Today I'll mainly be moaning about ...

[Phil xxkr]

2 hours ago, Simon F said:

Good idea.

I'll put it next to my box marked "pieces of string too short to be worth keeping".  😁

Mine says - "things that will be handy even if I never use them" 

[LenT]

20 hours ago, VFR said:

Guess it may be appropriate as it was a response to what you wrote.    😉

Building 7 was the third building that fell to earth later in the day after the two towers fell down, it had people scratching their heads at the time & still does I read.

I have posted on this thread before about how when you click onto it you arrive at page 1 every time (well it does for me ?) and not the last post as you expect, so I think I clicked on page 6 (?) that was showing and somehow ended up reading your post from a few months ago.     🤔

Oh I see...by ‘building 7’ you mean WTC7.

And you ask ‘How do I explain it. You cannot of course.’ and ‘It had people scratching their heads at the time & still does.’

Well, the first thing that comes to mind, VFR, is an activity involving flogging and dead horses! I recall debating all this twenty years ago. In fact I was in my office when one of my Partners called me in to see what he was watching on TV.

Two things became clear:

1. One of the Twin Towers had been hit by an aircraft or missile. As we watched, a second object – an airliner – hit the other Tower.

2. I was obviously the only one doing any damn work in the Company!

But this gives me the opportunity to expand on my earlier moan and point out that, as well as the inability to apply critical thinking, can be added an ignorance of what constitutes evidence.

On this, I can do no better than quote Carl Sagan: ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’

For example, VFR, the statements: How do I explain it. You cannot of course.’ and ‘It had people scratching their heads at the time & still does.’ do not constitute evidence and are not even accurate.

As the one making the claims, it falls to you to provide the evidence, which can then be falsified.  

But rather than my spending what little time I may have left rebutting fantasy, I would refer you to this document:

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1a.pdf

It’s the culmination of six years of research by the National Institute of Standards & Technology and is titled ‘Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7’. I suggest you digest this first - and a couple of the annexes - before making any more claims.

As a more digestible layman’s version, you could also start here. The American magazine Popular Mechanics was among the first to undertake an analysis of the various conspiracies that sprang up.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunking | World Trade Center Myths (popularmechanics.com)

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest (popularmechanics.com)

So let me expand my ‘moan’ to include those who waste their lives – and delude others – by claiming that:

1. The Earth is only about 10,000 years old.

2. Humans strolled the Planet alongside dinosaurs.

3. You can produce effective medicines by diluting something so that not a single molecule of the original substance remains.

4. Humans have not landed on the Moon.

5. The Earth is actually a flat(ish) disk.

...and so on ad nauseam!

As a final thought re Conspiracies, I suggest that one may not go far wrong if applying Occam's Razor to the problem: Namely, the simplest solution is almost always the best!

 

[royoftherovers]

14 minutes ago, LenT said:

Oh I see...by ‘building 7’ you mean WTC7.

And you ask ‘How do I explain it. You cannot of course.’ and ‘It had people scratching their heads at the time & still does.’

Well, the first thing that comes to mind, VFR, is an activity involving flogging and dead horses! I recall debating all this twenty years ago. In fact I was in my office when one of my Partners called me in to see what he was watching on TV.

Two things became clear:

1. One of the Twin Towers had been hit by an aircraft or missile. As we watched, a second object – an airliner – hit the other Tower.

2. I was obviously the only one doing any damn work in the Company!

But this gives me the opportunity to expand on my earlier moan and point out that, as well as the inability to apply critical thinking, can be added an ignorance of what constitutes evidence.

On this, I can do no better than quote Carl Sagan: ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’

For example, VFR, the statements: How do I explain it. You cannot of course.’ and ‘It had people scratching their heads at the time & still does.’ do not constitute evidence and are not even accurate.

As the one making the claims, it falls to you to provide the evidence, which can then be falsified.  

But rather than my spending what little time I may have left rebutting fantasy, I would refer you to this document:

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1a.pdf

It’s the culmination of six years of research by the National Institute of Standards & Technology and is titled ‘Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7’. I suggest you digest this first - and a couple of the annexes - before making any more claims.

As a more digestible layman’s version, you could also start here. The American magazine Popular Mechanics was among the first to undertake an analysis of the various conspiracies that sprang up.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunking | World Trade Center Myths (popularmechanics.com)

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest (popularmechanics.com)

So let me expand my ‘moan’ to include those who waste their lives – and delude others – by claiming that:

1. The Earth is only about 10,000 years old.

2. Humans strolled the Planet alongside dinosaurs.

3. You can produce effective medicines by diluting something so that not a single molecule of the original substance remains.

4. Humans have not landed on the Moon.

5. The Earth is actually a flat(ish) disk.

...and so on ad nauseam!

As a final thought re Conspiracies, I suggest that one may not go far wrong if applying Occam's Razor to the problem: Namely, the simplest solution is almost always the best!

 

The more I read of your contributions my friend, the more I realise that the Rumanian ? Lorry Driver who collided with your Honda Accord on that particular day on the M25 never really stood a chance,did he ?

I thought that I was investing for a rewarding life when I spent many fruitful and occasionally fruitless hours watching countless episodes of Perry Mason and Dragnet in order to sharpen my powers of pursuasion and deduction. When what I should have been doing was  widening my powers of reasoning by way of introduction to William (of Ockham), Carl (of Comos) and Sherlock (of 221b).

I really do like your style Len and feel that you could slot easily and seamlessly into a Prime Ministerial role. Keep it going Sunshine !

[Phil xxkr]

32 minutes ago, LenT said:

Oh I see...by ‘building 7’ you mean WTC7.

And you ask ‘How do I explain it. You cannot of course.’ and ‘It had people scratching their heads at the time & still does.’

Well, the first thing that comes to mind, VFR, is an activity involving flogging and dead horses! I recall debating all this twenty years ago. In fact I was in my office when one of my Partners called me in to see what he was watching on TV.

Two things became clear:

1. One of the Twin Towers had been hit by an aircraft or missile. As we watched, a second object – an airliner – hit the other Tower.

2. I was obviously the only one doing any damn work in the Company!

But this gives me the opportunity to expand on my earlier moan and point out that, as well as the inability to apply critical thinking, can be added an ignorance of what constitutes evidence.

On this, I can do no better than quote Carl Sagan: ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’

For example, VFR, the statements: How do I explain it. You cannot of course.’ and ‘It had people scratching their heads at the time & still does.’ do not constitute evidence and are not even accurate.

As the one making the claims, it falls to you to provide the evidence, which can then be falsified.  

But rather than my spending what little time I may have left rebutting fantasy, I would refer you to this document:

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1a.pdf

It’s the culmination of six years of research by the National Institute of Standards & Technology and is titled ‘Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7’. I suggest you digest this first - and a couple of the annexes - before making any more claims.

As a more digestible layman’s version, you could also start here. The American magazine Popular Mechanics was among the first to undertake an analysis of the various conspiracies that sprang up.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunking | World Trade Center Myths (popularmechanics.com)

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest (popularmechanics.com)

So let me expand my ‘moan’ to include those who waste their lives – and delude others – by claiming that:

1. The Earth is only about 10,000 years old.

2. Humans strolled the Planet alongside dinosaurs.

3. You can produce effective medicines by diluting something so that not a single molecule of the original substance remains.

4. Humans have not landed on the Moon.

5. The Earth is actually a flat(ish) disk.

...and so on ad nauseam!

As a final thought re Conspiracies, I suggest that one may not go far wrong if applying Occam's Razor to the problem: Namely, the simplest solution is almost always the best!

 

Eloquently presented Len. 👏. Like you, from time to time, I feel compelled to go into bat but you do sometimes wonder why? 😎

[VFR]

1 hour ago, LenT said:

Oh I see...by ‘building 7’ you mean WTC7.

And you ask ‘How do I explain it. You cannot of course.’ and ‘It had people scratching their heads at the time & still does.’

Well, the first thing that comes to mind, VFR, is an activity involving flogging and dead horses! I recall debating all this twenty years ago. In fact I was in my office when one of my Partners called me in to see what he was watching on TV.

Two things became clear:

1. One of the Twin Towers had been hit by an aircraft or missile. As we watched, a second object – an airliner – hit the other Tower.

2. I was obviously the only one doing any damn work in the Company!

But this gives me the opportunity to expand on my earlier moan and point out that, as well as the inability to apply critical thinking, can be added an ignorance of what constitutes evidence.

On this, I can do no better than quote Carl Sagan: ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’

For example, VFR, the statements: How do I explain it. You cannot of course.’ and ‘It had people scratching their heads at the time & still does.’ do not constitute evidence and are not even accurate.

As the one making the claims, it falls to you to provide the evidence, which can then be falsified.  

But rather than my spending what little time I may have left rebutting fantasy, I would refer you to this document:

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1a.pdf

It’s the culmination of six years of research by the National Institute of Standards & Technology and is titled ‘Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7’. I suggest you digest this first - and a couple of the annexes - before making any more claims.

As a more digestible layman’s version, you could also start here. The American magazine Popular Mechanics was among the first to undertake an analysis of the various conspiracies that sprang up.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunking | World Trade Center Myths (popularmechanics.com)

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest (popularmechanics.com)

So let me expand my ‘moan’ to include those who waste their lives – and delude others – by claiming that:

1. The Earth is only about 10,000 years old.

2. Humans strolled the Planet alongside dinosaurs.

3. You can produce effective medicines by diluting something so that not a single molecule of the original substance remains.

4. Humans have not landed on the Moon.

5. The Earth is actually a flat(ish) disk.

...and so on ad nauseam!

As a final thought re Conspiracies, I suggest that one may not go far wrong if applying Occam's Razor to the problem: Namely, the simplest solution is almost always the best!

 

You know exactly what I meant by building 7 (ah you meant ?) and you have done a quick google for those links, or are you trying to imply that you have read and ingested that lot, if so pull the other one.

 

Did notice that you also try to imply by association that I must then believe in the flat earth twaddle.

I gave a polite answer why I quoted your post in the first place but it is clear you have an issue with that (touched a nerve I guess) but I know where I stand now so will be mindful of that.

[royoftherovers]

7 minutes ago, VFR said:

You know exactly what I meant by building 7 (ah you meant ?) and you have done a quick google for those links, or are you trying to imply that you have read and ingested that lot, if so pull the other one.

 

Did notice that you also try to imply by association that I must then believe in the flat earth twaddle.

I gave a polite answer why I quoted your post in the first place but it is clear you have an issue with that (touched a nerve I guess) but I know where I stand now so will be mindful of that.

for one of the uninitiated, what is building 7 VFR ?

[Malc]

1 hour ago, LenT said:

Humans have not landed on the Moon.

look here ......  before humans landed there we all KNEW it was made of Green Cheese ........  now we know it's absolutely NOT

what more proof does anyone need that humans have landed on the Moon 

Malc

[First_Lexus]

For the avoidance of doubt I’m posting this for the purpose of entertaining members.

It was quite ‘viral’ at the time. Pure genius…enjoy!

 

[Phil xxkr]

12 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

For the avoidance of doubt I’m posting this for the purpose of entertaining members.

It was quite ‘viral’ at the time. Pure genius…enjoy!

 

I would have thought that by now Ed you realised facts, indisputable evidence etc are not in themselves totally relevant. What really matters is how you "feel" that is the new truth. 🥳

[dutchie01]

1 hour ago, Phil xxkr said:

I would have thought that by now Ed you realised facts, indisputable evidence etc are not in themselves totally relevant. What really matters is how you "feel" that is the new truth. 🥳

Wasnt it the whitehouse during the Trump pressconferences that introduced the term “ alternative facts”?

just twist and deny when appropriate

 

[dutchie01]

btw what if the planet earth is flat. Wouldnt that be just great? Imagine living right at the edge and drive to the next village that would be a rollercoaster!

[LenT]

1 hour ago, VFR said:

You know exactly what I meant by building 7 (ah you meant ?) and you have done a quick google for those links, or are you trying to imply that you have read and ingested that lot, if so pull the other one.

 

Did notice that you also try to imply by association that I must then believe in the flat earth twaddle.

I gave a polite answer why I quoted your post in the first place but it is clear you have an issue with that (touched a nerve I guess) but I know where I stand now so will be mindful of that.

Many thanks for your very prompt response. Perhaps I can clear these further points for you.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">You know exactly what I meant by building 7 (ah you meant ?) 

I learnt at a very early age that it can be a mistake to assume that you know what people are referring to. And, frankly, if you knew your subject well enough to dispute the evidence assembled concerning it, then you would surely have known that it’s called WTC7.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">...and you have done a quick google for those links, 

And that would be wrong because…..? There’s nothing wrong with seeking accurate information; it’s not seeking it that causes problems. One just has to be selective and distinguish information from misinformation – of which there is considerably more!

I would also point out, VFR, that if you had ‘Googled’ WTC7 in the first place, you would have had access to the same information I have just supplied you with. But as it happens, the only ‘Googling’ I had to do was to confirm that Popular Mechanics was still in business.

You will have noticed that the NIST report is dated November 2008. I already had it.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Did notice that you also try to imply by association that I must then believe in the flat earth twaddle.

Bit of a stretch, I would suggest. But I’m delighted to learn that you don’t.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">I gave a polite answer why I quoted your post in the first place but it is clear you have an issue with that (touched a nerve I guess) 

Let me reassure you on that point. Having been engaged in on-line debates for some decades, I have long ago ceased to have nerves touched! As it is, surely it’s yourself that appears to be reacting to the fact that you’ve now been provided with information that will enable you to clarify and – as you put it – ‘explain building 7’.

I would have thought you might be grateful?

 

[VFR]

As I said I know where I stand now.

[Phil xxkr]

4 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

Wasnt it the whitehouse during the Trump pressconferences that introduced the term “ alternative facts”?

just twist and deny when appropriate

 

The expression alternative facts evokes Newspeak, the language of the fictional ruling party’s propaganda in George Orwell’s 1984. In the book, Newspeak leads to doublethink, which is when a person holds two contradictory beliefs in their mind at the same time, and accepts them both. An example of doublethink from 1984 is the idea that “war is peace.”

[LenT]

Speaking of Conspiracies…..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61142905

It couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.  Nothing to moan about here!

[ALAW]

9 hours ago, LenT said:

Many thanks for your very prompt response. Perhaps I can clear these further points for you.

You know exactly what I meant by building 7 (ah you meant ?) 

I learnt at a very early age that it can be a mistake to assume that you know what people are referring to. And, frankly, if you knew your subject well enough to dispute the evidence assembled concerning it, then you would surely have known that it’s called WTC7.

...and you have done a quick google for those links, 

And that would be wrong because…..? There’s nothing wrong with seeking accurate information; it’s not seeking it that causes problems. One just has to be selective and distinguish information from misinformation – of which there is considerably more!

I would also point out, VFR, that if you had ‘Googled’ WTC7 in the first place, you would have had access to the same information I have just supplied you with. But as it happens, the only ‘Googling’ I had to do was to confirm that Popular Mechanics was still in business.

You will have noticed that the NIST report is dated November 2008. I already had it.

Did notice that you also try to imply by association that I must then believe in the flat earth twaddle.

Bit of a stretch, I would suggest. But I’m delighted to learn that you don’t.

I gave a polite answer why I quoted your post in the first place but it is clear you have an issue with that (touched a nerve I guess) 

Let me reassure you on that point. Having been engaged in on-line debates for some decades, I have long ago ceased to have nerves touched! As it is, surely it’s yourself that appears to be reacting to the fact that you’ve now been provided with information that will enable you to clarify and – as you put it – ‘explain building 7’.

I would have thought you might be grateful?

 

ASSUME.... I worked in engineering construction inspection. I had a boss who is now a long time friend say to me never never Assume how true how true that was. Probably i learnt this a little late in life. Pleased to see that Len.

[Phil xxkr]

7 hours ago, ALAW said:

ASSUME.... I worked in engineering construction inspection. I had a boss who is now a long time friend say to me never never Assume how true how true that was. Probably i learnt this a little late in life. Pleased to see that Len.

I think the full statement Brent is - never assume as it can make an ***** out of U & ME 🤯🤣

[royoftherovers]

3 hours ago, Rennieda said:

today it's all about the repair service I still haven't paid for...

Come on Rennie, spill the beans.

[First_Lexus]

Today I’ll be moaning about relegation from the Premier League. Again. Sigh…😬

[First_Lexus]

** Takes a deep breath **

- Inflation

- Energy prices

- the Government

- the Opposition

- all other political parties and politicians 

- Nicola Sturgeon

- Wasps

- Hosepipe bans

- France

- Moles (the little beggars who dig up my garden)

- customer service (or the lack of it these days)

That’ll do for now. I’ve turned into a grumpy old man…

[dutchie01]

Russia in general, the Russian government in special, the Russian energycompanies like Gazprom especially.

The way the Russian army is deploying WW2 tactics, the FSB having an iron grip on Russia and its citizens.

Putin and his children, the oligarch enablers and so on, have a minute?

[Malc]

58 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

the FSB having an iron grip

well, I'm a paid up member of the FSB           Federation of Small Businesses  ............. and it's news to me  ..............

and they're great guys to be associated with for sure

Malc

 

[Phil xxkr]

Today I wish to moan about how longs it's taken to contribute to this marvellous topic 😎

[dutchie01]

There are so many things to moan about nowadays that i cannot make a choice!

[Phil xxkr]

4 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

There are so many things to moan about nowadays that i cannot make a choice!

Exactly my point 🤠