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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.