Replies

1 posted on 10/16/2005 6:34:54 PM PDT by george76

To: george76

2 posted on 10/16/2005 6:35:55 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)

To: george76

Was it cheaper or otherwise more desirable than digging a canal?

Or would that have messed up the proper current of the Elbe and caused problems downstream?

5 posted on 10/16/2005 6:39:28 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (WW2 was NOT lost the day we DIDN'T take Berlin.)

To: george76

Weird!

7 posted on 10/16/2005 6:41:11 PM PDT by SIDENET ("You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred")

To: george76

Wait...water...bridge...under water? water under...over...water bridge over water? My meager brain can't handle the concept and is about to explode.

8 posted on 10/16/2005 6:41:47 PM PDT by Oblongata

To: george76

the word "aqueduct" comes to mind. (and also here)

10 posted on 10/16/2005 6:43:33 PM PDT by solitas (So what if I support an OS that has fewer flaws than yours? 'Mystic' dual 500 G4's, OSX.4.2)

To: george76

Those crazy Germans.

11 posted on 10/16/2005 6:45:09 PM PDT by 1rudeboy

To: george76

There's an aqueduct for boats over the Millstone River in Princeton, NJ. It's for the Delaware & Raritan Canal through central NJ.

It was built in the 1800's.

13 posted on 10/16/2005 7:19:19 PM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794