9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

Jazz seems to be having a little difficulty with the concept of "evidence" and a strange insistence on our part to actually analyse his rather rough and ready hypotheses regarding the collapse.

Still, at this rate he''ll either conceed defeat or lose on every single topic within a day or two.

Jazz: Are you really up to this, or are you going to storm off in the huff again?

'Conceed' defeat...

storm off in 'the huff'...

hahaha priceless

 

[brixtonvilla]

Doesn't know when he's beaten, does he?

 

[laptop]

The whole point of the "virtue of faith" is believing things that are not true.

So the more untrue they are, the better the believer's chances of going to conspiraloon heaven.

 

[editor]

'Conceed' defeat...

storm off in 'the huff'...

hahaha priceless

Are you really not aware that it's obvious to just about everyone here that your 'argument' has been torn into little pieces and you've made been made to look very foolish indeed?

 

[TheArchitect]

Dear god, I can't believe I'm bothering with this.

I can't help but notice that you spend much time trying to spin your innocence, and absolutely none dealing with technical issues. These proving a bit tricky for you, eh?

Let's look at your latest diatribe:

I quoted the fire engineering piece to show that the investigation was a shambles, and without the work of a proper investigation, any theories of collapse would remain hypothetical. NOT that they were saying the towers were demolished.

But FE don't say the investigation is the shambles you suggest. We've looked at the quotes in context, and the wider range of articles FE published, and it's 110% clear that you've either failured to understand the article or have culpably misrepresented what they say.

How many times times do I have to say that it's not up to me to list what they chucked away!

YOU claimed that NIST concealed, suppressed, or destroyed evidence and yet you can't tell us what this mysterious evidence is? Well how do you know it's missing then? Put up, or shut up.

The photographic evidence betrays absolutely no evidence of any 'inferno' in either tower and shows that there was no smoke cloud generated by the South Tower before it collapsed.

That's a lie; I posted photgraphs showing flames and smoke right up until the moment of collapse and you conceded the point. Do you really need me to post them yet again?

I've explained that it does not represent considerable resistance. You of course try to turn that into that I'm saying it constitutes proof of a CD in itself which I never have - I just state that it is easily explained by a CD theory.

So collapse speeds between 30 and 60% slower than free fall times do not constitute "significant resistance"? How remarkable.

Moreover, you can't actually provide any calculations or technical data to support your argument that the lower structure would have slowed the collapse by any greater a time. Again, how remarkable.

None proved me wrong! You are having a laugh again, or just think that by C&P a load of stuff you have somehow showed something! In fact they all said exactly the same.

I suggest that you reread the quotes and links; it's not just us here, but the designer of the structure who proves that you're own rather individual interpretation of the Wiki article is wrong.

That you made the extraordinary assertion that the 'massively strong' central core could not stand on its 47 fantastically thick steel columns has utterly convinced me that my appreciation of the mechanics is far, far better than yours.

Well firstly, only one of us has actually studied structures at university level and has a degree to prove it. Hint: it's not you. So the ad-hom attack is a bit rich.

However what is particularly astounding is your complete and utter failure to address any of the technical queries I put to you. Why can't you explain to us about the post-collapse spire, or the damage caused to the core by the aircraft impact, or indeed the collapse debris damage?

'and when we did it it became clear that they had a number of very specific areas of concern'



Face it, Jazz. You're losing because you can't deal with real facts and real evidence. Your inability to address substantive technical queries and tendencey to drop into loose-mouthed insults just confirms that you're paddling out of your depth.

 

[TheArchitect]

And since you seem to have forgotten those pesky little technical queries about your fantastic core theory, here they are (for the third time):

[LOL] Oh Jazz, you're not making sense here.

1. What was supporting the outer edge of the floor slabs?

2. Are you seriously suggesting that the floors cantilevered from the core?

3. What is the cross-sectional area of the perimetric outer steelwork compared to the inner core steelwork?

4. How do you believe that the wind loadings on the external steelwork were redistributed?

5. Why have you STILL not responded to survival of parts of the core for 15-20 seconds following the main collapse?

6. Likewise you have failed to address the damaged caused to the core by the aircraft impacts.

7. And again, you have failed to recognise the damage caused to the core by collapsing elements of the surrounding fabric.

Do feel free to answer these any time that you think you might want to be taken seriously.

 

[TheArchitect]

Still waiting for your reply to this too, Jazz.

Presumably the problem isn't the maths, since you claim to have a good grasp of mechanics:

[sigh]

Where to begin.

1. You will recall that I asked you for more specific evidence or details of the material you claim had been ejected such distances. This has not (yet) been forthcoming, so in the interim I'm going to assume that you mean larger elements and not the minor ejecta we see comming through the windows.

2. Well firstly, we know that the individual steel beams did not weigh "hundreds of tons". In actual fact core columns were no longer than around 30ft/10m, and the facade sections smaller. Similarly the floors rested on lightweight trusses.

3. Secondly, there is no evidence that the core columns were ever found substantially outside the immediate area of the buildings, likewise the floor trusses broke into sections, hence you must be talking about the facade.

4. Next, we need to differentiate between the lightweight aluminium cladding - which was the same profile as the steel, of course - and the actual structural work. There is every reason to believe that dislidged lightweight cladding would travel a considerable distance.

5. Now let's look at the collapse mechanism. Following the loss of the internal floor trusses, the external structural envelope buckles so much that we can see it. Obviously this will be placing the steelwork under considerable stress. Then the joints fail. Now we know that steel is, in fact, actually quite elastic (or else springs wouldn't work, eh?) and indeed you confirm that yourself in another post. So there is every reason to assume that when these loads are released, there will be a degree of movement.

6. However this is not the only potential means by which movement might occur. Most obviously, sections of facade moving downwards would hit lower work and - shock - be deflected (ie bounce) outwards. If an object has already fallen a hundred or two hundred metres, then it's going to be moving at a fair rate.

7. Similarly (and I have to say I don't hugely buy this one myself, but throw it in for completeness) once the floors collapsed, the facade was unrestrained. Given the staggered joints it is perfectly possible that some sections would have swung out by a few metres prior to collapse, which combined with several hundred metres of air resistance could easily translate into a larger horizontal movement.

Just to back all this up, I'm going to quote another source:

<snip>


Now it seems to me that these all rather explain the potential mechanism in a bit more detail than your own "how did it go that far" argument, and if you plan to rebutt it it would be quite reasonable for us to expect to see something quite detailed.

I shall, as ever, await your response with interest.

 

[Jazzz]

But FE don't say the investigation is the shambles you suggest. We've looked at the quotes in context, and the wider range of articles FE published, and it's 110% clear that you've either failured to understand the article or have culpably misrepresented what they say.

YOU claimed that NIST concealed, suppressed, or destroyed evidence and yet you can't tell us what this mysterious evidence is? Well how do you know it's missing then? Put up, or shut up.

There you go again with your 'royal' we!

Here's the quote again.

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

It's you that simply can't appreciate simple words for saying what they say. The quote refers to destruction of evidence and suggests the investigation is a shambles. That means, dimwit, that evidence was destroyed and the investigation was a shambles. Got it? I'm sorry but no amount of waffling and repeating yourself is going to change that.

That's a lie; I posted photgraphs showing flames and smoke right up until the moment of collapse and you conceded the point. Do you really need me to post them yet again?

I conceded that there were still flames and that I was mistaken to suggest all fire was out. I showed a photo (from a distance) showing that the substantial smoke cloud was all coming from the North Tower - the smoke generated by the South was dissipating.

So collapse speeds between 30 and 60% slower than free fall times do not constitute "significant resistance"? How remarkable.

Moreover, you can't actually provide any calculations or technical data to support your argument that the lower structure would have slowed the collapse by any greater a time. Again, how remarkable.

Oh you utter utter idiot, let's have a look at what NIST say themselves:

"As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

So there you go... NIST agrees with me that the rapid collapse demonstrates that there was little resistance provided by successive floors, and besides their estimate of the collapse times are 11 and 9 seconds for WTC1 and 2 respectively. I have not claimed this rapid collapse as proof of CD, but maintain that CD very easily explains it.

I suggest that you reared the quotes and links; it's not just us here, but the designer of the structure who proves that you're own rather individual interpretation of the Wiki article is wrong.

What on earth are you blabbering about? I read them and they simply confirmed the wiki article and my understanding of the building design.

Well firstly, only one of us has actually studied structures at university level and has a degree to prove it. Hint: it's not you. So the ad-hom attack is a bit rich.

You demanded to know of my expertise so I obliged with what I had. I claim nothing but a intuitive grasp of mechanics. Having listened to you make the extraordinary claim that the central steels (THOUSANDS of tons' worth) could not stand up for themselves, I know it's far far better than yours, whatever your qualifications.

However what is particularly astounding is your complete and utter failure to address any of the technical queries I put to you. Why can't you explain to us about the post-collapse spire, or the damage caused to the core by the aircraft impact, or indeed the collapse debris damage?

Here's a simple explanation - you weary me.

Face it, Jazz. You're losing because you can't deal with real facts and real evidence. Your inability to address substantive technical queries and tendencey to drop into loose-mouthed insults just confirms that you're paddling out of your depth.

I am facing that you are an exceptionally tedious poster who is not half as intelligent as he thinks and whose main weapons are to out-bore the opposition by huge lists, displacement of the burden of proof, repetition of extremely poor logic, together with some rather pompous ad-homs. If I have been driven to use some insults - rare for me - you thoroughly deserved them.

Good evening.

 

[editor]

I am facing that you are an exceptionally tedious poster who is not half as intelligent as he thinks and whose main weapons are to out-bore the opposition by huge lists, displacement of the burden of proof, repetition of extremely poor logic, together with some rather pompous ad-homs. If I have been driven to use some insults - rare for me - you thoroughly deserved them.

You may not see it yourself, but he's utterly destroyed your claims and made your arguments look embarrassingly weak.

You say you're looking for truth, so why not accept this simple truth?

Or, if you like, I'll add a poll to this thread and let others decide.

 

[Crispy]

You demanded to know of my expertise so I obliged with what I had. I claim nothing but a intuitive grasp of mechanics. Having listened to you make the extraordinary claim that the central steels (THOUSANDS of tons' worth) could not stand up for themselves, I know it's far far better than yours, whatever your qualifications.

He is an architect who has specialised in designing skyscrapers. If his knowledge of mechanics (although we're talking about structural engineering here, as well as dynamics) was that bad, I doubt he could have done his job properly.

In my lunch break today, I asked the 5 architects on my floor at work what they thought. I showed them the floor plan and photos of the WTC under construction. I explained the structural system to them. And they all agreed with me - the WTC was a compound structure, whose stability was dependant on the cooperation of all three structural systems - facade, core and floors. Failure of one or more would lead to failure in the others.

They were especially concerned with this photo:
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/samples/docs/p2/site1099c.jpg

which shows the very limited diagonal bracing in the core. This is because the core was not expected to experience heavy lateral load. The most senior architect on my floor said "wouldn't they brace that more?" - but of course, the close-knit exterior facade performs the function of bracing, so the core does not require much.

EDIT: In fact, from that photo, it seems that the bracing is only there to support the construction cranes.

 

[WouldBe]

Dear god, I can't believe I'm bothering with this. I quoted the fire engineering piece to show that the investigation was a shambles, and without the work of a proper investigation, any theories of collapse would remain hypothetical. NOT that they were saying the towers were demolished. It's you who kept trying to turn my words into something else and you continue to do so now.

Any idea how long it takes to re-create an aircraft following a crash to investigate what happened to it?

Thats with only a few tons of material a lot of which can only fit in one position.

How do you propose the investigation team re-created the WTC towers and where they would find enough room to re-create them to investigate the cause of the collapse without having to resort to computer models?

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire?

Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire?

Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire?

Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

So one piece of evidence is all that's required from each fire to establish exactly what happened?

 

[Loki]

Jazzz, you've been so badly owned it's getting embarrasing.

 

[detective-boy]

... it's getting embarrasing.

But very, very funny!

 

[TheArchitect]

Time to Take a Long Look Back

[sigh]

I see we're going to have to cover this again.

But then that's a shame because it would mean we are in agreement: all I have endeavoured to point out in my recent posts is that there was a complete lack of proper investigation into how the buildings collapsed whatever the cause may be. The Fire Engineering prediction is surely spot on - we are left with 'paper and computer-generated hypotheticals'.

Here's your problem: the FE quotes which I posted make quite clear that, when we look at the full text of their various linked articles, they do not in fact question the validity of the investigation in the way you imply. Let's remind ourselves:

The Towers, Fire-Induced Collapse and the Building Codes

Scheurman explains that the buildings' failures were in part due to fire codes that had been too far relaxed when the city of New York revised them in 1968. " The city is presently in the process of upgrading the Building Codes in the wake or the World Trade Center disaster, and this essay is my perspective, as a retired NYC Fire Chief, in furtherance of that process," writes Scheurman.

His report concludes with, " The World Trade Center's vulnerability to fire, as confirmed by the fire spread and mode of collapse, is partially the result of the building industry's competition for, real estate dominance and financial reward, affecting the building codes over the years. The Port Authority of New York, New Jersey using corporate and public bond financing and the governmental power of the two-state agency to sidestep the already weakened, city building code requirements effectively reduced the fire resistance and suppression capabilities and collapse resistance, in the Towers. The Government should disqualify itself from competing in the real estate industry and concentrate on regulating the competition between developers to assure fire safe building construction standards and the life safety of the people. The actual fire is the ultimate test of codes and construction practices and at the World Trade Center Towers, failed the test twice."
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&C=FYI&ARTICLE_ID=184582

and, just to put the final nail in your argument Jazz:

THE TAINTED BRUSH OF 9/11 POLITICS
BY BILL MANNING

In early August it was revealed by New York Newsday that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a month before the final 9/11 Commission Report, dispatched a strong memo lobbying the Commission for language that would cast a more favorable light on the city—and, by extension, on city management, past and present. With respect to the hottest hot-button issues surrounding the 9/11 response—radio inoperability, lack of police-fire cooperation and coordination, and the city's poor excuse for a new, "integrated" incident management system—Bloomberg's wish was granted. The Commission's final report coats the three issues with a layer of political honey.

City management had almost three years to circle the wagons to deflect obvious ineptitude and irresponsibility for which it could and should have been held accountable. Capitalizing on an accommodating and docile press, they've controlled critical information, dismissed many concerns of 9/11 families/survivors groups as grief-driven hysteria, and, with great cunning, used the firefighters who perished in the Towers for political cover...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...on=ARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=213202&VERSION_NUM=1&p=25

And then we have FE's 5th anniversary editorial:

We are moving forward in code development: New York City is demanding by code the retrofitting of all
commercial high-rises with sprinklers and reflective striping in stairwells. Code improvements in New York also stipulate that better information be supplied to the fire department and that the fire resistive rating in
high-rises be increased to four hours. We are moving forward. We can't let this code advancement stop in New York. We can never forget that what our brothers did let us force this as a national imperative.

http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/arti...I&C=BRNIS&ARTICLE_ID=271363&KEYWORDS=wtc&p=25

And you know, they also take a similar line in their other articles. For example:

http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&C=Depar&ARTICLE_ID=246727&KEYWORDS=...

Now with the deepesst respect, Jazz, you're using the FE piece which you quote completely out of context.

However, if the investigation is as bungled as you say then I'm sure that you'll have little or no trouble producing similar concerns by other professional sources? So let's have them then.

 

[MikeMcc]

Jazz,

I'd hate to think how many of us have raised perfectly reasonable doubts about the 'evidence' you have presented. Given that, in a court of law, it is up to the prosecution to present the evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' then it seems that your case has been blown right out of the water.

 

[MikeMcc]

Jazz, to use your own quote

"As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

I don't quite like the phrasing about the 'potential energy' because thats incorrect because it is the kinetic energy that caused the damage (though it's identical to the potential energy of the upper mass falling from the height that it was at.

From what I think that means is that the initial floors collapsed almost instantly, their mass added to that to the upper floors causing the next batch of floors to fail and so on.

 

[TheArchitect]

Moving onto another of your bones of contention, let's remind ourselves of your original accusation regarding the NIST study:

There was no investigation - just a destruction of evidence.

I then posed you this challenge:

You have claimed that evidence contrary to the NIST findings has been suppressed. This is incorrect; the full NIST report reviews a wide range of issues and evidence in great depth. However if you disagree, then tell us what this evidence actually is.

Let's take a classic example; the steel was sold and recycled quickly, before any proper testing could take place. Now one of the biggest problems with this is that it was over 8 months before the last of the steel was removed from site, on 29th May 2002. Similarly Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team, has confirmed that his team had adequate access to the recovered metal held off-site (http://www.house.gov/science/hearing...06/corley.htm).

However it's unfair of me to assume that Jazz might have subscribed to such a blatant misrepresentation. Jazz, please provide us with a comprehensive list of any evidence you feel was suppressed together with any additional tests you feel might - should - have been carried out.

Your response was this:

You'll have to ask FEMA for a comprehensive list of the evidence they chucked away. But they should certainly have tested the steel for explosives (I believe 'twinning') and thermite residues. They haven't done so. Here's a nice pic of what looks very much like a beam sliced diagonally by thermite reaction - note the black deposits precisely where you would expect molten iron

Since one complaint about thermite/ate residues hardly constituted a comprehensive attempt to subvert evidence. But you refuse to tell us what this other missing evidence is!

Tell me, Jazz, how do you know there is missing evidence if you can't tell us what that might be? Do you really know yourself?

 

[TheArchitect]

Oh jazz, oh dear

Jazz,

Here's another little gem of yours:

With the deepest respect, you did NOT imply that the fire was out in the south tower. You STATED that it was out. Yet a simple review of photgraphic evidence, which would have taken you no more than 10 minutes, proved you to be wrong.

So tell me. How did you miss this simple evidence? After all, the adequacy of the fire modelling was a major plank of your case. I assume that you looked into all the evidence before reaching a conclusion? Or - and let's be honest here - did you just pick the stuff that suited your predetermined view?

To which you responded:

I accepted the correction.

But then you changed your mind again:

The photographic evidence betrays absolutely no evidence of any 'inferno' in either tower and shows that there was no smoke cloud generated by the South Tower before it collapsed.

So which is it, Jazz? Do you conceed the point or not? Don't you follow your own arguments?

Or are you about to misquote the report from the fire crew on the 78th floor in order to claim that there was no fire.....again? Remember now, the plane actually hit 80-81 - but hey, why get upset about facts?

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz and his inability to answer questions.

That you made the extraordinary assertion that the 'massively strong' central core could not stand on its 47 fantastically thick steel columns has utterly convinced me that my appreciation of the mechanics is far, far better than yours.

Such certainty is quite remarkable, given that the designer of the buildings actually said:

Another structural innovation was the outrigger space frame, which structurally linked the outside wall to the services core. This system performed several functions. First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated. Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness. Finally, the weight of, and the wind-induced overturning moment from the rooftop antenna (440 feet tall) was distributed to all columns in the building . . . adding additional redundancy and toughness to the design.

Or we have our friends in Sydney:

The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.

Tim Wilkinson, Lecturer in Civil Engineering, University of Sydney

Now that's quite clear: the various elements of the building are all acting together to redistribute the loads as (say) a giant space frame or girder. Why would you need it to do that if the core was so massive that it would stand all on its own?!?

And why can't you answer these simple questions:

1. What was supporting the outer edge of the floor slabs?

2. Are you seriously suggesting that the floors cantilevered from the core?

3. What is the cross-sectional area of the perimetric outer steelwork compared to the inner core steelwork?

4. How do you believe that the wind loadings on the external steelwork were redistributed?

5. Why have you STILL not responded to survival of parts of the core for 15-20 seconds following the main collapse?

6. Likewise you have failed to address the damaged caused to the core by the aircraft impacts.

7. And again, you have failed to recognise the damage caused to the core by collapsing elements of the surrounding fabric.

And yet despite the fact that you've never studied structural engineering, and at least 3 of us on this forum have to degree level, YOU know better than us. Amazing.

Do you always play this loose with the facts, or is it just a 911 thing?

 

[TheArchitect]

Incidentally, Jazz, you do realise that you've still to respond to the whole "horizontal debris" item; you've got a very detailed case from me, and since you're apparently so good at mechanics I'm sure your delay is just a simple oversight.

 

[editor]

Given that, in a court of law, it is up to the prosecution to present the evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' then it seems that your case has been blown right out of the water.

...

 

[MikeMcc]

The whole point is that the core was designed for a specific vertical loading (gravity only), suddenly if found that it had (10% to 20%) extra loading because of the impact (NIST report being the lowest value), then it had an hour of heating because of the fire, followed by the collapse of the upper structures, the loading fom the impact (impulse, as per my earlier posts) far exceeded the design loadings. What is the problem with that idea?

 

[TheArchitect]

You'll find that that's the core which got damaged by the big plane which hit it.......

 

[MikeMcc]

...

Cheers, laughed like a drain!

 

[rorymac]

It's all copied out of a text book I reckon. Architects aint all that .. they can write down figures someone else calculated all right and they can thieve folk's work which might be months and months worth of Young's modulus values of mild carbon steels, copper, all that lot. They look stuff up in a fuckin book or ring their mates. Proper clever folks done all the hard work years ago. Ask one of them to explain Young's Modulus to you and see. They will tell you that they will send you some fuckin thing that really explains it well and if you have any questions after reading it not to hesitate to ask them. You'll get a chapter of some wrongun's final year thesis at UMIST, and if you check up on that bloke you'll find he got a 1st class degree in materials science and is now Dr Ted Burkinshaw , head of dolly polymers and extrusion of fuckin plastics at Huddersfield Poly. He got his white coat caught up in my lathe once and ruined the conn rod I had designed and was now making myself .. a big fuckin chunk bit out of the side so that my numericall controlled power press drove like a twat and so every one of the 10,000 mild carbon steel ash trays I produced had no where you sit the ciggy in and you had to stick a piece of paper under one side to stop it wobbling noisily or spinning round and round through 360 degrees on a seemingly imaginary horizontal axis. If we name this axis (let's say X) and the vertical Y and take measurements at random intervals of say 30, 60 90, we find the ashtray spins around X, it's pattern was perfectly elyptical. He nicked all the data and got published in a French journal and got to go there all sponsored by Krups. I fucking never got interviewed by Krups and it was the only job I wanted. He fucking destroyed a fortan programme I was testing with his beard another time. Anyway that swat half inched my conclusion and summary of 3 years hard fuckin graft , doing tensile test after tensile test on proper fuckin mild carbon British steel. Sigma (stress) = force / area and we express this in terms of Newtons or fuckin N per square metre he told me in front of Darina Kniefsey which made her think I was a halfwit and so I never got even close to the ride there .. thank you Teddy. He fuckin told her he loved her and dedicated his fuckin thesis to her .. 'Special thanks to DK without whom blah blah blah ' he put on the front under the title Principles Of Stresses and Strain (why doesn't a skyscraper fall over Daddy? *). So you have to pick it up and read about how he asked his dad exactly that as a young boy on his first trip to Manhattan. 'My god' he was 'mesmerised' by the skyscrapers and he bought his first T square and a HB pencil with his tooth fairy money and the rest is history as they say' Fuckin hurray like IMO. He design a crooked ol house which was narrow at the bottom and bent in the wind but never fell over .. he nicked that from Symmy Grewal the Malaysian mature student who always giggled when a burd asked about the male shaft in thermodynamics .. they all did every fuckin thursday. 'Have we established the radius of the male shaft yet?' someone would say and they'd all piss their slacks especially Ted Burkinshaw. 'Ha ha you're bonkers Teddy .. oh you do make me laugh a lot' is what Darina said to him and he said 'Ssssh don't tell anyone .. you make me laugh too you know Darina .. you really do'! I fuckin hated her me. He marvelled at the centrifugal force of some fuckin thing that came undone and sliced his scrotum so that one of his pods hung loose so that he could hold it in his hand, measure it's diameter blah blah blah He was so fascinated at the sight of the inside of his sack and its workings and that gave him the idea to build his house using cantilever theory so it would look like it must fall like a sack of shite but it wouldn't although being so young he didn't know any cantilever theory yet .. but he would one day .. one day!
Fuckin hurray hurray at that He knew fuckall about cantilevers then and he knows fuckall about them now. Anyway why did he think about cantilevers when he had his own pod in his hand? No one could answer me that but I was just jealous and it was ugly to see. He carried a yellow crayon everywhere he went so he could draw circles around defects in buildings and he would write down his recommendations which he copied from random drawings of dodgy council buildings. 'These concrete panels are deteriorating rapidly .. I can pick pieces off with just an ordinary house key .. I recommend blah blah .. Ted Burkinshaw 6'. Why didn't he say the material was fucking friable if he was so clever? Because he was 6 years old and had a side parting and I was just a caaant basically.
He told me I would make a great architect but there was only me there. 'Why didn't you say that in front of Darina? I asked him.
'Oh did I not? .. blimey I thought I did Roy .. here do you know how an aeroplane stays up in the sky?'.
I nearly showed him my sheet of A4 paper I always use to give a visual illustration of the effect of thrust on the wings of an aircraft so that even a simpleton could follow the mathematics which I had cleverly written on the underside of the paper. He could have read that while I blew but I weren't gonna be called a mook any longer. That's it.
Architects aint all that at the end of the day. They know fuckall about metallurgy anyway.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If you put too much science in your head, it'll make you crazy.

The real answer's in watercolours, and maybe some of the poetry.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The worst thing about reading a rorymac post, is he has me thinking that it's all true. And I'm the biggest cynic that ever was.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

...http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3647&stc=1&d=1168988626

http://www.angelfire.com/80s/sosforjem/

 

[8den]

ranting bollocks

What. The. Fuck. Was. That. About?

 

[TheArchitect]

Does RoryMac have mental health issues?