Cladding

[ik9000]

[johnroe]

Just a FYI I'm not 'buddies' with anyone on these forums (in fact I've probably annoyed more people than i care to admit), there's no bandwagoning going on and besides even if there was it has no bearing on the validity of your claims.

The issue, from what i can tell, is that you seem to give all 'evidence' the same weight regardless of the validity, that's not how public discourse works and it's not logical or reasoned.

And yes they removed gas appliances and banned gas cylinders (actually they banned pressurised gas from being used in such building but whatever) however you're using that fact as validation for your opinion that the concrete itself is sub standard, you're perceiving a relation between the two when there isn't any, it's a logical fallacy to believe that post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).

Look like I said, like most people we knew little about this. It's when something like this happens that we ask questions. I don't understand what you mean 'evidence the same weight regardless of validity'. I try to reach some balanced judgement. Everyone comes to their own opinion, whether that be you, or say tenants in that block. I thought I gave you the link>
Horatia House and Leamington House, owned by Portsmouth City Council, are home to around 800 people.

'Investigations have found that the two 18-storey buildings’ concrete is “not as strong as expected..........Horatia House and Leamington House had dangerous aluminium composite material cladding removed last year following the Grenfell Tower fire. The structural issues were discovered while the council was examining how to replace the cladding'. Like I say it all depends on how you interpret information.


More than 1m families waiting for social housing in England> https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ing-in-england

[Disturbedguy]

Look like I said, like most people we knew little about this. It's when something like this happens that we ask questions. I don't understand what you mean 'evidence the same weight regardless of validity'. I try to reach some balanced judgement. Everyone comes to their own opinion, whether that be you, or say tenants in that block. I thought I gave you the link>
Horatia House and Leamington House, owned by Portsmouth City Council, are home to around 800 people.

Sorry, but you're a clown and there's no other way to put it.

You are going on about "asking questions" and "balanced judgement" but what you've come out with is in no way balanced and you say "comes to their own opinion" but you're basing your opinion on information you've read and "understood", but seemingly wrongly.

You have someone with clear experience in the field and you're trying to dismiss everything that person has said as some sort of lies.

You are twisting things to try to suit your own argument to try and make you look correct, but you've been proven wrong time and time again. At this point, you're being stubborn for the sake of it, or you have an agenda.

I notice you haven't answered any of the questions previously asked by ik9000.

[johnroe]

Disturbedguy>I thought you'd blocked me! Nice one dude.

It's already becoming clear on this forum, which have interesting ideas, and those that are playing some quite frankly rather tedious 'ego point scoring' game. You guys have fun now.

What do you actually think about our housing situation? Do you understand what watching that footage of Grenfell did to tenants in blocks and towers?

I do read what ik9000 says, it's another opinion, one of many thousands. Just like on any topic I can find many hundreds of academics and experts with contrary views. Sound structure seems to equal keep these death traps extant for ever, rather than cater for the needs of the younger generation.

Like I say the forensic tests are the only way to really find out about the structure. But I've read enough statements by tenants to know that tower was death trap waiting to happen. Oh 'you're a clown' that's another fc, keep them coming it all confirms what I hoped was wrong, some people only think in cliches.

[ik9000]

Sorry, but you're a clown and there's no other way to put it.

Well there's this way:


or this
https://cdn.someecards.com/someecard...e-it-ab43e.png

I've blocked him now. It's better that way. 3rd person I've ever had the need to.

[Disturbedguy]

Disturbedguy>I thought you'd blocked me! Nice one dude.

It's already becoming clear on this forum, which have interesting ideas, and those that are playing some quite frankly rather tedious 'ego point scoring' game. You guys have fun now.

What do you actually think about our housing situation? Do you understand what watching that footage of Grenfell did to tenants in blocks and towers?

I do read what ik9000 says, it's another opinion, one of many thousands. Just like on any topic I can find many hundreds of academics and experts with contrary views. Sound structure seems to equal keep these death traps extant for ever, rather than cater for the needs of the younger generation.

Like I say the forensic tests are the only way to really find out about the structure. But I've read enough statements by tenants to know that tower was death trap waiting to happen. Oh 'you're a clown' that's another fc, keep them coming it all confirms what I hoped was wrong, some people only think in cliches.

I wanted to see if you would have actually answered what ik9000 said, but you didn't you avoided his questions, again, seemingly because you knew providing answers would prove you to be wrong.

Again, your are calling facts (seeing as he has experience and you don't) opinions, that's pretty ignorant and pathetic. Yet you haven't found or posted anything that debunks what ik9000 has said, yet he repeatedly debunks the rubbish you are spouting.

No one is thinking in cliches you blind fool, people are taking what ik9000 as the truth / facts because he has experience, they are taking what you say as tripe, because you seemingly read something and think you're now an expert.

[johnroe]

Disturbed Guy>bye bye. You have nothing to add to the topic.

I answered ik9000's questions, but please block me, you have nothing to say. And the fact that ik9000 has now resorted to childish memes, because he got sussed, says he has nothing of value to add to the topic. I came from a forum that was taken over by Right wing nuts, but you make them seem broad minded. Has anyone got an actual opinion on the topic, now Mr Expert and his buddies have finished?

[Disturbedguy]

Disturbed Guy>bye bye. You have nothing to add to the topic.

I answered ik9000's questions, but please block me, you have nothing to say. And the fact that ik9000 has now resorted to childish memes, because he got sussed, says he has nothing of value to add to the topic. I came from a forum that was taken over by Right wing nuts, but you make them seem broad minded. Has anyone got an actual opinion on the topic, now Mr Expert and his buddies have finished?

You're literally clueless. You never answered a single question from ik, you skirted around them and labelled his facts as opinions, you're now making out that he was a liar / wrong

NO, you likely came from a forum where people didn't agree with you or proved you wrong on many occasions and because they wouldn't bend to your whim, you labelled them right wing nuts and then left. The only person that's been sussed here is you and your complete lack of ability to have a discussion and read what's in front of your face.

Funny how you ask whether anyone has actual opinion on the topic, yet when someone does provide an opinion (with facts) you dismiss it... you contradict yourself repeatedly.

[Corky34]

Look like I said, like most people we knew little about this. It's when something like this happens that we ask questions. I don't understand what you mean 'evidence the same weight regardless of validity'. I try to reach some balanced judgement. Everyone comes to their own opinion, whether that be you, or say tenants in that block. I thought I gave you the link>
Horatia House and Leamington House, owned by Portsmouth City Council, are home to around 800 people.

And asking question is a laudable thing to do but as i said not all the answers you get should carry the same weight when forming an opinion.

Take for instance when you said David Lammy said something or other so it must be true, that's what would be considered hearsay, i heard someone say something so it must be true, however there's no evidence David Lammy knew what he was talking about or that he based his opinion on objective facts, for all we know he could be lying, he may have misinterpreted the information or any number of things.

Another example is when you said you saw holes in the concrete that exposed the rebar, yes that's information and evidence but it doesn't carry the same weight as a structural engineers report for what should be obvious reasons. That's not to say we just discount firsthand reports or that the external condition isn't relevant however in and of itself it doesn't prove anything unless or until further investigation is carried out.

'Investigations have found that the two 18-storey buildings’ concrete is “not as strong as expected..........Horatia House and Leamington House had dangerous aluminium composite material cladding removed last year following the Grenfell Tower fire. The structural issues were discovered while the council was examining how to replace the cladding'. Like I say it all depends on how you interpret information.

It doesn't depend on how you, or i, interpret the information.

Information is information and it's not open to interpretation, take "not as strong as expected" for example, that means exactly what it says, it doesn't mean it wasn't strong enough, it doesn't mean it was unsafe, it doesn't mean the concrete had degraded, was low quality, or any other interpretation of it.

It's a meaningless statement unless you know what strength they were expecting, what strength they recorded, how they tested it, who tested it, etc, etc.

[Xlucine]

...I answered ik9000's questions, but please block me, you have nothing to say....

So how does the crystalline structure of concrete degrade over time?

[Disturbedguy]

So how does the crystalline structure of concrete degrade over time?

Careful now, wouldn't want to be called a right wing nut or be accused of being part of some group against..I mean heaven forbid you should ask him to answer a question already asked... (There is no appropriate laughing smiley)

[johnroe]

And asking question is a laudable thing to do but as i said not all the answers you get should carry the same weight when forming an opinion.

Take for instance when you said David Lammy said something or other so it must be true, that's what would be considered hearsay, i heard someone say something so it must be true, however there's no evidence David Lammy knew what he was talking about or that he based his opinion on objective facts, for all we know he could be lying, he may have misinterpreted the information or any number of things.

Another example is when you said you saw holes in the concrete that exposed the rebar, yes that's information and evidence but it doesn't carry the same weight as a structural engineers report for what should be obvious reasons. That's not to say we just discount firsthand reports or that the external condition isn't relevant however in and of itself it doesn't prove anything unless or until further investigation is carried out.



It doesn't depend on how you, or i, interpret the information.

Information is information and it's not open to interpretation, take "not as strong as expected" for example, that means exactly what it says, it doesn't mean it wasn't strong enough, it doesn't mean it was unsafe, it doesn't mean the concrete had degraded, was low quality, or any other interpretation of it.

It's a meaningless statement unless you know what strength they were expecting, what strength they recorded, how they tested it, who tested it, etc, etc.

All answers don't carry the same weight. I've been doing this for years. A topic will be talked about in the media on a superficial level, usually then it is politicised and agendas set. Then at later times and through research, (and all information is pretty much accessible), we start to see the whole story. You learn to factor in certain biases for; human nature, corporate greed(or contractors), council or government failures. But you also try to get the opinions of real people involved including experts at that scene. Then by assessing all the data you try to form an understanding of what is happening, and what led to that situation.

So for example I had just been reading what the councillor in charge of regeneration and refurbishment had proposed. Then I used David Lammy's quote. He is an inner city MP like I said, everyday his constituents will tell him either directly or email, what they think and what they need. It's just another opinion, but one that carries the weight of many opinions.

Many of the towers and blocks are now being tested, they only had to look at the outside of the towers in Portsmouth to evacuate them. They will now of course carry out a full structural analysis. I'm reading reports like this across the country. It seems councils have been patching and covering the problems, hence the cladding.

in Rugby> 'Residents of two tower blocks who have to move out over fire safety concerns are set to receive up to £10,000 in compensation........"What we found is that there were certain parts of the buildings that aren't built exactly as we would have liked them to have been. They are safe but there are issues there which makes us believe they have a shortened lifespan."(Adam Norburn, executive director of the council, said the buildings were safe but had structural "issues") from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-43913898

[johnroe]

So how does the crystalline structure of concrete degrade over time?

I'll have to get back to you on that. I'm sure ik9000 knows more about this than he's letting on. Here's the description, and a quick search gives pages on durability of concrete; effects of stress, water, etc. 'the MIT team found that the calcium-silica-hydrate in cement isn’t really a crystal. It’s a hybrid that shares some characteristics with crystalline structures and some with the amorphous structure of frozen liquids, such as glass or ice'

Obviously I can go by what tenants say. It's been a while since I studied materials, but I know concrete is a complex crystalline structure, that to hold it's integrity, the chemical reactions have to be controlled. So it's possible that inferior components could be added, wrong mixtures, there could be multiple factors; incl: weather, how quickly a component is poured, right down to builders here not being used to working with it. Also concrete is porous, so I'm sure that must have an effect on the composition of the concrete, and the internal mesh that hold it together. Also standards were so bad back then. The concrete panel fabrication plant, the unskilled workers making the components and constructing them together.

This event has triggered a structural analysis of these buildings, there's reports of repairing some. They've been carrying out these repairs for decades, when they find the slabs and panels aren't connected that clamp a big bracket on the outside. The cost to keep these buildings standing, must far out weigh the cost of building new housing with better materials.

[Corky34]

All answers don't carry the same weight. I've been doing this for years. A topic will be talked about in the media on a superficial level, usually then it is politicised and agendas set. Then at later times and through research, (and all information is pretty much accessible), we start to see the whole story. You learn to factor in certain biases for; human nature, corporate greed(or contractors), council or government failures. But you also try to get the opinions of real people involved including experts at that scene. Then by assessing all the data you try to form an understanding of what is happening, and what led to that situation.

And that's where you're venturing from established facts into conjecture and opinion, it doesn't matter that you've been doing this for years, doing it for years, whatever you mean by 'this', doesn't have a bearing on the validity of your claims, in fact it's entirely possible that because you've been doing 'this' for years that you've learn't particular ways of thinking that are subjective and allowing your biases to influence your decision making process.

I suspect the reason so many people are questioning your opinion is because you've not arrived at it using a scientific method and what with this being a forum frequented by geeks i suspect most people take umbrage when someone doesn't apply a similar method and then claims their being logical and reasoned, in fact their being anything but.

What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that there is a divine entity and that you used logic and reason to reach that conclusion when you've not done anything of the sorts, you seem incapable of seeing the difference between subjective and objective information, and when anyone questions your opinion you try to defend it by claiming you based it on objective facts when it's clear that's not what you've done.

[johnroe]

And that's where you're venturing from established facts into conjecture and opinion, it doesn't matter that you've been doing this for years, doing it for years, whatever you mean by 'this', doesn't have a bearing on the validity of your claims, in fact it's entirely possible that because you've been doing 'this' for years that you've learn't particular ways of thinking that are subjective and allowing your biases to influence your decision making process.

I suspect the reason so many people are questioning your opinion is because you've not arrived at it using a scientific method and what with this being a forum frequented by geeks i suspect most people take umbrage when someone doesn't apply a similar method and then claims their being logical and reasoned, in fact their being anything but.

What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that there is a divine entity and that you used logic and reason to reach that conclusion when you've not done anything of the sorts, you seem incapable of seeing the difference between subjective and objective information.

Like I say, I'm not going to apologise for forming an opinion. I knew very little about Grenfell specifically, but I have lived in the blocks. And occasionally I try to get information for tenants. Which part of my method isn't 'scientific'. I have a logical mind. But I've also been trained at uni, to absorb massive amounts of data and try to make some sense of it. Of course sometimes you have to generalise, but as I looked at this issue, I formed an opinion.

And of course all decisions of this type cannot by purely objective; people and their lives are involved(these aren't microbes or statistics). So I came to these opinions for now(I will of course amend them if new information emerges or I can find the Inquiry evidence). No what I was saying was that if you analyse information from all angles on a topic you get a clearer picture, it's bizarre because often journalists and researchers are obviously delving into the same issues, so you can almost be ahead of the news. So for example that story in the Guardian about how many families are awaiting housing.

Look I've always been pretty geeky(hence insults are water off a duck's), but I also have a modern education that open you up to a whole world of ideas and different ways of thinking. There are whole theories about forums and groups, how they compromise to certain ideas and cliches. I also find scientifically studying how forums work. Whether people speak freely, or whether they feel some 'person' is going to insult them because they dare to think differently.

I say everyone should have an individual opinion and feel free to express it. Just out of interest what do you actually think about the issue; should they keep spending billions patching up these old blocks, would you like to live on the 24 th floor with four children and one unlit stairwell for escape, do you think young families in the 21 st century deserve better? If not what do you suggest?

[ik9000]

And that's where you're venturing from established facts into conjecture and opinion, it doesn't matter that you've been doing this for years, doing it for years, whatever you mean by 'this', doesn't have a bearing on the validity of your claims, in fact it's entirely possible that because you've been doing 'this' for years that you've learn't particular ways of thinking that are subjective and allowing your biases to influence your decision making process.

I suspect the reason so many people are questioning your opinion is because you've not arrived at it using a scientific method and what with this being a forum frequented by geeks i suspect most people take umbrage when someone doesn't apply a similar method and then claims their being logical and reasoned, in fact their being anything but.

What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that there is a divine entity and that you used logic and reason to reach that conclusion when you've not done anything of the sorts, you seem incapable of seeing the difference between subjective and objective information, and when anyone questions your opinion you try to defend it by claiming you based it on objective facts when it's clear that's not what you've done.

Corky what it really boils down to is what he regards as authoritative/carrying weight and what he doesn't. He regards his own opinions as having weight, because he formed them himself, based on the limited knowledge he possesses. He then does research - using whatever sources a quick google can bring up - and sees what he thinks of those, seemingly with a bias towards his initial assumptions. And despite just criticising journalists' reporting as having bias and agenda in that quote you cited (annoyingly I can still see his stuff when someone else quotes it) he has been very keen to latch onto news articles and try to use them to justify his opinions so far in this thread.

Again, it's a glaring inconsistency in his approach, verging on the hypocritical.

I can only assume he doesn't trust my explanations because he doesn't think I know anything about what I'm explaining. Rather he trusts basic news reports and thinks that a journalist must obviously report 100% accuracy the things they are commenting on - provided they align with his thinking. Odd, since he rightly acknowledges that he knows this is not the case, and that usually it is necessary to dig deeper into the facts. Hence I remain confused why he is so quick to dismiss someone directly claiming to have professional knowledge of the subject. Interestingly though I can count at least 6 people whom I've never met or conversed with at any length all posting in this thread who deduced my occupation from my posts without me needing to state it. It is most bizarre that he, with all his "doing it for years" seems so unable to do the same, even once that is clarified. Now I'm not saying people should take my comments as gospel simply because I say so, nor am I claiming to be the world authority on construction, concrete or Grenfell, but I am happy to explain my understanding based on my knowledge, training and experience - and show how that does not align with the conclusions he has drawn or comments he has been making.

"Hi I'm john, I'm a dairy farmer"
"How much is a pint of milk?"
"I dunno."
"Which dairy do you work for?"
"Cadburys"
"That's not a dairy."
"Yes it is, I know because I got an advert here from the daily moron that says "Dairy Milk".

Conclusion: John is not worth listening to.

But if John could explain in detail, not just the cost of milk, but the delivery system, industry operations, ranges of cattle and their milk producing potential vs livestock intended for beef production and retail - now you might just think John might be involved in the dairy industry. Particularly if his means of doing so is not based on a google search and a few youtube videos or clips from channel 5/the discovery channel. Short of taking you to his dairy farm, what else is John meant to be able to do?

I am mindful of the Proverb

A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions

However, I am also mindful that

Staring a quarrel is like breaching a dam; so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out.

Seeing as this thread was beginning to hit that point of tit-for-tat I've taken my own medicine, resigned myself to accepting this guy is not interested in listening and blocked him. It may well be best we all politely dip out of this thread and he can use it to promote his own misguided conclusions. Any objective person should be able to see what's going on, but a stubborn fool never likes to be told of his predicament. We could go on like this for another 14 pages, and still not change anything. At that point you have to ask - is it really worth it?

Solomon would say

Even as he walks along the road a fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is

i.e. people don't need to persist in calling out a fool, they will be apparent by their own doing. And besides,

A fool's work wearies him, he does not know the way to town

. i.e. Let a fool tire himself out, he'll weary himself by his own misdirected effort without needing others to distract him with advice or attempted assistance - a fool will only reject it anyway.