9/11 Paper Accepted to Major Conference

Jaytje46

Muse
J
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
507
Location
Usa
So it seems that they need cash for a German mathematician to show his paper to the engineering world in New York.

http://action.ae911truth.org/o/50694/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1402270

German mathematician Ansgar Schneider was pleased to learn last month that his new paper, “The Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe” — which refutes the official theory of the Twin Towers’ total destruction — was accepted to one of the most prestigious engineering conferences in the world: the annual congress of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE), being held in New York City.

This hugely positive development has created a major problem for Ansgar — a “good problem,” that is. If he doesn’t attend this conference in person, he cannot present his findings and won’t be included in the congress journal. The conference is little more than a month away, and the cost of attending is simply too much for this young academic.
Click to expand...

The article has several links going to the donation page, but not a single link to the site of the Conference. I wonder why... Also no link to the paper.

I did find some other papers which he wrote.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06207
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06183

He is not one of the speakers.

http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=9140

He is also not an engineer, else AE9/11 would have called him that, so he also wont be speaking at the Young engineers program.

http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=7915

So not sure when they are going to let him speak tbh..

https://venuewest-my.sharepoint.com...m/Documents/Public/IABSE/P@G July 10,2019.pdf

And how can a paper be accepted to a congress btw? Or am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
Jaytje46 said:
And how can a paper be accepted to a congress btw? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...



Most of the papers presented at conferences are submitted by the attendees. I'm not sure what criteria they used for accepting papers. From their website, they also have a "poster session", and if history is any guide, I'd bet good money that he's actually just presenting a poster. These have very little vetting, in my experience. They're like training wheels for science publications, they give new scientists low-cost and low-risk places to present some simple work.

I don't imagine this will go as well for them as they think, though. From the conference invitation pdf, there's a Pre-Congress Workshop on Structural Failures – "Investigations, Causes, Lessons Learned and Used to Mitigate Failures".

So there will be actual experts in the house to talk to this fellow. I suspect it will be like a live-action post from JayUtah or Nick Terry.
 
Jaytje46 said:
So it seems that they need cash for a German mathematician to show his paper to the engineering world in New York.

http://action.ae911truth.org/o/50694/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1402270
Click to expand...
I'll see if I can google anything on him from German sites.

Jaytje46 said:
The article has several links going to the donation page, but not a single link to the site of the Conference. I wonder why...
Click to expand...
Uhm - now it has one, to http://www.iabse2019.com/

Jaytje46 said:
Also no link to the paper.
Click to expand...
I think the point of a conference presentation is to have a paper first presented, then published with the conference procedings ;)

Jaytje46 said:
I did find some other papers which he wrote.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06207
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06183
Click to expand...
Taking a brief look at the first of the two, I find two "problems" already:
1. He apparently sets out to debunk Bazant & Verdure (2007) - the "crush-down-then-crush-up" paper. Well, It has already been debunked - GIGO-style: The model that B&V look at does not actually describe the observed collapse mechanisms.* edited to add footnote2. Ansgar Schneider believes that "the underlying Newtonian equation of motions" play a role in the model - that would be a foolish approach if it really were so.

I'll read it completely later, also the other ... uhm ... write-up.

Jaytje46 said:
He is not one of the speakers.

http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=9140
Click to expand...
He is not one of the keynote speakers - that's the page you link to. Keynote speakers are individuals with estreemed prestige, sometimes outside the field (e.g. journalsists, politicians, ...), invited by the Congress organizers to set the tone, invite vision, broaden the scope. These are separate from any technical and academic presentation.

Jaytje46 said:
He is also not an engineer, else AE9/11 would have called him that, so he also wont be speaking at the Young engineers program.

http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=7915
Click to expand...
Could be true.

Jaytje46 said:
So not sure when they are going to let him speak tbh..
Click to expand...
Try the Program? http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=9151
"The IABSE NY team is working hard to provide you with an exciting program!

Take a look at our draft program here and stay tuned for more updates."​

Jaytje46 said:
https://venuewest-my.sharepoint.com...m/Documents/Public/IABSE/P@G July 10,2019.pdf
Click to expand...
Ah - you found it :D
Details are yet to be filled in.

Jaytje46 said:
And how can a paper be accepted to a congress btw? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Horatius already explained ;)



* footnote added on edit: Here is what's wrong with Bazant & Verdure (2007), and why subsequently Schneider's debunking of it is irrelevant, even if valid: B&V consider that columns buckle all across the buildings, top-down. Page 4-5 of Schneider's first "paper": "In [Bazant and Zhou, 2002] and [Bazant et al. 2008] a maximal possible value of W = 500 MJ is mentioned, which is based on computations for a three-hinge buckling scenario. Yet meanwhile Korol and Sivakumaran have made empirical studies of buckling columns, which indicate that this value should be about 3 to 4 times bigger [Korol and Sivakumaran, 2014]." However, it is pretty obvious from looking at the debris on the ground and also the extant videos of the collapses that hardly any columns developed any, let alone 3, buckling hinges. This is not what happened, so arguing the correct numerical magnitude of energy dissipation is purely academic and irrelevant to the actual, historic collapses.
 
Last edited:
AE911T claims that this is "one of the most prestigious engineering conferences in the world".

AE are always quick with unqualified superlatives. Is this claim true?

The IABSE was founded in 1929 in Switzerland, and still has its international headquarters at the Swiss Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zürich, Switzerland. It has 3900 members world-wide, ca. 500 of which in Switzerland. The English Wikipedia is pretty short, with only 4 paragraphs, for a body or event labeled "one of the most prestigious in the world". The German Wiki has a bit more meat (that's where I got the 3900 figure from) - but there doesn't even exist a French or Spanish, let alone Russian, Japanese or Chinese Wiki version, only EN, DE, IT and Tamil. How prestigeous can something be "in the world" that doesn't even have a Wiki article in one of the major native languages of the counbtry where it is centered?


Soooo ... any engineers in the room who have heard of the IABSE before?
 
By the way, from the IABSE2019 homepage:
IABSE said:
Key Dates

June 1, 2018|Deadline for Congress contributions
June 15, 2018|Call for abstracts
November 1, 2018 | Deadline for abstract submissions
November 20, 2018|NEW deadline for abstract submissions
February 1, 2019|Notify authors of abstract acceptance
May 1, 2019|Submittal deadline for full papers
June 24, 2019|Notification of acceptance of full papers and announcement of presentation types
July 15, 2019|Registration deadline for all presenting authors
July 15, 2019|Deadline for early-bird registration
September 2–3, 2019|IABSE Annual Meetings
September 4–6, 2019|Congress
Click to expand...

So the "Registration deadline for all presenting authors" is already 10 days past - has Schneider registered? The AE aticle sounds as if not...
 
Oystein said:
By the way, from the IABSE2019 homepage:
[/TABLE]

So the "Registration deadline for all presenting authors" is already 10 days past - has Schneider registered? The AE aticle sounds as if not...
Click to expand...

I note an abstract deadline extension there. That is usually a symptom of them not receiving enough submissions, which doesn't sound like the kind of problem that "one of the most prestigious conferences in the world" would have.
 
Oystein said:
So the "Registration deadline for all presenting authors" is already 10 days past - has Schneider registered? The AE aticle sounds as if not...
Click to expand...
My take is that he has.

On one hand, there's this:
Cancellation Policy:

* Cancellation until August 1st, 2019: full refund less a $ 100 administrative fee.

* No cancellation possible after August 1st, 2019.
Click to expand...
http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=7891

On the other hand, I'm sure that AE911T has more than enough money to cover the expenses, from membership fees if nothing else. They are just trying to monetize on this. I don't recall AE911T ever saying "The goal has been reached, you can stop sending money".

And yeah, the bigger they make it sound, the more motivated will the donors be, no matter if it's a lie.
 
Scanning the two former papers by Schneider, they reek of a mathematician using his tools with competence, albeit on a problem he doesn't have sufficient understanding of. Being good at math doesn't automatically mean you are good at physics, and even less that you are good at forensic engineering.
 
And here it is, being accepted.

mdBNyJE.jpg
 
Fonebone said:
Ansgar Schneider In his own words .............

Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe
https://noliesradio.org/archives/166761


Listen to his analysis of the physics of the three tower collapses clearly explained with mathematics and expertise.
Click to expand...

I'd rather hear what you took away from it. What impressed you and why. I'll let the mathematicians sort out the maths.
 
Oystein said:
Scanning the two former papers by Schneider, they reek of a mathematician using his tools with competence, albeit on a problem he doesn't have sufficient understanding of. Being good at math doesn't automatically mean you are good at physics, and even less that you are good at forensic engineering.
Click to expand...


Did you fail to even look up his CV or did you believe that nobody else would care to check? Sounds like he is a physicist first and mathematician on top, which seems to run a bit against your non-credentialed "assessment" (just run auto-translate people, I'm not going to bother):

his publisher said:
Ansgar Schneider studierte Physik und schloß sein Studium mit einer Diplomarbeit im Bereich der Quantenfeldtheorie, der Vereinigung von Relativitätstheorie und Quantenmechanik, ab. In seiner Promotion in Mathematik befaßte er sich mit einem Thema im Grenzgebiet von Analysis, Topologie und Stringtheorie. Seine anschließenden Tätigkeiten in Lehre und Forschung führten ihn an verschiedene Universitäten und außeruniversitäre Forschungseinrichtungen im In- und Ausland.

Er publizierte wegweisende physikalische Arbeiten über die Zerstörung des World Trade Centers, in denen er die bekannten mathematischen Einsturzmodelle zum Kollaps des Nordturms des World Trade Centers verbesserte und durch bislang unberücksichtigte empirische Daten zeigte, daß die Struktur der Türme prinzipiell stabil genug war, um einem fortlaufenden Kollaps standzuhalten, selbst als dieser schon weit fortgeschritten war.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nolies radio, home of the execrable Kevin Barrett and his "Truth Jihad" show.


ETA - string theory and quantum mechanics are probably not the right skillset for analyzing a building collapse.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Did you fail to even look up his CV...
Click to expand...

Wait a second - you pretend to link his CV, but instead you link the homepage of the self-styled "Verlag für die wissenschaftliche Untersuchung der Terroranschläge des 11. September" ("Publishing House for the scientific Investigation of the Terror Attacks of 9/11", hence just another woo site).

I googled him, could not find a current CV, only hints that years ago he worked as a scientific employee (post-doc?) at a Max-Planck-institute for mathematics in Bonn. He seems much more of a mathematician than physicist in real life.

Childlike Empress said:
...or did you believe that nobody else would care to check? Sounds like he is a physicist first and mathematician on top, which seems to run a bit against your non-credentialed "assessment" (just run auto-translate people, I'm not going to bother):
Click to expand...
How does anything listed in his CV qualify him to understand the engineering mechanics of a collapsing building?
His works on 9/11 show he does not understand those things. He lapped up what other Truthers before him wrote about Bazant's various papers, and dove head-first into the mathermatics of them - without bothering to check whether the models that those math formulas describe have anything to do with the real world.

Quick reminder, if you ever understood:
Bazant's first paper, drafted on day 2 after the attacks and published in 2002 along with Zhou, presents a limiting case of collapse progression: Suppose ALL of the already falling building ran fully into the undamaged columns below, even then the columns could not dissipate the kinetic energy of the falling mass, AND the falling mass would pick up more energy per height unit than the columns would dissipate in buckling.
This is a limiting case, because the columns are the strongest element of the structure, i.e. the part of the assembly that can dissipate the most energy in buckling. He called it "the best case for building survival".

Now the "best case" is not necessarily the "real case". In reality, the columns below were mostly bypassed. Right, CE?

Bazant&Zhou 2002 validly presented a best case enveloping szenario to answer the binary question "could the structure below have arrested the fall of the top once the top had fallen through at least one story?"

The follow-up papers by Bazant and collaborators elaborated further this "all columns are subjected to full stress and experience 3-hinge buckling as collapse progresses" model - which is NOT what actually happened. Thus, all he wrote after 2002 became progressively irrelevant to describing the actual collapses.

In addition, it seems that his numbers in the original 2002 paper need revision, and that after revision, the answer "collapse inevitable?" might no longer be an inambiguous "yes" - for that limiting "let's buckle all columns at once on every story" case.

The response to this finding is, of course, a big, yawning "So what?", for we know that the first major collapse progression mechanism was "pancaking", where only the floor truss seats provided structural resistance, dissipating far less energy than the columns would.


Now finally, what mathematician/quantum physicist Schneider doesn't understand is this:

Bazant is not the official story!

Nothing in his study "der Quantenfeldtheorie, der Vereinigung von Relativitätstheorie und Quantenmechanik" ever prepared him for understanding this simple bit of trivia.

And thus, he is out of his league.
 
Last edited:
Listening to the audio Fonebone provided (thanks!): Ansgar heard about WTC7 the first time in 2014, and he thinks that people not even knowing about it is the first reason why it isn't a bigger topic in academia. From a video I saw before this thread started I guess Ansgar is quite young for a doctor, likely between 30 and 40 years old.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 11 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So... how were the explosives engineered to cause the collapse of the three buildings... has anyone set this down in writing yet for review?
 
OK I thought I had already posted on this topic at this forum. Looks like I was wrong. BUT I recently posted a lengthy explanation on a Face Book group which is a "Truther Echo Box" and has only a couple of rational*** "debunkers" making some contribution. (*** Don't ask what an alleged rational person is doing in such a den of obsessive ignorance.. :o )

In essence I have read two of Ansgar Schnieder's papers and in both he makes the fatal error which dogged debate in these mainstream forums for many years. He takes the Bazant Limit Case Modelling from Bazant & Zhou 2001/2 and presumes that the columns remained in line resisting collapse. So shades of "Missing Jolt" and all that went with that error circa 2007 through 2010.

Therefore the discussion of his qualifications is irrelevant. His premise is wrong for the two papers I have seen. So qualification is irrelevant.

I have not seen the paper intended for the conference - I'm not aware if it has been pre-released.

I'll include the full text of my Facebook post under a spoiler.

If anyone reads the papers - like me it should be deja vu and 10 year flashback time. :boggled:

OK [User Name] - forget my request for links to the German paper - I've found some links which may be sufficient UNLESS you can access more details than what follows:

It is referenced on the AE91 website that he intends to present a paper to a conference. The actual paper not identified BUT research has identified two extant papers by the author Ansgar Schnieder - a German mathematician. These are the papers with links:

"THE LATE JOLT RE-EXAMINING THE WORLD TRADE CENTER CATASTROPHE " linked at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06207.pdf AND
"ENERGY ESTIMATES OF PROGRESSIVE FLOOR COLLAPSES AND THE WORLD TRADE CENTER CATASTROPHE" which is at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06183.pdf.

Your understanding that "The Bazant study was just refuted via a peer reviewed study from a German [mathematician]..." is near enough correct. He identifies one issue that Bazant IMO and near certainly got wrong. But in both his papers Ansgar S makes an error that many others have made which Bazant originally got right BUT most readers of his work misunderstood. Then - years later - Bazant himself fell for the trap he had inadvertently set for others.

The whole mess and misunderstandings has a long issue of confusion and contentious debate - which I can explain if you need it.

BUT - remember I advised to NOT rely on Bazant or NIST. Here's why - because with these two papers Ansgar Schneider has followed the same false track by making one fundamental error. The same error in both papers.

There are a couple of main points:
Background. Bazant's first paper was one with his student Zhou published 9/13 - yes - two days after 9/11. Remember "first to publish" is a big thing among academics. The paper was improved, peer reviewed and re published early in 2002. And - key feature - it is a "one dimensional approximation" AKA a "limit case" which assumes that the falling material in the Twin towers Top Block fell through the "path of most resistance" AKA with the columns fully in line and presenting the maximum resistance to collapse. That is the worst case. And Bazant (plus Zhou) found that even in the worst case the collapse would progress.

There are two things that could be wrong with that.

The first is that it wasn't the actual mechanism which occurred. The actual mechanism had less resistance. BUT a whole generation of "debunkers" missed the point. THEN
The second is that he MAY have got his energy quantification wrong.

<< That second point is the point that Ansgar makes and I think he is on the right track. [Edit - insert - he claims Bazant's quantification of energy was wrong. ] He is not the first - some years back a paper by Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns made the same point in a paper that AFAIK no one has ever rebutted. And Tony Szamboti is now the leading engineer of AE911. I think they were right.

There are several ironies in the complex history of errors and misunderstandings. NIST seemed to rely on Bazant for that infamous conclusion "from that stage global collapse was inevitable". Irony because NIST was probably right for the wrong reason. Subsequent research identified the correct mechanism and it proves that global collapse was inevitable.

So remember my advice - ignore NIST and Bazant and other third party claims. Look to the actual event and the actual collapse mechanism. And I realise that it is not an easy path for persons who are not engineers with significant experience.

Whether or not Ansgar Schneider has another paper to present to the conference it is unlikely he will get it totally correct. But he is partially right to identify faults in some of Bazant's work.

It wont matter to AE911 who will "spin" it their way. But if you need more details just ask. Otherwise lets wait and see if he presents a different paper and keep comments till then.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Listening to the audio Fonebone provided (thanks!): Ansgar heard about WTC7 the first time in 2014, and he thinks that people not even knowing about it is the first reason why it isn't a bigger topic in academia. From a video I saw before this thread started I guess Ansgar is quite young for a doctor, likely between 30 and 40 years old.
Click to expand...

More people haven't heard about WTC7 because nobody died in it. The FDNY and the NYPD Bomb Squad were there in its shadow all that day waiting for it to come down. #7 was part of the WTC complex and we know what caused all of the destruction. Plus he's 13 years late to the party and starts from a ridiculous premise; that the investigation was faulty, and suggests the attacks were staged because of the chosen course of action by the United States after the attacks.

In short this is the same old story. Worse, he brings nothing new to the table. No new evidence of any kind, just postulations based on a creative interpretation of a limited set of facts. Based on reading through the MANY threads on WTC7 where credentialed engineers have argued the NIST findings it seems that while the exact cause of the collapse is still open to a heated debate, the use of explosive charges has been completely ruled out.
 
Childlike Empress said:
And I still can't even spell his name, that's how generic it is. Next Dave Rogers will give us an overview on some thing or another.
Click to expand...
How does a paper refute 19 terrorists, four jets, and fire? Like CIT, Ansgar can't grasp reality. Another failed apologist for 19 terrorists. Peace Press, looks like it is run by idiots, and Ansgar looks like a nut.

German mathematician Ansgar Schneider was pleased to learn last month that his new paper, “The Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe” — which refutes the official theory of the Twin Towers’ total destruction —
Click to expand...

Another failed dolt, Ansgar has no clue 19 terrorists did 9/11 and the fires caused the collapse of the WTC towers.

Ansgar failed, and he has no clue why. Another failed clueless 9/11 truth dolt.

Ansgar says :
Here's an explanation: this statement about the deliberate destruction of the three skyscrapers is not some "opinion," but the only known statement that explains all empirical data. In principle, it can be refuted at any time by explaining the data in the context of a fire-induced and gravitational collapse.
Click to expand...
Oh. He failed to figure out fire caused the collapse. Why, he is an idiot.

The dolt Ansgar waves his hands and declares, with out evidence, without thinking :
there is only one scientific explanation, namely that all three skyscrapers were intentionally destroyed.
Click to expand...

Who did it Ansgar? lol, fire - guess they failed to teach fire to Ansgar, the next failed 9/11 truth guru of woo.
 
Axxman300 said:
I read it. Spoiler
It's crap
Click to expand...

That is truth.

Like watching Titanic, I know the ending. When I see the claim fire can't do it, the paper fails before reading, I know the ending. Doubt CE, fooled by CIT, can debunk crap based on paranoid woo.
 
MileHighMadness said:
I read both papers, they are crap.
Click to expand...
Not totally so - overall crap yes - but there are a couple of true bits that are not often recognised or acknowledged.

But he is 10 years behind the time. the "rights" and "wrongs" of Bazant's work caused some conflict a decade ago. And his assertion that Bazant's quantification of energy to support his "Limit Case" finding is in error is not news. Some of us have for many years been identifying the ironic reality that NIST may have been right for the wrong reasons with that infamous "global collapse was inevitable".
 
These truther guys all go down the wrong path. They start their endeavor with the belief that we were lied to. Since the MSM and USG lies constantly.... the official story can't be correct. But they decide that they need to "prove it". They never do and they never present what is what they believe is the truth.... and try to "prove" that with evidence. Even without a proof... they never present a complete and coherent "story" technical and timeline accounting for all observations and evidence but which is a CD / false flag. Over the years we have suffered through all sorts of crazy stories claiming to show that what explains the collapses is impossible. A series of slackers... who prove and show nothing but errors... We've been waiting for Hulsey for years... but the list is long beginning with Jones, Chandler, through Ross, Szamboti, Cole, Basile, Harit et al and now this clown... who author bogus error filled papers or publish videos to slip the wool over the eyes of the gullible.

The truth movement works like Scientology... sucker's truth.
 
Fonebone said:
Ansgar Schneider In his own words .............

Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe
https://noliesradio.org/archives/166761


Listen to his analysis of the physics of the three tower collapses clearly explained with mathematics and expertise.
Click to expand...

AJM8125 said:
I'd rather hear what you took away from it. What impressed you and why. I'll let the mathematicians sort out the maths.
Click to expand...

AJM8125 said:
CE? Fonebone?

Do either of you have the credentials to declare the paper is not crap?
Click to expand...

Both good questions, to which we are unlikely ever to get an answer.
Funny how evasive Truthers can be. Apparently the neverending quest for truth doesn't actually involve giving straight answers.
 
Fonebone said:
Ansgar Schneider In his own words ...........Listen to his analysis of the physics of the three tower collapses clearly explained with mathematics and expertise.
Click to expand...
Naughty Fonebone - quotemining!

The referenced article ALSO says this:
.....the paper he will be presenting at the annual conference ... refutes the official theory of the Twin Towers’ total destruction developed by engineer Zdenek Bazant.
Click to expand...
Which is false. The "official theory" was NOT "developed...by Bazant".

And the two papers A Schnieder has published:
1) Are BOTH based on the false "columns stayed in line" assumption that confused debate for many years;
2) He identifies a probable error of quantification in the Bazant & Zhou paper which some of us have referred to many times and which was identified in a paper co-authored by T Szamboti which AFAIK as never been rebutted.

So he is wrong on his main conclusion. May be right on a couple of specific issues AND he is many years too late. He is in effect reprising issues which were debated cica 2008 thru 2011.

Not that truth or reality will stop AE911 "spinning" it. :rolleyes:
 
I'm trying to imagine the Q&A after this presentation.

Q - Do you realize that you just refuted the limiting case?
A - Wut
 
carlitos said:
I'm trying to imagine the Q&A after this presentation.

Q - Do you realize that you just refuted the limiting case?
A - Wut
Click to expand...
Actually he refutes the energy quantification that Bazant & Zhou relied on. BUT seems to accept the remainder of the limit case mechanism.

Both errors identified on this forum many years back. He makes the same error as Szamboti's main error with missing jolt - in that both take the limit case mechanism literally i.e. as what actually happend.

And he identifies that Bazant's energy calculations may have been wrong. The same point that Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns identified in their paper. Which was also many years too late. BUT AFAIK the claim of "wrong energy calcs" has not been rebutted as I have reported numerous times on this and other Forums.

So take care of what gets thrown out. There is a baby in his bathwater.
 
ozeco41 said:
Actually he refutes the energy quantification that Bazant & Zhou relied on. BUT seems to accept the remainder of the limit case mechanism.
Click to expand...

You might be taking this too literally.

Dude - I have refuted the official theory of the Twin Towers’ total destruction developed by engineer Zdenek Bazant.
Q - Do you realize that you just refuted a portion of a limiting case?
A - Wut
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom