
| -
No, it isn't. |
AZCat |
Nov-10-09 07:13 AM |
#127 |
| -
Wrong, and wrong again |
William Seger |
Nov-11-09 12:07 AM |
#176 |
| -
there are interesting moments |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-11-09 08:00 AM |
#182 |
| -
Interesting moments, like when you misquote me? |
procopia |
Nov-11-09 08:14 AM |
#183 |
| -
that isn't quoting you at all |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-11-09 08:19 AM |
#184 |
| -
You didn't "paraphrase" |
procopia |
Nov-11-09 08:32 AM |
#186 |
| -
this is just another unsupported assertion on your part |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-11-09 09:01 AM |
#188 |
| -
Unfortunately you are as poor at logic as you are at physics. |
Realityhack |
Nov-07-09 07:57 AM |
#57 |
| -
Still photo proof |
procopia |
Nov-06-09 01:47 PM |
#38 |
| -
You and eomer are making the same mistake as Tony Szamboti. n/t |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-06-09 02:00 PM |
#39 |
| -
Bazant's mistake (one of them) |
procopia |
Nov-06-09 03:24 PM |
#41 |
| -
You do not understand Bazant's paper. n/t |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-06-09 03:30 PM |
#42 |
| -
Explain it to me then. |
procopia |
Nov-06-09 05:51 PM |
#43 |
| -
Bazant/Zhou is not an exact modeling of the WTC towers' collapse. It's a limiting case. |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-06-09 06:31 PM |
#44 |
| -
Then probably NIST shouldn't have used it as a basis |
procopia |
Nov-06-09 07:45 PM |
#46 |
| -
You continue to misunderstand Bazant's report. n/t |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-06-09 10:04 PM |
#47 |
| -
Oh I understand it |
procopia |
Nov-06-09 10:20 PM |
#48 |
| -
No, and your continued mangling of it demonstrates that amply. |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-06-09 10:41 PM |
#49 |
| -
No one could mangle it more than Bazant himself |
procopia |
Nov-06-09 10:50 PM |
#50 |
| -
No. n/t |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-06-09 11:18 PM |
#52 |
| -
Really? If you really understand it but still disagree with it... |
William Seger |
Nov-06-09 10:52 PM |
#51 |
| -
I've already stated my reason |
procopia |
Nov-07-09 08:03 AM |
#58 |
| -
(Post #66 applies to you, too.) |
William Seger |
Nov-07-09 11:26 AM |
#72 |
| -
Bazant assumes the worst case, not best. |
eomer |
Nov-07-09 08:20 AM |
#60 |
| -
Good examples... |
William Seger |
Nov-07-09 10:46 AM |
#66 |
| -
Is this a joke? |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-07-09 04:06 PM |
#75 |
| -
LOL |
William Seger |
Nov-07-09 06:43 PM |
#76 |
| -
I'm glad you're laughing. |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-08-09 07:51 AM |
#77 |
| -
Pardon me if I don't depend on your overwhelming engineering experience... |
AZCat |
Nov-08-09 10:46 AM |
#79 |
| -
"Credentials are somewhat irrelevant" |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-08-09 10:53 AM |
#80 |
| -
but so are unilateral declarations of competence |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-08-09 10:59 AM |
#81 |
| -
Exactly. |
AZCat |
Nov-08-09 11:01 AM |
#82 |
| -
You have an agenda, I have experience. |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-08-09 11:02 AM |
#83 |
| -
What "experience" do you have... |
SDuderstadt |
Nov-08-09 11:06 AM |
#84 |
| -
He already told us... |
AZCat |
Nov-08-09 11:07 AM |
#86 |
| -
Professional experience too, on high-rise steel frame projects. |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-08-09 11:09 AM |
#87 |
| -
I seriously doubt that, dude... |
SDuderstadt |
Nov-08-09 11:13 AM |
#89 |
| -
Uh-huh. |
AZCat |
Nov-08-09 11:14 AM |
#92 |
| -
Likewise. n/t |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-08-09 11:18 AM |
#94 |
| -
Except I haven't been basing my arguments... |
AZCat |
Nov-08-09 11:21 AM |
#97 |
| -
What arguments? |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-08-09 11:25 AM |
#101 |
| -
That hasn't been the basis of any of my arguments. |
AZCat |
Nov-08-09 11:27 AM |
#103 |
| -
That's really quite amusing. |
AZCat |
Nov-08-09 11:07 AM |
#85 |
| -
I'm not the one bragging. |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-08-09 11:12 AM |
#88 |
| -
Actually, yes - you were. |
AZCat |
Nov-08-09 11:13 AM |
#90 |
| -
Incorrect. I don't brag about my experience |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-08-09 11:17 AM |
#93 |
| -
Now it's just pathetic. |
AZCat |
Nov-08-09 11:20 AM |
#95 |
| -
Dude... |
SDuderstadt |
Nov-08-09 11:22 AM |
#98 |
| -
Notice he doesn't describe what KIND of experience that was. n/t |
AZCat |
Nov-08-09 11:23 AM |
#99 |
| -
Exactly.... |
SDuderstadt |
Nov-08-09 11:25 AM |
#102 |
| -
naw, that could be true |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-08-09 11:29 AM |
#104 |
| -
Some sense - yes... |
AZCat |
Nov-08-09 11:33 AM |
#105 |
| -
certainly it can't |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-08-09 11:41 AM |
#106 |
| -
I call bullshit... |
SDuderstadt |
Nov-08-09 11:14 AM |
#91 |
| -
You call lots of things I've noticed. |
thepeopleunited |
Nov-08-09 11:20 AM |
#96 |
| -
I call bullshit when I see it... |
SDuderstadt |
Nov-08-09 11:24 AM |
#100 |
| -
Address my subtantive point. |
eomer |
Nov-08-09 09:03 AM |
#78 |
| -
That's easy |
William Seger |
Nov-08-09 01:32 PM |
#107 |
| -
No, it's not easy. |
eomer |
Nov-09-09 10:13 AM |
#109 |
| -
Utter nonsense |
William Seger |
Nov-09-09 01:02 PM |
#116 |
| -
Conceded that Bazant does reflect some ejection from Part A. |
eomer |
Nov-10-09 08:31 AM |
#131 |
| -
Nonsense. Mass can ONLY be ejected from part B |
William Seger |
Nov-10-09 08:13 PM |
#171 |
| -
Semantics. |
eomer |
Nov-11-09 05:44 AM |
#177 |
| -
More nonsense |
William Seger |
Nov-11-09 08:25 AM |
#185 |
| -
Bazant insists that Part C remains intact. |
eomer |
Nov-11-09 12:24 PM |
#196 |
| -
Please allow an actuary to assist all you amazing engineers. |
eomer |
Nov-09-09 10:54 AM |
#110 |
| -
And to state it more correctly, |
eomer |
Nov-09-09 12:11 PM |
#113 |
| -
Could you do a force diagram of what you're proposing here? |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-09-09 12:53 PM |
#115 |
| -
No, it's too complex. |
eomer |
Nov-10-09 10:25 AM |
#136 |
| -
How amusing. n/t |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-10-09 12:57 PM |
#138 |
| -
You disagree? You think it can be reduced to a simple diagram at a single instant of time? n/t |
eomer |
Nov-10-09 01:18 PM |
#141 |
| -
Force diagrams are a standard way of getting your mind around a problem. |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-10-09 01:27 PM |
#142 |
| -
Utterly worthless in this case. |
eomer |
Nov-10-09 01:49 PM |
#144 |
| -
No, much too revealing in this case. |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-10-09 01:55 PM |
#145 |
| -
Your suggestions makes no sense to me. |
eomer |
Nov-10-09 07:53 PM |
#167 |
| -
You guys are SO predictable. |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-10-09 08:00 PM |
#169 |
| -
WTF? That's exactly what Bazant has done. |
William Seger |
Nov-09-09 01:10 PM |
#118 |
| -
No, you missed the distinction I'm making. |
eomer |
Nov-10-09 08:12 AM |
#130 |
| -
Please throw that red herring back, it's under the legal limit |
William Seger |
Nov-10-09 10:18 PM |
#175 |
| -
I'm not the one sidestepping -- Bazant is. |
eomer |
Nov-11-09 06:34 AM |
#179 |
| -
You're wrong about what Bazant calculated, and you are the one trying to use magic |
William Seger |
Nov-11-09 09:52 AM |
#189 |
| -
I think you lose some people at "the falling mass" |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-11-09 11:39 AM |
#190 |
| -
That speaks for me. |
eomer |
Nov-11-09 11:58 AM |
#192 |
| -
no, wait, we need to curse at each other for 10 or 20 posts... |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-11-09 12:08 PM |
#193 |
| -
I know. |
eomer |
Nov-11-09 12:15 PM |
#195 |
| -
What On The Other Hand is describing is a common misperception. |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-11-09 12:08 PM |
#194 |
| -
well, here's what interests me |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-11-09 12:31 PM |
#197 |
| -
Oops, reading it again I find I may disagree. |
eomer |
Nov-11-09 01:28 PM |
#198 |
| -
Which weighs more... |
William Seger |
Nov-11-09 06:00 PM |
#199 |
| -
Bazant's primary argument |
eomer |
Nov-11-09 06:24 PM |
#200 |
| -
Last time for this |
William Seger |
Nov-11-09 06:53 PM |
#202 |
| -
No, it is you who does not understand Bazant's calculations. |
eomer |
Nov-11-09 09:31 PM |
#205 |
| -
As near as I can tell, you haven't understood a single word I've said to you |
William Seger |
Nov-12-09 01:56 AM |
#207 |
| -
No, I've understood your words. Let me try to rephrase my point more in the way you think of it. |
eomer |
Nov-12-09 03:08 AM |
#208 |
| -
well, it makes sense to me |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-11-09 08:40 PM |
#203 |
| -
You miss my point. |
eomer |
Nov-11-09 11:56 AM |
#191 |
| -
No, I have answered that point more than once, and you've just ignored what I said |
William Seger |
Nov-11-09 06:27 PM |
#201 |
| -
My OP discussed my visual evidence but here it is again, packaged better. |
eomer |
Nov-11-09 08:55 PM |
#204 |
| -
2002 |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-11-09 09:32 PM |
#206 |
| -
Goalposts on the move |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-09-09 11:34 AM |
#112 |
| -
Not surprising |
William Seger |
Nov-09-09 01:07 PM |
#117 |
| -
heh, maybe so... (nt) |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-09-09 03:13 PM |
#119 |
| -
Relying on disparity between Bazant Zhou's model and visual evidence is your flaw. n/t |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-08-09 01:34 PM |
#108 |
| -
Why rely on real visual evidence when you have totally theoretical numbers? |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-09-09 11:27 AM |
#111 |
| -
You also have misunderstood the purpose of Bazant Zhou. |
Bolo Boffin |
Nov-09-09 12:50 PM |
#114 |
| -
You missionaries are doing a great job of proselytizing |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-09-09 04:08 PM |
#120 |
| -
comparing his post to yours |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-09-09 04:35 PM |
#121 |
| -
Our side has better and more sophisticated... |
SDuderstadt |
Nov-09-09 04:46 PM |
#122 |
| -
Entertaining thread. |
RUMMYisFROSTED |
Nov-06-09 02:59 PM |
#40 |
| -
This thread is a perfect example of why non-engineers / physicists / etc. are not... |
Realityhack |
Nov-07-09 07:47 AM |
#55 |
| -
I forget, what is your field of expertise, hack? |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-07-09 07:53 AM |
#56 |
| -
Credentials are somewhat irrelevant. |
AZCat |
Nov-07-09 10:35 AM |
#65 |
| -
We agree AZ |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-07-09 10:59 AM |
#67 |
| -
I was talking about something similar with my girlfriend last night. |
AZCat |
Nov-07-09 11:03 AM |
#68 |
| -
You are wise (nt) |
whatchamacallit |
Nov-07-09 11:10 AM |
#69 |
| -
I make lots of mistakes. |
AZCat |
Nov-07-09 11:14 AM |
#70 |
| -
The purpose of the paper, |
procopia |
Nov-07-09 08:12 AM |
#59 |
| -
Bazant's slip is showing. |
eomer |
Nov-07-09 10:24 AM |
#64 |
| -
well said-- the Bazant refutation is a joke |
spooked911 |
Nov-06-11 06:29 PM |
#209 |
| -
ROFL |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-07-11 06:22 AM |
#210 |
| -
Like a Zombi |
ryan_cats |
Nov-07-11 08:57 AM |
#211 |
| -
Just found it the other day. Sorry I missed it when it first came around. |
spooked911 |
Nov-16-11 10:27 AM |
#214 |
| -
fair enough -- but there is a big problem in the OP |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-16-11 07:47 PM |
#215 |
| -
That's a gross simplification of my argument. |
eomer |
Nov-20-11 06:48 AM |
#216 |
| -
well, you stuck around and offered better arguments |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-20-11 08:01 AM |
#217 |
| -
Here is the blog entry by Krugman that I was remembering: |
eomer |
Nov-20-11 01:32 PM |
#218 |
| -
I don't think the analogy is very close |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-20-11 07:49 PM |
#219 |
| -
Yes, that was as far as I intended the analogy to go. |
eomer |
Nov-21-11 04:32 AM |
#220 |
| -
wait, hang on a second |
OnTheOtherHand |
Nov-21-11 08:30 AM |
#221 |
| -
I agree spooked |
zappaman |
Nov-07-11 04:10 PM |
#213 |
| -
science isn't stupid but apparently Bazant thinks we are stupid |
spooked911 |
Nov-24-11 08:33 AM |
#222 |
| -
Depending on who you mean by "we"... |
William Seger |
Nov-24-11 12:44 PM |
#223 |
| -
Reminds me of a Nikola Tesla quote |
deconstruct911 |
Nov-07-11 03:33 PM |
#212 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore