London fire: Six killed as Grenfell Tower engulfed


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Whilst I agree that the money has to come from somewhere, but with the governments building program, I think they really DO need to look at these old tower blocks and get rid of them.  People should not be packed into buildings like sardines.  I know there are space issues, but this just isn't good enough.  Firefighters simply can't reach above approx 10th floor with their equipment in an emergency, so anyone above that limit must either get themselves out, or are as good as dead.

My home borough (Waltham forest) has removed all their tower block housing, and this was one of the (many) reasons why.

27 minutes ago, TheReaperMan said:

I can see that point you are making and agree. You could look at it this way if the UK government had not have called a election that was not needed at this time, the money they wasted could have been used to fund this and other things.

I agree with the sentiment but unfortunately, know it will never work like that.

24 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Whilst I agree that the money has to come from somewhere, but with the governments building program, I think they really DO need to look at these old tower blocks and get rid of them.  People should not be packed into buildings like sardines.  I know there are space issues, but this just isn't good enough.  Firefighters simply can't reach above approx 10th floor with their equipment in an emergency, so anyone above that limit must either get themselves out, or are as good as dead.

2

I think this is probably the best way forward, rather than constantly putting lipstick on a pig it would be far better spending money on rebuilding these structures to something safer, to begin with.

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, TheReaperMan said:

The thing that gets me,  if part of that refit they had fitted sprinklers at a cost of about £1200 per flat this may not have happened.

Not necessarily. If the fire was spread by the external cladding (as now seems to be the case) then internal sprinklers would have done little to dampen the flames. It *may* have slowed the internal spread and bought the residents a few more minutes. However, given that they were only recently advised to stay in their flats in case of fire, those minutes might not have helped much.

 

Hopefully this is one of those tragedies that sparks sweeping changes in regulations that make us all safer.

 

Confirmed death toll now 17. Horrific.

  • Like 1
2 hours ago, Skiver said:

 if this thing had collapsed 

The jet fuel was missing.

 

According to this study here, there has been six fire-induced total collapses of multi-storey buildings in human history. Three of those happened on the same day.

 

Quote

I can't bare to even think what people have been going through to think that throwing children out of windows was the only and best choice. 

Same.

  • Like 1
1 minute ago, Mirumir said:

The jet fuel was missing.

 

According to this study here, there has been six fire-induced total collapses of multi-storey buildings in human history. Three of those happened on the same day.

I partially disagree, as fires do weaken structures regardless of the 'jet fuel' wildcard. I do agree that the trade center would have stood longer had it not been for the increased temperature stress contributed by the jet fuel, but as this is a 'high rise' block of flats (apartments) I do (uneducated guess) believe that the structure will be too compromised for habitation, and will need to be demolished without the added 'wildcard' 

 

 

 

Update 12:10pm a fire has broken out again

It's pretty certain that the cheap plastic cladding they used in the "renovation" has been a contributing factor in the fire taking such a hold, apparently there are 2 types of cladding, plastic based and mineral based, the mineral is much more durable, more fireproof but, of course, more expensive. So they've gone for the cheap option and people have paid for it with their lives.

 

Love the way Theresa May visited, spoke only to the official and fire staff and completely ignored the people who actually live there, Jeremy Corbyn just turned up and went straight to the people involved. That just speaks volumes.

  • Like 1

The building will be demolished, no doubt about it. The outer edges of the floors are too unsafe for even a search attempt. Besides, who would want to live in a building that has been so utterly ravished by fire and in which so many people perished to horribly?

  • Like 1
11 minutes ago, techbeck said:

I guess 17 dead and no more expected to be found alive.  People are posting the fire started again tho I just read it was out.  But either way, the building will probably need to be torn down.

I am currently watching it on BBC news channel, when I posted it was being reported... Right now (12:45pm UK time) it looks like the fires are out, and some small smouldering smoke can be seen

I hate myself for thinking like this, but a part of me is questioning if it was indeed a fridge that exploded, and not an IED... The times we live in, a part of me begins to think, was it an accident??

 

2 weeks ago, a child was run down a street away from where I live, it turned out to be an extremely unfortunate traffic collision, and the driver was on scene, and co operated fully with the police. But so many were speculating hit'n'run I found myself beginning to think like that, before the official statement was released confirming it was not a malicious incident.

  • Like 2
Quote

London fire: 58 missing, presumed dead - police

 

A total of 58 people are dead or missing, presumed dead following the devastating fire at Grenfell Tower in west London, police have said.

 

Commander Stuart Cundy said that number "may increase". The BBC understands it could be around 70 people in total.

 

The recovery operation at the burnt-out block of flats has resumed and could take weeks, he said.

 

Meanwhile, PM Theresa May admitted support for families in the "initial hours" was "not good enough".

 

//

 

So far in the investigation:

  • Six victims have been provisionally identified by police
  • Three have been named so far, including Syrian refugee Mohammed Alhajali, 23., five-year-old Isaac Shawo, and artist Khadija Saye
  • Of those killed, one died in hospital
  • Nineteen people remain in hospital, 10 in critical care
  • A criminal investigation has been launched
  • UK councils are carrying out urgent reviews of their tower blocks, the Local Government Association says

 

Full article at the BBC

 

 

On 6/15/2017 at 7:19 AM, PsYcHoKiLLa said:

It's pretty certain that the cheap plastic cladding they used in the "renovation" has been a contributing factor in the fire taking such a hold, apparently there are 2 types of cladding, plastic based and mineral based, the mineral is much more durable, more fireproof but, of course, more expensive. So they've gone for the cheap option and people have paid for it with their lives.

>

That's how I see it. From my readings, 

 

They used Arconic (Alcoa spinoff) Reynobond PE composite exterior panels; a plain polyethylene foam core with thin aluminum sheeting on either side. This is meant for use as an insulating decorative panel in structures no higher than 3 stories/40 feet/12 meters; so sayeth the Arconic data sheet. The issue: if a fire starts the thin aluminum soon melts, exposing the quite flammable polyethylene and poof!!...the whole structure lights up. 

 

The US and Canada restrict the use of such products to the 12 meter/40 foot height. The UK has no such restriction, and Germany rates Reynobond PE the same as 12mm of bare wood.

 

The proper material to use is Reynobond FR or equivalent, a mineral based core (fire retardant) panel, but it's more expensive.  There are even more fire resistant products for very tall structures, but at an even higher cost.

 

Someone saved a few Euros, and t cost a lot of lives.

 

 

I live in a high-rise 16th floor, so I've been keeping an eye on this more closely then some, It turns out that cladding used was cheaper than the cladding on my block by £2 per pane and the insulation material is different to.. I don't want to seem unreasonable but for many years the emphasis has been on keeping cost down and I'm afraid this is the result of that policy. Although the front line involved is either the council or housing association, the policy of saving money at the expense of safety, there is only one organisation to blame. I have seen it here recently so I'm pretty sure its true,

8 minutes ago, NinjaGinger said:

>

Idon't want to seem unreasonable but for many years the emphasis has been on keeping cost down and I'm afraid this is the result of that policy. Although the front line involved is either the council or housing association, the policy of saving money at the expense of safety, there is only one organisation to blame. I have seen it here recently so I'm pretty sure its true,

I'd say the larger problem is with the national building code, if there is one. If it specified no flammable materials in exterior panels the (often incompetent) "public servants" wouldn't have as much wriggle room to screw up.

1 hour ago, DocM said:

I'd say the larger problem is with the national building code, if there is one. If it specified no flammable materials in exterior panels the (often incompetent) "public servants" wouldn't have as much wriggle room to screw up.

There are codes in place, but the greedy bastards who bid for the contracts when it comes to face lifting/renovating these types of accommodations, use loopholes and whatnot to get around some of them.. (I think I mentioned it earlier, but don't remember. But just in case I didn't, it's a little akin to the late '80's early '90's fire resistant seating materials for airliners. The materials would pass with flying colours in lab conditions, but in reality <an actual airliner fire>, they burned extremely well, with added toxins thrown off while they burned)

4 hours ago, Slarlac249 said:

cooked business is construction, like when developers build of land prone to flooding. money seems more important than peoples safety, well that's how it seems.

Not how it seems, how it is. Like those who build on grade in a flood plain or hurricane zone instead of on stilts, which prevent most flood damage. Stilt height varies by zone, elevator optional.

 

Preventive medicine is better.

  • Like 3
18 hours ago, DocM said:

That's how I see it. From my readings, 

 

They used Arconic (Alcoa spinoff) Reynobond PE composite exterior panels; a plain polyethylene foam core with thin aluminum sheeting on either side. This is meant for use as an insulating decorative panel in structures no higher than 3 stories/40 feet/12 meters; so sayeth the Arconic data sheet. The issue: if a fire starts the thin aluminum soon melts, exposing the quite flammable polyethylene and poof!!...the whole structure lights up. 

 

The US and Canada restrict the use of such products to the 12 meter/40 foot height. The UK has no such restriction, and Germany rates Reynobond PE the same as 12mm of bare wood.

 

The proper material to use is Reynobond FR or equivalent, a mineral based core (fire retardant) panel, but it's more expensive.  There are even more fire resistant products for very tall structures, but at an even higher cost.

 

Someone saved a few Euros, and t cost a lot of lives.

 

 

From what I've seen so far, apparently the difference in cost between the cladding used and the more fireproof cladding was £5000, on an £8.6 million project. Amazing.

 

A lot of vultures have descended down on Grenfell tower also, like the EDL, Britain First (both of whom were hassling a mosque who were helping their community including people from the tower and it's surrounding neighbours) and the Church of $cientology who've set up their usual "We're here to help, honest" stations.

Edited by PsYcHoKiLLa
  • Like 2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Amazon Prime Day slashes Samsung's newest Galaxy Watch Ultra by 45 percent by Karthik Mudaliar Samsung’s flagship Android smartwatch has received one of its steepest Prime Day cuts. Amazon has dropped the 2025 Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra in Titanium Blue to $357.24, saving buyers around $292 from its $649.99 list price. That's a 45 percent discount (purchase link below). The 47mm Galaxy Watch Ultra uses a titanium casing and a 1.5-inch Super AMOLED display with a resolution of 480 x 480 and peak brightness of 3,000 nits. It includes LTE connectivity, Bluetooth 5.3, Wi-Fi, NFC, and dual-frequency L1+L5 GPS for more accurate outdoor route tracking. The 2025 model has 64GB of storage, a 590mAh battery, sapphire crystal glass, 10ATM water resistance, IP68 protection, and MIL-STD-810H durability testing. Its health and fitness tools include heart rate monitoring, sleep coaching, Energy Score, Running Coach, body composition analysis, temperature sensing, and ECG support, where available. This model is best suited to Android users who regularly run, hike, cycle, or train outdoors and want cellular access without carrying a phone. The larger battery, rugged construction, bright display, and dedicated Quick Button also make it a stronger option than Samsung’s regular Galaxy Watch models for extended workouts and demanding environments. Grab the Titanium Blue Galaxy Watch Ultra before the Prime Day price resets: Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra (2025) [Sold and Shipped by Amazon] Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Google begins rolling out its post-Epic Play Store billing model next week by Karthik Mudaliar Google has confirmed that its redesigned Play Store billing and fee structure will take effect on June 30, 2026, in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Economic Area. The changes will let eligible developers offer their own payment systems or send users to an external website for purchases, while separating Google’s platform service fee from the cost of using Google Play Billing. The rollout puts concrete dates and detailed rate cards behind the broader Android policy overhaul Google announced in March. That announcement followed a proposed settlement with Epic Games intended to resolve their long-running disputes over app distribution and payments, although the U.S. portion of the agreement still requires court approval. Under the new billing choice program, developers selling digital content or services can display an alternative payment option alongside Google Play Billing. They may also direct users to their own websites to complete a purchase. Developers can use Google’s standard payment-choice screen or design one that complies with the company’s user-interface rules. Choosing another payment processor does not eliminate Google’s cut altogether. The company will continue charging a service fee for transactions associated with apps distributed through Google Play, regardless of whether payment is handled by Google, an alternative provider, or a developer’s website. Google argues that this fee covers the value and infrastructure provided by Android and the Play Store. For developers earning up to $1 million annually, the service fee will generally be 10 percent. That rate also applies to auto-renewing subscriptions. When Google Play Billing is used in the U.S., U.K., or EEA, Google will add a separate 5 percent billing fee, and developers processing payments elsewhere will not pay that additional charge. This means Google’s familiar flat 30 percent commission is disappearing, but developers will not necessarily see a dramatic reduction on every transaction. An in-app purchase from an existing user processed through Google Play Billing can still reach a combined 30 percent. The biggest savings are likely to come from subscriptions, smaller developers covered by the $1 million tier, and companies able to move customers to their own payment infrastructure. Google is also offering lower rates through its Apps Experience and revamped Games Level Up programs. Apps and games that satisfy the company’s requirements can qualify for 15 percent service fees on new-install transactions and 20 percent on existing-install transactions. The criteria include performance and reliability standards, support for additional Android device categories, and selected platform features. Those program rates are scheduled to become available in the initial markets and Australia on September 30. For consumers, the immediate effect will depend on whether developers adopt alternative payments and pass any savings on through lower prices. For developers, however, June 30 begins a more flexible but considerably more complicated Play Store economy in which distribution, billing, install dates, revenue thresholds, and program participation can each affect Google’s final cut. Google is also separately developing a Registered App Stores program designed to simplify the installation of qualifying third-party stores. That initiative is expected to arrive with a major Android release later in 2026 and will launch outside the U.S. first. Google says the rest of the world will receive the changes by September 30, 2027, although billing rates for markets outside the US, UK, and EEA have not yet been announced.
    • 38% off a super insane price is still an INSANE price.
    • 1TB Samsung T9 and Samsung 9100 PRO SSDs are now selling at great prices by Fiza Ali Amazon is now offering the 1TB variant of Samsung T9 and Samsung 9100 PRO SSD at great prices with limited-time 38% and 39% discounts, respectively, so you may want to check them out if you have been looking to upgrade your storage solution. The Samsung T9 connects via a USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (20Gbps) interface and delivers sequential read speeds of up to 2,000MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 1,950MB/s, making it suitable for transferring large files, backing up data, and handling high-resolution media content. When it comes to the security features, the SSD includes AES 256-bit hardware encryption to help protect sensitive data. Designed for portability, the drive is reportedly resistant to drops from heights of up to 3 metres. Furthermore, it operates within a temperature range of 0°C to 60°C and can be stored at temperatures between -40°C and 85°C. Samsung Magician Software is included for drive management, firmware updates, performance optimisation, and health monitoring. Finally, the T9 is certified to multiple international standards, including CE, FCC, UL, UKCA, and RoHS 2 compliance, and is backed by a five-year limited warranty as well. 1TB Samsung T9 SSD: $179.99 (Amazon US) - 38% off The Samsung 9100 PRO uses the M.2 2280 form factor and connects through a PCIe 5.0 x4 interface with NVMe 2.0 support. Built with Samsung V-NAND TLC flash memory, an in-house controller, and 1GB of low-power DDR4X cache memory, the 9100 PRO is engineered for high-performance computing and gaming workloads. Furthermore, the SSD delivers sequential read speeds of up to 14,700MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 13,300MB/s. Random performance is rated at up to 1,850,000 IOPS for reads and up to 2,600,000 IOPS for writes, depending on system hardware and configuration. The drive supports TRIM, S.M.A.R.T monitoring, automatic garbage collection, and device sleep mode to help maintain performance and efficiency over time. In terms of security features, it includes AES 256-bit encryption, TCG Opal support, and IEEE 1667 compliance. The 9100 PRO operates within a temperature range of 0°C to 70°C, is rated for 1.5 million hours MTBF, and can reportedly withstand shocks of up to 1,500G for 0.5 milliseconds. Finally, Samsung Magician Software is also included for firmware updates, performance monitoring, drive management, and optimisation. 1TB Samsung 9100 PRO SSD: $206.99 (Amazon US) - 39% off Alternatively, you can also check out other SSD deals here. Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      463
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      81
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!