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

    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
    • I had a feeling this was coming. Picked up my first Mac ever last Saturday. Glad I did.
    • In a major surprise there is actually some good deals for the first time in years. At least for me.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      419
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!