|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/05/2006 : 09:49:43
|
I just finished reading the NIST report (final draft). And while it appears thorough, there is clearly room for speculation—or skepticism, if you will.
The conclusions of the NIST report are, understandably based on the various models the team ran to simulate the collapse of the buildings. As a statistician, I do a lot of work with models of all sorts—so while I have not done any modeling of this specific type, I know the general approach. And give the brief explanations of NIST's approach to their modeling, it is done in essentially the same way as when modeling anything—you use known equations for how variables react and test combinations of different levels of key and secondary variables. And sometimes, a key or secondary variable requires a model of its own to provide values for the larger model—just like NIST refers to as subsystems.
But there is a major notation to acknowledge when modeling. Models are designed around a pre-supposed scenario. Models of market response to a new brand, a new product within a category or a new marshmallow shape in Lucky Charms all base their calculations on known, historical market response. These pre-supposed scenarios define the sandbox the modeler gets to play in. And it is exactly these pre-supposed limits that prevent models from accurately predicting response to novel situations. The events of 9-11-01 certainly presented novel situations regarding WTC 1 & 2. If nothing else, this should have put NIST modelers on alert for unusual responses to inputs for their models.
Another acknowledgment is that while the models generally are run on a computer, the computers are programmed by people, and people set both the parameters within which the model will run (i.e., people define the sandbox) and also determine the inputs for the model. People also make adjustments to models based on their understanding of the quality of the input values, how the output looks and their general experience.
Finally, it should be acknowledged that the results of all models—even the ones I build for my clients—should not be taken as fact.
With these acknowledgments in mind, let's look at the NIST report. Specifically pages 143 & 144 (6.14.1)—Approach to Determining the Probable Collapse Sequences.
Now, the title alone provides the skeptical reader a point of interest. Note, the report is not stating that it determined THE collapse sequence—but rather, the PROBABLE collapse sequence. Why anyone would consider the NIST report as definitive after reading the title alone is beyond me.
Midway into the first paragraph, the report states: “To the extent that the input information was complete and accurate, the output of the simulations would have provided definitive responses to the first three objectives of the investigation. However, the available information, as extensive as it was, was neither complete nor of assured precision.” So, NIST admits, as I do with my clients, that the modeling simulations contained in the report are not definitive—which, I'm sure, is why they titled the section the way they did. By given NIST's admission to the contrary, why do so many of you treat NIST as the final word on the issue of collapse?
Like good modelers, they took steps to ensure the conclusions of their modeling work “were credible explanations of how the buildings collapsed…” Now there is a loaded statement. For to whom do the conclusions need to seem credible? Does it mean the incredible—i.e., out of the realm of the expected, but still possible—conclusions were ignored and not reported?
Reading on we see, again like good modelers, that they identify key variables that most affected the outcomes of the various models, and they model subsystems—just as I would expect. But here's the thing: If going into this, the sandbox defined for the modelers excluded incredible, but possible, conclusions, would variables like “amount and placement of explosives” even have been entered i
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 10:36:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Furthermore, given that they were looking for “credible conclusions” (as opposed to all possible conclusions)...
It's a real pity that NIST didn't examine the hypothesis that a thousand elk with epilepsy on the 88th floor were what brought down 1 WTC. After all, that is a possible explanation, but certainly not a credible one.
In other words, you seem to want to redefine "credible" for your own ends, as well. The idea that explosives were planted in the building, and that everyone who knew about them (or saw the work being doen) was hushed up, and that the explosions could be triggered at just the right time (and on just the right floors) to make it look like a collapse from gravity is, indeed, incredible.
quote:
Any skeptic worth their salt would not consider the NIST report the final word on the collapse of WTC 1 or WTC 2.
I don't see anyone doing so. I see you coming here, criticizing the "government's conspiracy theory" without even being able to point out where in the 9/11 Commission Report a description of the physics of the collapse exist, and then getting all huffy and defensive when it's pointed out that Ross' ideas don't actually address anything in the NIST report - the real "official" theory.
Whether or not the NIST report is correct is actually irrelevant to the question of whether or not you have any compelling criticism of any governmental reports on the matter. "Near free-fall" speeds isn't compelling. Ross' report isn't compelling.
And now all you've got is a strawman that some unnamed people here at the SFN are taking the NIST report as some sort of Gospel, which isn't a criticism of the report itself. You've already said that the NIST researchers did what good modelers should do. Unfortunately, without understanding the process of science yourself, you also claim they're not doing science.
With limited time and limited resources, science proceeds in the direction of what's most likely. If you - or anyone else - could have presented some actual evidence that there might have been explosives in the building(s) - not conjecture, but evidence - then I'm sure the NIST investigation would have gone differently.
But nobody amongst all those interviewed, and nothing amongst all the physical evidence that was available, suggested that explosives might have been used to help things along. Our taxpayer money shouldn't have been used to investigate every possibility (explosives, sick Elk, Hezbolah tank storage maxloading the floors above, invisible Martian building-collapse rays, etc.), but only those for which there is evidence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 11:02:03 [Permalink]
|
The NIST did look at a controlled demolition as stated in their FAQ: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
To quote the FAQ, question 2:
quote:
NIST's findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In short, the building collapse started where the planes hit. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 11:10:17 [Permalink]
|
The difference between the cases is important, too. ergo, you have indicated that the worst case as tested is "the worst, worst case scenario," when the report states, on pages 81 and 82, that Case B was "generally involving more severe impact and fire conditions than Case A" (the same going for Cases D and C). It is sheer hyperbole to suggest that "more severe" equals "worst, worst case."
Besides which, we can find out on page 102 that "Case A impact damage and thermal loads did not result in sagging on the south side of the floors," and so we now know that Case A simply doesn't result in a model which matches observations. We can safely ignore Case A as a possibility, then, with or without explosives. And then, on the next page, we can read how even under the "more severe" case, the actual bowing of the south face of 1 WTC was larger than predicted by the model, which suggests that the conditions inside the building were actually worse than those assumed by Case B. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 11:58:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
The NIST did look at a controlled demolition as stated in their FAQ: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
To quote the FAQ, question 2:
quote:
NIST's findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In short, the building collapse started where the planes hit.
When you are limited to gravity-only collapses, the planes hitting the buildings is a logical starting point. But the response to FAQ 2 is inaccurate (or at least misleading) when they state "...there is conclusive evidence that...". All models/simulations of this type have a non-zero error term associated with them. In other words, the simulations can be wrong. This is especially likely in the given situation where a novel scenario is being modeled--i.e., a steel and concrete building collapsing. The evidence is conclusive only in that NIST used it to reach their conclusions.
DaveW: If NIST uses a word as vague as "credible" it's open to interpretation. It's quite legtimate to ask "credible to whom?" It is also legitimate to ask if conclusions that this person or group would find non-credible, although possible, were considered. Given NIST's admits to not testing for explosives residue it seems possible but damning hypotheses were not examined. One would think that, if it had nothing to hide, the administration would encourage a testing of the controlled demolition hypothesis. You know, to put it to rest. But instead, they limit the investigations to from the time the planes hit to the time the buildings fall, and allow only conclusions they find credible. Certainly a situation that begs scrutiny and skepticism!
And DaveW, you, in particular, refer to the NIST report as a description of what really happened.
But the NIST Report isn't compelling, either. So it appears that in the absence of compelling information, you are willing to accept one or both of the the government's conspiracy theories. Some skeptic YOU turned out to be!
RE: "With limited time and limited resources, science proceeds in the direction of what's most likely." But as we saw, the case that was most likely (the medium case) left the buildings standing--just like Ross predicts! It was in fact the least-likely gravity-only scenario--the one where all the worst possible things happen in the worst possible way that simulates the collapse of the buildings. And the same worst things have to happen in the same worst way in two buildings hi |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 12:26:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The difference between the cases is important, too. ergo, you have indicated that the worst case as tested is "the worst, worst case scenario," when the report states, on pages 81 and 82, that Case B was "generally involving more severe impact and fire conditions than Case A" (the same going for Cases D and C). It is sheer hyperbole to suggest that "more severe" equals "worst, worst case."
Besides which, we can find out on page 102 that "Case A impact damage and thermal loads did not result in sagging on the south side of the floors," and so we now know that Case A simply doesn't result in a model which matches observations. We can safely ignore Case A as a possibility, then, with or without explosives. And then, on the next page, we can read how even under the "more severe" case, the actual bowing of the south face of 1 WTC was larger than predicted by the model, which suggests that the conditions inside the building were actually worse than those assumed by Case B.
Good. Now you're thinking! But what other condition, besides "actually worse" could be at play here in the model? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 12:29:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
You seem to be looking for truth with absolutely no possible margin of error, ergo123, and anything less than that leaves room for conspiracy. Do you see the problem with this?
Then you have misinterpreted my point of view. My point was that the error term in these models can, and often are, substantial. Yet they do not mention error in their models at all. In my line of work, that's a sure sign the error term (margin for error) is large. And that leaves room for SKEPTICISM. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/05/2006 12:30:49 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 12:43:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
The NIST did look at a controlled demolition as stated in their FAQ: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
To quote the FAQ, question 2:
quote:
NIST's findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In short, the building collapse started where the planes hit.
NIST implies that the top-down order of destruction of the Twin Towers weighs against the controlled demolition theory. However, as part of a psychological operation, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would be designed to support a false narrative of events (that the plane crashes caused the collapses) so of course the events would have been engineered to have the destruction start around the crash zones.
While NIST cherry-picks a feature of the Towers' destructions that differs from conventional, bottom-up demolitions, it conveniently ignores numerous features that are unique to demolitions, including:
Rapid onset, accompanied by sounds of explosions
Radial symmetry about the building's vertical axis
Consistent pulverization of non-metallic materials
Total destruction of the building
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 13:02:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
DaveW: If NIST uses a word as vague as "credible" it's open to interpretation. It's quite legtimate to ask "credible to whom?"
Sure. Explosives aren't credible to me.quote:
It is also legitimate to ask if conclusions that this person or group would find non-credible, although possible, were considered.
Sure, and structural members weakened by an accidental spill of leopard vomit weren't investigated, either. You're suggesting that such incredible-but-possible scenarios should have been explored on the taxpayer dime.quote:
Given NIST's admits to not testing for explosives residue it seems possible but damning hypotheses were not examined.
It's not credible, so it's hardly "damning."quote:
One would think that, if it had nothing to hide, the administration would encourage a testing of the controlled demolition hypothesis. You know, to put it to rest.
There's no evidence in favor of it, so it is at rest.quote:
But instead, they limit the investigations to from the time the planes hit to the time the buildings fall, and allow only conclusions they find credible. Certainly a situation that begs scrutiny and skepticism!
And they did use scrutiny and skepticism.quote:
And DaveW, you, in particular, refer to the NIST report as a description of what really happened.
Quote me doing so.quote:
But the NIST Report isn't compelling, either.
In the absence of any other credible explanation, it's the only one available.quote:
So it appears that in the absence of compelling information, you are willing to accept one or both of the the government's conspiracy theories.
Only if you incorrectly assume that I consider the NIST report to be some sort of Gospel, which I don't.quote:
Some skeptic YOU turned out to be!
I'm not the one inventing nonsense because I have no actual evidence. You are.quote:
RE: "With limited time and limited resources, science proceeds in the direction of what's most likely." But as we saw, the case that was most likely (the medium case) left the buildings standing--just like Ross predicts!
No, the "medium case" failed to match observations. It could therefore not be "most likely" to have been what actually occured.quote:
It was in fact the least-likely gravity-only scenario--the one where all the worst possible things happen in the worst possible way that simulates the collapse of the buildings.
Quote the NIST report saying that Case B (or Case D) was where "all the worst possible things happen in the worst possible way." You're again inventing nonsense. Case B was worse than Case A, but it wasn't the worst possible case. In fact, the live load on the floors in Case B was less than the live load in Case A.quote:
And the same worst things have to happen in the same worst way in two buildings hit in different areas by 2 different planes.
You're making up more stuff, since even the moderate case for 2 WTC (Case C) showed bowing and other features which were actually observed. Case D matched reality better, but it wasn't like with Cases A and B, where some observations were simply absent from Case A simulations.quote:
And the building hit second falls first--even though more of its fuel burns up outside the building. Call me a skeptic, but it just doesn't wash with me.
I'll call you ignorant. The building hit second falls first because its core was more damaged and there was much more weight to be supported by the weakened structures (the 2 WTC plane was going 100 MPH faster, and it hit 13 floors lower than the 1 WTC plane, and it hit on a "short side" with regard to the core). Where in Ross' analysis does he mention those facts? Actually, where in Ross' analysis does he take into account that the top of the buildings (both of them) tipped?quote:
And the mere fact that the middle case left the buildings standing...
After a "preliminary examination." The researchers didn't even do full, global analyses of the middle cases.quote:
...should provide any open and honest research team to look outside the variables they included in their model for candidate to add into a new model--especially when dealing with a novel situation like this.
NIST found that the middle cases did not match observations, but the more severe cases did. Why should they have looked at other variables when they had cases which matched reality?quote:
But what NIST was either forced to do or took it upon themselves to do was akin to describing a missile's trajectory over a landscape in only 2 dimensions. They explain away inconvenient issues like how the missile would need to plow through buildings, hills, etc. rather than consider using 3 dimensions.
And just how would adding explosives to the mix get the 1 WTC model to have massively bowed-in south walls?quote:
So I guess you want a reason to believe that is cheap rather than one based on a sound scientific process.
I don't actually care why the buildings came down. I'm arguing with you because you're making wild claims and refusing to support them with evidence.quote:
Do you read yourself kiddie stories at night before bed, too?
Coming from a person who refuses to answer simple questions, this insult is a laugh riot. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 13:04:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Good. Now you're thinking! But what other condition, besides "actually worse" could be at play here in the model?
You're the one claiming that the model is flat-out wrong, so why don't you tell me? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 13:18:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yet they do not mention error in their models at all.
Your statement is "incongruent to" the contents of the main report and especially to the contents of the 42 supplemental volumes which explain in detail the modeling and its errors. Did you only read the FAQ, the introduction and then skip to section six? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 13:21:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Rapid onset, accompanied by sounds of explosions
Where is the evidence that there were "sounds of explosions" at the onset of collapse?quote:
Radial symmetry about the building's vertical axis
Where is the evidence that the collapse was radially symmetric?quote:
Consistent pulverization of non-metallic materials
Where is the evidence for this?quote:
Total destruction of the building
This is contrary to observations. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 13:22:12 [Permalink]
|
DaveW: You seem to see this as an "either - or" situation. Having explosives assisting the buildings' collapses does not preclude any of the damage caused by the planes or the fires they created. The only evidence the "middle cases" failed to match with was the collapse. It was the "lower cases" that didn't match other observable evidence besides the collapse. So yes, the sides bowed--maybe even a floor or two progressively collapsed (according to NIST) or "pancaked" (according to the 9/11 CR; which NIST says is somehow different than progressively collapsing...). But as Ross' model and NIST's middle cases show, that doesn't lead to a total collapse of the building--in fact the NIST middle cases leave the buildings standing in their simulations.
Your examples of elks with epilepsy and leopard vomit show your unwillingness to look at this pov in a reasonable manner--your goal, apparently, being to win some non-existent debate. Your admission that you don't even care why the buildings collapsed further illustrates your closed mind with respect to this issue. With the clamour for further investigation of the controlled demolition case swelling, the issue hardly seems at rest as you suggest (or maybe secretly hope). But since you don't even care why the bildings collapsed I'm not going to bother to reply to your posts any more. I'll save my time for people who are interested in finding out the truth as to why the buildings came down. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 13:47:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
DaveW: You seem to see this as an "either - or" situation. Having explosives assisting the buildings' collapses does not preclude any of the damage caused by the planes or the fires they created. The only evidence the "middle cases" failed to match with was the collapse.
Okay, so you did not read the NIST report, in which the authors state, in no uncertain terms, that Case A (the moderate case for 1 WTC) included no bowing of the southern face of the building.quote:
It was the "lower cases" that didn't match other observable evidence besides the collapse.
No, Case A was the moderate case. To quote from page 144 (which you directed us to in your OP):The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. Bolding mine.quote:
So yes, the sides bowed--maybe even a floor or two progressively collapsed (according to NIST) or "pancaked" (according to the 9/11 CR; which NIST says is somehow different than progressively collapsing...). But as Ross' model and NIST's middle cases show, that doesn't lead to a total collapse of the building--in fact the NIST middle cases leave the buildings standing in their simulations.
NIST's middle case leaves the building standing because the perimeter columns don't bow. That action is the key to the whole analysis. Where in Ross' analysis does he describe multiple-floor bowing of the columns before any impacts? He doesn't, since his analysis is focused on whether or not there is enough energy to have a second floor get pancaked.quote:
Your examples of elks with epilepsy and leopard vomit show your unwillingness to look at this pov in a reasonable manner...
You're the one who is bringing up possible but incredible situations. Now, apparently, you only want some possible scenarios examined, but you haven't provided any sort of criteria for which possible scenarios should be tested and which should not. Since leopard vomit is within the realm of any-and-all possibilities, you'll have to provide some sort of guidelines for why it should not be examined.quote:
...your goal, apparently, being to win some non-existent debate.
My goal is to continue to show that you're full of nonsense, as I have been. You're all self-righteous about what you think the NIST report does or doesn't show, but when asked for evidence to support your assertions, you clam up, just as if you'd fabricated it all.quote:
Your admission that you don't even care why the buildings collapsed further illustrates your closed mind with respect to this issue.
No, the fact that I don't care means that I'm not beholden to the NIST report. I've been asking you to provide evidence to support your assertions, and you have refused to provide anything. It is you who've got the closed mind here.quote:
With the clamour for further investigation of the controlled demolition case swelling...
Provide evidence that there exist more people asking for further investigation of a possible demolition scenario than there were in preceding years.quote:
...the issue hardly seems at rest as you suggest (or maybe secretly hope).
I have seen no evidence that anyone in any position to instigate further investigations is doing so.quote:
But since you don't even care why the bildings collapsed I'm not going to bother to reply to your posts any more.
If you could have convinced me, I would have cared. Now that you've stated that you will refuse to communicate with me anymore, I've got all the evidence I need to conclude that you're just full of bluff, and no substance.quote:
I'll save my time for people who are interested in finding out the truth as to why the buildings came down.
See, I am interested in that, it's just that the answer makes no difference in my day-to-day life. That you confuse 'interest' and 'caring' is unfortunate.
But frankly, I don't think you're interested in the reason why the towers came down, either: I think your only interest is that random strangers on the Internet see you as being a Crusader for Truth fighting against the Dogma of the Establishment. But that's not skepticism, it's romantic dreaming which will ultimately be disappointing. I feel pity for you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
NIST Report Deserves Skepticism
Topic Locked
