Folks, you have seriously trashed this thread!

Yes but on the up side we now have the NSA and CIA reading the GBF......and watching which web pages we browse...just like Amazon

Posted By: Nick ParsonsAtomicBISF wrote: ''As for the blobbing, isn't there a case that methods that are inherently prone to shoddy short cuts should be prohibited?''

Tony's suggestion is that it *was* 'prohibited' -or at least contrary to NHBC guidance - at the time it was built. The problem is that either no-one is looking, or they are not prepared, if they do spot 'blob and dob' to insist that it be ripped off.

And FT, I agree that it *may* not be an issue with EWI, particularly if you ''.....make sure each air cavity behind the EPS is no more than 1m2 (about 2 EWI blocks), dividing up by continuous ribbons of adhesive, with dots in between.'', but then in my view, that's not really dot and dab.

Nick

Hi, I meant maybe plaster boarding masonry walls should be prohibited, as specifying exactly the adhesive pattern should be to prevent air movement behind is unrealistic and unlikely to be adhered to.

Ed

What we need is a gun applied tub of adhesive that is as cheap as the bag stuff, only then would it be applied right. Just imagine if you could apply a good inch square bead of adhesive round the edges of the wall and in horizontal and vertical stripes. Everyone would be using it and the plaster board tent would be a thing of the past.

But it's never going to happen as the whole building materials and house construction is another conspiracy in which profits are maximised and product and build quality is minimised.

Posted By: fostertomSorry - but it was fun

Tom - thanks to you I've spent most of the weekend researching both sides of the 9/11 story, like you starting from a position of disbelief and having been deeply moved when we visited Ground Zero during construction of the memorial. Ironically, I have also been to Pearl Harbor.

I'm now a conspiracy theorist...

Maybe put the airtight plane outside the structural wall, as REMOTE does for timber walls?
That seems good as then one could drill, route etc the interior to one's heart's content. Interior trades could concentrate on their concerns and on finish.
I'm not sure how one would achieve that with masonry though.

Posted By: Ed DaviesGot the raw video from here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsP-Gt52P2A" rel="nofollow" >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsP-Gt52P2A

and extracted the frames of the wing going over the building (learning a bit about some handy tools in the process). You have to zoom in a bit at which point it get blurry but it's pretty clearly a compression artifact. One frame is clear, then it's over the edge and there's a weird distortion, then it's right over but the frame-to-frame compression hasn't caught up with the subtle shading change but there are little "sparkles" showing it's trying to represent some change then finally the wing becomes properly visible.

http:///forum114/extensions/InlineImages/image.php?AttachmentID=5151" alt="1-before.jpg" >
http:///forum114/extensions/InlineImages/image.php?AttachmentID=5152" alt="2-on.jpg" >
http:///forum114/extensions/InlineImages/image.php?AttachmentID=5153" alt="3-sparkles.jpg" >
http:///forum114/extensions/InlineImages/image.php?AttachmentID=5154" alt="4-wing.jpg" >

Sorry to take this back off topic but I'm Ed is spot on here. Pretty sure this is amateur handheld video, Low resolution, heavily zoomed (digital zoom at that distance?). The in camera compression will be pretty aggressive (that's what separates broadcast quality cameras from amatuer). It will have been re-encoded on broadcast which will have added further distortions. That YouTube vid claims to be RAW (suggesting it's an upload of the original footage rather than off air) but YouTube itself re-encodes, normally aggressively. The whole clip is covered in compression artefacts - look at the blocking on the building side when the camera zooms out (and the way the smoke moves - smoke is notoriously difficult both to generate in computer graphics and to encode)

Posted By: Ed DaviesI've just “unwhispered” a couple of posts to Tom

And so have I, my reply.

Hmm. Don't think so. Though I think a pointing gun would work well :) Some EWI guys I've seen use an icing bag for the perimeter band.

My method ive used in the past for IWI here http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=1070&page=1

Posted By: Seret

Posted By: Ed Davies1) Nobody I know of suggests that the aircraft cut through the steel structure. Quite the contrary, the steel cut through the aircraft atomizing the fuel - hence the immediate large fire/explosion. See the aircraft which crashed into the Pentagon (there's no room for doubt there) where large parts of the aircraft were shredded and just disappeared into the building.

Having attended a few crashes of jet aircraft I can confirm that there's not much left of them afterwards if they go in hard. Generally the only sizeable chunks of anything left are the guts of the engines. The rest of the aircraft turns into little chunks of twisted aluminium. They basically just vanish when they hit anything solid.

I've also worked with explosives, and the idea that the Twin Towers were pre-wired with demolition charges without any of the thousands of occupants noticing is just ludicrous. Absolute fantasy, dreamed up by people that don't have the first idea what they're talking about.

Classic Dunning-Kruger effect ;)

Ed

Not heard of Dunning-Kruger until now. As I'm probably an incompetent psychologist, I'll take their word for it.

It would be interesting to do a Dunning-Kruger effect study on the results of GBF members' building works.

Certainly my ability to estimate how long works will take is classed as incompetent. And I'm wrong every time.

Indeed

https://twitter.com/drphilhammond/statuses/474106339204284416