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

    • Hello, Were you using a product or service from one of the companies affected by the Klue data breach?  See https://klue.com/blog/an-update-on-recent-klue-security-incident for the company's public statement.  That blog post does not list affected customer. From looking around at reports, I created this list: Gong HackerOne Huntress Insurity Jamf LastPass OneTrust Recorded Future ReliaQuest Salesforce Snyk Sprout Social Tanium It is likely there are other companies affected as well. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky  
    • SpaceX reportedly plans a Starlink mobile service for U.S. consumers by Karthik Mudaliar SpaceX reportedly wants to sell mobile phone plans directly to consumers in the United States as part of a wider expansion of Starlink. According to a report from the Financial Times, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell discussed the plan with investors during the company’s recent IPO roadshow. The company is also said to be considering building a terrestrial mobile network to complement Starlink’s satellite coverage. The plan is quite different from how Starlink currently operates in the U.S. mobile market. SpaceX already provides satellite connectivity for T-Mobile’s T-Satellite service, but T-Mobile remains responsible for the subscription, billing, and customer support. A Starlink-branded mobile service would give SpaceX control of the customer relationship instead. It could also turn the company from a partner of traditional mobile operators into a direct competitor. T-Mobile also began testing its Starlink-powered satellite service in early 2025. The beta was initially limited to text messaging and was also available to some AT&T and Verizon customers. The service has since expanded to support limited data access through selected apps, including WhatsApp, Google Maps, AccuWeather, and AllTrails. It is designed to provide a connection in areas where normal cell towers are unavailable, rather than replace a conventional mobile network. However, if SpaceX actually has a plan to serve nationwide, it needs to do more than just satellite networks and actually support on-ground operations. It can also partner up with existing carriers and become a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO). With that said, SpaceX has already spent heavily to support its mobile ambitions. Just last year, the company agreed to acquire wireless spectrum licences from EchoStar in deals worth a combined $19.6 billion. EchoStar's spectrum includes AWS-4, H-Block, and AWS-3 frequencies that could be used for both satellite and terrestrial communications. According to a SpaceX securities filing, the Federal Communications Commission approved the transaction in May 2026, although it is not expected to close until late 2027. There's no official statement by SpaceX for now. Pricing, availability, and other details remain unknown. Source: Financial Times
    • We had no idea as kids how much time and energy it took to be an adult 😅
    • The Trump administration doesn't want you to use OpenAI's GPT-5.6 without its approval by David Uzondu Image via @realDonalTrump (X) As OpenAI prepares the release of its next model, GPT 5.6, the White House has instructed the company to limit the distribution of the software to a small group of government-approved partners instead of the general public, as it has done with previous releases. According to The Information, OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman sent an internal memo to staff on Thursday explaining that the federal government will approve access "customer by customer" during an initial preview phase. Altman noted in the communication that this restrictive rollout is "not [their] long-term model" for software deployment, and the company plans to work toward a "more sustainable" distribution method later. CNN said that both OpenAI and the Trump administration view the capabilities of GPT 5.6 on the same level as Anthropic's Mythos and that government officials intend to "collaborate with frontier AI labs to develop shared approaches for addressing the challenges of scaling this technology." The latest restriction comes just weeks after the US Commerce Department decided to restrict Fable, a version of Mythos with extra safety "guardrails" to prevent users from exploiting software vulnerabilities. Not long after the release, though, researchers at Amazon found a way to bypass these restrictions, prompting an aggressive response from federal authorities. The government ordered Anthropic to cut off access for non-US citizens located outside the US, non-US citizens living inside the US, and incredibly, even Anthropic's own foreign-born employees. Anthropic now appears to be building a workaround to resolve this compliance block with an update to its Privacy Policy that introduces a category called "Verification Data" to handle KYC and Digital IDs. This setup could mandate digital identity checks to filter users by nationality, requiring a government-issued ID and facial biometric data. Who knows? Maybe in the future, you would have to scan your US Passport or State ID to prove your citizenship before you are allowed to chat with Fable 5 (or any other model).
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Enthusiast
      Xonos went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      400
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      127
    4. 4
      neufuse
      69
    5. 5
      Xenon
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!