Cladding

[Corky34]

....Snip.

It's got nothing to do with having an opinion, as i said before everyone has one, what myself and others have taken exception to is you stating that opinion as fact, like you did when you said "I'm sure that must have", you're not sure, you're not completely confident, you're not certain, it's not true beyond doubt, your statement is not to be trusted, and no one is confident in you or any other definition of 'sure' you'd care to choose. You think, believe, suspect, have a hunch, or any other word you'd like to use to indicate that you have no objective facts or evidence to support your claim, you remain circumspect until you have definitive proof in support of your claim.

Look obviously you don't follow what the majority of people would consider common debating processes in the public sphere, normal methods of obtaining knowledge or epistemology, so it's pointless trying to debate anything with you as we can't even agree on the basic theoretical structure of how a debate should be conducted or what constitutes a fact, in light of that this will be my last reply to you as before we can even discus Grenfell, cladding, tower-blocks, or anything else you need to learn about those things, perhaps then you'll understand why people are taking umbrage at your 'opinion'.

[johnroe]

No what people take umbrage at, is that I don't apologise for having an opinion based on the data I've seen. If I say something, it's obviously my opinion,or I reference where I find the info. Still nothing on the topic, now why doesn't that surprise me! It's strange, I don't remember all these towers being evacuated. It seems to be mostly in local newspapers, but I could give examples all day. Almost makes me think news is being controlled.

The more I look the more horrifying it is, corporate greed and basically saving on land used. These are the sorts of forces that impact on the quality of peoples' lives. 'Four tower blocks on a south London estate being evacuated over safety fears could have collapsed. ... if one concrete panel blew out, large parts of the building would collapse. He said if a fire started in the blocks, flames and toxic fumes would shoot right through the towers, owing to a litany of gaping holes and cracks'.

'Fire safety expert Mr Webb has surveyed hundreds of tower blocks in Britain over the years, finding many that failed fire standards'.

from https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3610021.html

[johnroe]

It's got nothing to do with having an opinion, as i said before everyone has one, what myself and others have taken exception to is you stating that opinion as fact, like you did when you said "I'm sure that must have", you're not sure, you're not completely confident, you're not certain, it's not true beyond doubt, your statement is not to be trusted, and no one is confident in you or any other definition of 'sure' you'd care to choose. You think, believe, suspect, have a hunch, or any other word you'd like to use to indicate that you have no objective facts or evidence to support your claim, you remain circumspect until you have definitive proof in support of your claim.

Look obviously you don't follow what the majority of people would consider common debating processes in the public sphere, normal methods of obtaining knowledge or epistemology, so it's pointless trying to debate anything with you as we can't even agree on the basic theoretical structure of how a debate should be conducted or what constitutes a fact, in light of that this will be my last reply to you as before we can even discus Grenfell, cladding, tower-blocks, or anything else you need to learn about those things, perhaps then you'll understand why people are taking umbrage at your 'opinion'.

So many experts on this forum, one hardly dare speak. Look maybe you should rename the thread, 'cladding, with a clause, everyone must kowtow to our resident expert ik9000'. Like our expert says I'm just a poor ignorant commoner, what do I know. The data is all there, documented, reams of it, why don't you use your expertise to offer an opinion on the actual topic. Look when 'people' attack the poster, when they insult the poster(passive aggressive or not), when they post memes; it merely indicated that they have nothing to say on the topic. Now I'm open to discussing anything, I may have to, will have to, do some research. I'm actually interested in what people think, because like I say I talk to all sorts of people in real life, and it all adds to my knowledge.

Hey but maybe you few should block me, if I don't reach your high debating standards. Nice one dude (hey just don't come back like these prima donnas).

[Disturbedguy]

Like our expert says I'm just a poor ignorant commoner, what do I know. The data is all there, documented, reams of it, why don't you use your expertise to offer an opinion on the actual topic.

Because when someone does and has, you pass it off as opinion because it doesn't suit your narrative, we've already established that..

Look when 'people' attack the poster, when they insult the poster(passive aggressive or not), when they post memes; it merely indicated that they have nothing to say on the topic.

You mean like you, labelling people "right wing nut jobs" - regardless of how you try to disguise it

Now I'm open to discussing anything, I may have to, will have to, do some research.

But will only read / agree with research that suits your narrative, that's already been proven.

I'm actually interested in what people think, because like I say I talk to all sorts of people in real life, and it all adds to my knowledge.

But you're not, because you blindly and willingly ignore anything anyone else says, even backed up with experience and facts, because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Hey but maybe you few should block me, if I don't reach your high debating standards. Nice one dude (hey just don't come back like these prima donnas).

People are blocking you because you flat out refuse to listen to reason, even when back up with facts and when they do provide facts, you pass it off as opinion, again, because you don't like it when information doesn't fit your narrative. The issue isn't to do with "high debating standards", it's because you lack the ability to debate, full stop. A debate has to be two way, where both parties listen to each other. You don't do that, you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your narrative / train of thought.

The issue here, isn't with the people blocking you, it's you, you're the problem. Funny how 5 or 6 people who have never met or had conversations outside of these Forums, can see that, but you can't.

Step off your high horse, but careful, otherwise you might break something coming from such a great height...

[Corky34]

What i find most remarkable in talking to johnroe is that obviously (s)he doesn't apply the same logic to his/her everyday life, I'm guessing hear but (s)he's probably been to the doctors or maybe even the hospital at some point in time, (s)he didn't go and ask Betty next door what she thought would cure him/her.

Experts are only something to disagree with when your life doesn't depend on them apparently.

[peterb]

So many experts on this forum, one hardly dare speak. Look maybe you should rename the thread, 'cladding, with a clause, everyone must kowtow to our resident expert ik9000'. Like our expert says I'm just a poor ignorant commoner, what do I know. The data is all there, documented, reams of it, why don't you use your expertise to offer an opinion on the actual topic. Look when 'people' attack the poster, when they insult the poster(passive aggressive or not), when they post memes; it merely indicated that they have nothing to say on the topic. Now I'm open to discussing anything, I may have to, will have to, do some research. I'm actually interested in what people think, because like I say I talk to all sorts of people in real life, and it all adds to my knowledge.

Hey but maybe you few should block me, if I don't reach your high debating standards. Nice one dude (hey just don't come back like these prima donnas).

You are right, there are many people on HEXUS with expertise in many subjects. The level of their expertise is often judged by the nature of their posts and the debate that follows.

You have posted many links to data - which may or may not be accurate, may or may not be complete and may or may not be relevant.

However data in complex scenarios is open to interpretation, and if the Grenfell Tower case was as clear cut as you seem to think, there wouldn’t be a public inquiry to establish the facts and identify areas of improvement in building design, refurbishment, fire safety etc. Your opinion is as open to challenge as anyone else’s.

As was said earlier, it’s quite possible to hold a view while being sufficiently open minded to acknowledge that alternative views and opinions may be equally valid or at least have merit and being prepared to accept those as the fuller picture emerges.

(And this goes for all participants in this particular discussion )

However personal attacks on someone with whose opinion or interpretation of the data are not acceptable. Attack the ideas - not the person.

[johnroe]

peterb> I am open minded. As I've said I've looked at several documents watched a documentary from that time, when they were deciding to knock them down, and spoke to inspectors, etc. As I've also said, as soon as the Inquest documents are released, I'll add that to what I know. I answer peoples' questions, but none of the recent posters has one thing to say on the topic, which is what I keep returning to.

Frankly why don't they just either post on the subject, or do as they say and ignore me. There's plenty of more interesting and informative people on this forum than those few. I think they'll be fine.

[Disturbedguy]

Frankly why don't they just either post on the subject, or do as they say and ignore me. There's plenty of more interesting and informative people on this forum than those few. I think they'll be fine.

THEY HAVE!!! IK9000 has, repeatedly and in replying to you, multiple times, you just choose to ignore it.

At this point, I'd say your trolling..

[Corky34]

So many experts on this forum, one hardly dare speak. Look maybe you should rename the thread, 'cladding, with a clause, everyone must kowtow to our resident expert ik9000'. Like our expert says I'm just a poor ignorant commoner, what do I know. The data is all there, documented, reams of it, why don't you use your expertise to offer an opinion on the actual topic. Look when 'people' attack the poster, when they insult the poster(passive aggressive or not), when they post memes; it merely indicated that they have nothing to say on the topic. Now I'm open to discussing anything, I may have to, will have to, do some research. I'm actually interested in what people think, because like I say I talk to all sorts of people in real life, and it all adds to my knowledge.

Allow me to show you the absurdity of what you're saying.

So many experts in this hospital, one hardly dare speak. Look maybe you should rename the ward, 'heart attack, with a clause, everyone must kowtow to our resident expert cardiologist. Like our cardiologist says I'm just a poor ignorant commoner, what do I know. The data is all there, documented, reams of it, why don't you use your expertise to offer an opinion on the actual topic. Look when 'people' attack the poster, when they insult the poster(passive aggressive or not), when they post memes; it merely indicated that they have nothing to say on the topic. Now I'm open to discussing anything, I may have to, will have to, do some research. I'm actually interested in what people think, because like I say I talk to all sorts of people in real life, and it all adds to my knowledge.

How you can keep a straight face while suggesting that the problem is with everyone else is beyond me, are you seriously trying to say that you're the logical and reasoned one because you would judge the information coming from an expert and "all sorts of people" to have the same value.

Just so I've got it straight, you're saying that when i had a heart attack a few years ago that i should have judged the information from the cardiologist as having the same value as that from "all sorts of people in real life" like a homeopath, faith healer, or maybe bob down the pup who has also had a heart attack? Maybe i should have waded through reams of documents and spent the next five years doing my own research?

[Ttaskmaster]

This is the power of freedom of information, even lay people like me can find documents ,etc.

The mistake you make is in assuming lay people like yourself will actually understand the technical detail in those documents, as well as the context, the industry and all the other contributing factors.
Thing is, even I can follow the majority of what IK has laid out quite clearly for you, so why you'd dimiss all that in a rage-quit rant about how he's an expert is simply irrational and illogical.

Sorry those days are over, we want all the information and we want to make decisions for ourselves.

Oh please do that - People like you will forever argue over whose back yard we dig up to fix the problem and my entire career will be standing around waiting for NIMBYs to come to a consensus...!!

By 'argumentative' I see 'thinks for myself'. I found out what I needed about the construction from the architects description.

Plagiarising random selected snippets from what few sources you dug up is not really thinking for yourself.

Look I see you all clinging together because someone has an opinion that isn't just another cliche.

The forum really doesn't do that, to which I can attest, since I'm usually the one with contrary opinions on everything. The issue is, as with your postmodernist AI auteurs, that you read a bit about something and blatt back on here to wave it about and preach it like the gospel truth in its entirety. You can be sure that, in almost every topic, someone here will know more about it than you and in more than one possible way...

Look you obviously don't have anything to say about; cladding, the state of social housing, and the possible solutions; or do you? All you seem to be doing just like T and ik9000 is trying deflect from the real issues and dismiss my opinions.

Well J, I dunno if you actually noticed, but I was certainly addressing all those matters. No deflecting involved. You just didn't like my approach to challenging your opinion and the level upon which I did it.

But hey that's the game you three are playing eh.

No game here, matey. In fact, I believe Corky even has me on ignore too, so that's your well-informed, heavily-researched opinion on us being best buds shot to pieces...

[Butcher]

Woah steady on there.

[ik9000]

Woah steady on there.

thanks, and I like the joke, but just for clarity as I really don't want people to think I've claimed something I haven't: I haven't claimed to be "an expert". That label was foisted upon me by another. What I have said is that I do have experience of construction, concrete design, repairing and renovating old buildings, and the methods for determining whether concrete is suitable for use, whether freshly cast or existing. But nowhere have I boasted or claimed to be "an expert". As I said before (see the quotes below) there are for more knowledgable people than me in the world on this - my old lecturers for few - but I am happy to share the knowledge I do have based on my experience and learning to date to demonstrate why some of the guff and fluster being bandied around in this thread is, IMO, incorrect, inaccurate, misconstrued, erroneous, distorted, or just plain downright guff. I have also said I am happy to be persuaded otherwise if my understanding is incorrect - heck no-one knows everything - but so far no solid evidence has been provided.

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.

But don't take my word for it, try reading the following industry documents and design standards. After all, I wouldn't want to simply "self-profess expertise". (Nor would I expect you to trust me just because I've worked on the restoration of a variety of structures built from 1750 through to the present day, including some very early concrete works from late Victorian and Edwardian times, and concrete in pretty much every decade since.)

Sources please. Come on, provide them. It's time to put-up or shut-up. I don't think you know much here, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise by some proper evidence. Show me the government inspector's report about the Grenfell Tower. I've already posted you a link to the BRE report. Which government reports do you have access to? (or are you going to duck that question like the way you still haven't responded on "changes to the crystalline structure of concrete"?)

[johnroe]

Allow me to show you the absurdity of what you're saying.

So many experts in this hospital, one hardly dare speak. Look maybe you should rename the ward, 'heart attack, with a clause, everyone must kowtow to our resident expert cardiologist. Like our cardiologist says I'm just a poor ignorant commoner, what do I know. The data is all there, documented, reams of it, why don't you use your expertise to offer an opinion on the actual topic. Look when 'people' attack the poster, when they insult the poster(passive aggressive or not), when they post memes; it merely indicated that they have nothing to say on the topic. Now I'm open to discussing anything, I may have to, will have to, do some research. I'm actually interested in what people think, because like I say I talk to all sorts of people in real life, and it all adds to my knowledge.

How you can keep a straight face while suggesting that the problem is with everyone else is beyond me, are you seriously trying to say that you're the logical and reasoned one because you would judge the information coming from an expert and "all sorts of people" to have the same value.

Just so I've got it straight, you're saying that when i had a heart attack a few years ago that i should have judged the information from the cardiologist as having the same value as that from "all sorts of people in real life" like a homeopath, faith healer, or maybe bob down the pup who has also had a heart attack? Maybe i should have waded through reams of documents and spent the next five years doing my own research?

Look I don't really feel like I'm able to talk to such a Master Debater. You see what I mean, if you claim you are some expert, you are basically saying, nothing anyone else is saying can possibly have any value(or in this case because of the way I'm saying it). I've been reading the Grenfell Action groups blog; they have a long list of complaints about the building, the state of repairs, the cladding. But 'experts' told them it was safe, 'experts' told them to wait in their flats, 'experts' are now having to admit that many of the blocks have been structurally unsafe for years, and people are rightly being evacuated and compensated. The council threatened to prosecute them for expressing their views and naming certain 'experts'.

I feel like you and I could communicate(I appreciate your intelligence), but you'll have to drop this superior attitude. This is just a forum, with a few guys chatting. Sorry I'm not good with rules(as peterb knows). With what you're claiming about our so called expert. I actually went with the lead architect's description of the structure, a higher authority maybe.

No, I'm saying that when I had a heart valve replaced several years ago, I asked the cardiologist, an old dude, (and that reminds me I've seen a couple of sad attempts at insults on this forum, which are very indicative of a certain mindset(pre-1945), one was claiming I was young(and therefore what?), one claiming I was a woman(and therefore what?). I asked him if he could just run through the procedure, explain the options, etc. He refused, with this 'expert attitude', I am too superior to explain myself. Finally he printed some pages off the internet.

So by then I'd got a younger, 'human' surgeon who was quite willing to treat me like a patient, rather than a statistic. Also a quick check on line showed me that the original surgeon had a lower success rate. I also found out about all the different types of valve replacements online, and as I said could have watched a procedure being carried out. That's just the way I am. You aren't being logical thinking I would suggest anyone but the right surgeon.

Look most of the threads on this forum, because of it's nature, only elicit a certain level of response. But we are all intelligent adults, there's no reason that we can't discuss anything. I do find when many are thinking the same way, it's because they aren't really thinking, just repeating what they read in the mass media. But some people look deeper, some people approach from an unusual perspective. Heck some people just make you think about an issue in a completely new way. You may not agree with them(Zizek makes me think), but it makes you consider different possibilities.

You can be open minded, or just keep on repeating the same mistakes. How many have to die, be traumatised, and live on miserable Brutalist estates, before someone dare speak the obvious truth. I'm just one of many calling for a massive change to housing policy.

[ik9000]

We could go a bit philosophical too. What is an expert anyway? Isn't that, by necessity, relative? It's just someone who knows more than other people in the room right? Or at least enough about something to be in the top x% of knowledge in the room? Especially if that room is the world. Someone can be the firm's expert, but he still goes on courses to learn more from industry experts, and they in turn read the papers by academic experts, who go on conferences with the grand-daddies at the forefront of knowledge in their sectors. Personally it's the latter few tiers I would call experts.

I spend a lot of time in rooms with, and attending courses by, true experts. And so I listen, listen, and listen some more. Ask questions, and listen to what they say, take it on board and learn from it. It's fine to push for explanations, but to turn round and tell them they don't know jack because I arrived with a copy of the metro that morning? That would not be too clever.

Equally when I'm in a teaching role either with those junior to me, or with undergrads and college students - then my aim is to share knowledge to help inform and educate others, which has been my aim throughout this thread. And I continue to be happy to do so. I welcome genuine questions from a desire to understand; but to automatically reject the answer and question their credibility? Why ask in the first place?

Just as we do not appreciate disruptive students heckling when a teacher/lecturer is trying to explain something, particularly when it's disrupting an entire class, I treat with the same disdain any person who thinks it appropriate to attempt to convince others to disregard professional training and actual experience (whoever presents it) in deference to simply the heckler's own personal (and misguided) opinion. Especially when they openly confess to not having any experience in that area other than their a very basic reading and their personal reasoning!

The nice thing about material science and engineering is that it is a science, and deals with facts. Replicatable, testable, verifiable and quantifiable facts. If all you read is the beano however, you're not going to learn much. Nor if you put a graduate level research paper in the hands of a say, a year 9 student, even a bright one, who lacks the wider knowledge and training to understand it.

Now if someone wants to come with some proper facts and science as to why the concrete was unfit for use, had lost its strength, changed at a crystalline level so as to render Grenfell unable to stand up I will happily review those facts and see whether I need to change my position. If I was wrong I would also then write to various industry publications to enlighten them as to this evidence which might need them to edit and apologise for some of their published articles. But so far in this thread that level of counter-evidence has not been provided. Hence for now I will stick with the facts that we do have, and direct others accordingly:
1) The concrete frame is still standing after a massive fire event. (undisputable FACT, it's there, standing for all to still see)
2) The concrete has spalled due to the fire and primary column rebar became exposed as a result (FACT - see the BRE expert witness report). That is normal behaviour for concrete in a fire, and reinforced concrete is designed with this in mind. But despite this extreme spalling (BRE report) the building still stood up. Why? Because the concrete design and workmanship was good to begin with, such that even in its damaged state there was enough capacity for it to keep going. FACT.
3) The pictures from the time of construction in the article provided by johnroe as his supporting evidence actually show reinforcement cages, starter bars and shuttering that are for insitu concrete construction. The only precast elements in those images are cladding panels. FACT. And I've embedded the image so it's there for you all to see.
4) There was a fire and the cladding burned. FACT
5) There was inadequate fire stopping, fire breaks, and flame resistance in the cladding and window surrounds. FACT (BRE report)
6) Internally in the building there were failures of fire doors, alarm systems, fire lifts, dry risers, smoke vents, automatic door closers. FACT (BRE report and other witness testimony)
7) the fire would not have spread to other apartments had the original building been left how it was. FACT (BRE report)

None of those facts call into question the original structure or construction methods whatsoever. A bodged dry riser pipe does not equal defective concrete. Never has, never will. Nor does a botched overcladding. Even a layman is capable of making that distinction.

Like I said, expert? That's relative. But facts, well they're testable and there for all to verify. Assuming of course we accept that something can be factual to begin with.

[Butcher]

You can be open minded, or just keep on repeating the same mistakes. How many have to die, be traumatised, and live on miserable Brutalist estates, before someone dare speak the obvious truth. I'm just one of many calling for a massive change to housing policy.

What obvious truth is that? That we should bulldoze everything more than 30 years old and more than 3 stories high and ship people miles from their homes in the name of progress? Doesn't sound that "obvious" to me.

You can call it a miserable brutalist estate and try to amp up the emotion, but the fact remains that the people there didn't want their building pulled down and them all moved miles away. They just wanted some basic maintenance and proper fire proofing.

[ik9000]

Annoyingly I can see he posted in the time he took me to write that. Those were intended to be one post. More annoyingly if you view the page without logging in you still see what he writes. Seeing as I read it, and I have time on my hands today:

Look I don't really feel like I'm able to talk to such a Master Debater.

Nice - I see what you did there, and it gets a thumbs-up. That's how to do it.

You see what I mean, if you claim you are some expert, you are basically saying, nothing anyone else is saying can possibly have any value(or in this case because of the way I'm saying it).

No, see my posts above. I've not said that. I've said I have some experience, where you openly say you have none. And I'm saying that based on that experience the claims you are making don't fit the facts. It's nothing to do with whether you do or don't have value or the ability to think, it's that you are making incorrect statements. When challenged to back up those statements you fail to provide evidence that stands up under scrutiny.

You can be open minded, or just keep on repeating the same mistakes. How many have to die, be traumatised, and live on miserable Brutalist estates, before someone dare speak the obvious truth. I'm just one of many calling for a massive change to housing policy.

And finally we get to the crux of the matter. You want a change to housing policy. A political motivation. Good. We all do! None of us has tried to justify the current BS housing policy. You will see posts where I openly say it is madness, and that we should not allow sale of flats to overseas investors, and non-residents, and that we need to stop building shiny glass blocks for the foreign rich while failing to provide affordable homes for our own citizens. That's there in black and white - and something I think we both agree on.

The problem is in trying to encourage people to support a change in housing policy, you are making untrue sweeping statements to back that up which are demonstrably false. Claims like Grenfell was a deathtrap with unsafe concrete and it should have been knocked down years ago - in fact you even state at one point it had been listed to be demolished, and then they didn't do so, but when challenged fail to provide any corroboratory evidence. As we have tried to point out several times this undermines your credibility even when you then put forward sensible arguments.

You then quote people like Lammy who I have little time for since he too often also spouts grand statements that don't stack factually. Statements like implying people in old buildings built to Parker Morris standards are actually in "hutches", and would be better off in new buildings. But when you compare the generosity of the room sizes and amenity spaces from those standards with modern ones to the London Plan you can tell straightaway that they would actually end-up in smaller properties.

By all means present political views. But be honest enough to say that's what they are to begin with, and don't try and justify them with half-truths, lies and statements about things you don't understand, otherwise we'll just call you out on it.