Huge fire in Grenfell Tower - West London

[Bletchleyite]

That number will go up and up and up as the day goes on.

It may never be known, as there are no official records of who is in a private flat at any given time (e.g. as a guest).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was 'plastic' Witnesses have reported that it was dripping down the building and the fire was climbing the building up the cladding.

Flammable cladding on a tower block? Madness. Some kind of tiling would have been better (though maybe too heavy)?

OK, wooden cladding and structure is common on houses (mine included), but the difference is I could quite easily escape a fire by climbing out of the window on the opposite side to any fire (particularly having porches front and rear, so no significant jump).

I dont like the idea of gas in multi story buildings like that, whilst it costs me more a month I feel safer with my electric.

I don't like the idea of gas in *any* building. I have it because of cost, but long-term we really should be looking to replace it with things like better (but fire retardent) insulation, triple glazing and heat pumps, with electric induction hobs for those requiring gas-like cooking.

Buildings like that have another option, of course, usual in mainland Europe, which I thought I read was fitted to it - a communal hot-water heating system with any firing, be that gas or otherwise, in an outbuilding, and only hot water at a non-dangerous temperature being pumped around the building.

 

[Blindtraveler]

A few High Rises in Edinburgh have that system and the gas consumption is charged to their rent account. It works well mostly by all accounts but when it fails many are affected.

I am glad to have a balcony onto which I would escape in the event of a blaze.

I certainly sounds as if theres been failings here, maybe corners cut/bodged work/dodgy contracters or whatever but as ever speculating woant help anyone.

The community spirit of those near by sounds fantastic!

 

[cjp]

The highest residential building I have ever managed was ten stories , it was equipped with dry risers and in case of an emergency had a “Stay Put Policy” unless the fire was in your own flat or the emergency services told you to get. The theory being the structures were compartmentalised doors including flat doors were self closing and had fire resistance and that the Fire Brigade would come along and extinguish the contained fire
.
Problems were people leaving items on the stairs, landings and fire escape routes, propping open self closing fire check doors and swapping their entrance doors for one with little or no fire resistance - plastic doors anyone?

Frankly after the Twin Towers if I was in a high rise and something went wrong I would get dressed alert my neighbours and try to get out.
The London fire does not make me want to change my thinking as the Fire Service watched impotently as the higher floors burned

The cause of last nights' London Tragedy is yet to determined and expect wiser minds to be looking at the fire stopping associated with the new cladding , the fact that on a warm nights more windows would be open wider, the regular testing of fire alarms etc etc and lessons will be learnt.

Should you live in such a block of flats check when the last fire risk assessment were carried out (and if all recommended works were addressed) and what the emergency evacuation procedures are.

Modern commercial high rise building are usual fitted with sprinklers or some sort of fire suppressors not just dry risers.

It is something feared and something we try to prepare for but I expect firms of managing agents up and down the country are checking their paperwork.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am glad to have a balcony onto which I would escape in the event of a blaze.

Not necessarily much of an escape when the outside of the building is on fire.

In my house I've got 120m of climbing rope (1x60, 2x30) which is more than enough to get down from the top of the block concerned...but even that would rather depend on there being a bit that wasn't burning to get down past.

 

[All Line Rover]

The company which provided the smoke extraction system deleted the page about it on their website earlier today, but it has been archived

https://web.archive.org/web/2017061...ll-tower-london-w11-1tq-regeneration-project/

Whether this worked or not, was adequate for the huge fire, or whether it might have failed due to loss of power is unclear so far. I would have thought active control systems should fail safe as in railway signalling.

The bast***s! Attempting to destroy evidence that could be used in court or during the course of an inquiry hardly reflects well on them, does it?

 

[TheEdge]

It's an absolutely terrible thing, I can't even begin to imagine what the people at the top of the building have gone through

No, no no no. Of all the ways to die that has to be the worst...

Its utterly horrible, hopefully the reason for this can be discovered and this sort of thing won't happen again. Although I'm sure in West London council office the paper shredders are busy and the document mislaying department are working hard...

 

[najaB]

The bast***s! Attempting to destroy evidence that could be used in court or during the course of an inquiry hardly reflects well on them, does it?

I doubt it's a case of destroying evidence, more likely they noticed that their website was getting a lot more hits than usual due to people searching for news and they didn't want their name to be associated with the fire in the court of public opinion.

As already shown, the information is still available in web archives and probably on the hard drive of their web developer as well.

 

[TheEdge]

I doubt it's a case of destroying evidence, more likely they noticed that their website was getting a lot more hits than usual due to people searching for news and they didn't want their name to be associated with the fire in the court of public opinion.

As already shown, the information is still available in web archives and probably on the hard drive of their web developer as well.

Well I think if you are the company who proudly installed a smoke extraction system in to a building which subsequently burnt down in an awful fire I think bad publicity and the court of public opinion is going to be hard to avoid.

 

[najaB]

Well I think if you are the company who proudly installed a smoke extraction system in to a building which subsequently burnt down in an awful fire I think bad publicity and the court of public opinion is going to be hard to avoid.

That's true. But it may turn out that their system actually worked 100% correctly as designed and it was something else that was responsible for the deaths.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well I think if you are the company who proudly installed a smoke extraction system in to a building which subsequently burnt down in an awful fire I think bad publicity and the court of public opinion is going to be hard to avoid.

There's no suggestion yet that the smoke extraction company are even to blame.

 

[vrbarreto]

There's no suggestion yet that the smoke extraction company are even to blame.

I very much doubt that that system would even have been able to cope with the amount of smoke being generated.

 

[Dhassell]

It is very difficult to grasp how a fire could be allowed to spread with such ferocity in a modern day residential complex. The building was from the 1970s of course, but one assumes that Health & Safety law ensures all such buildings are up to standard. Perhaps here that wasn't the case. I can see a very heavy storm heading for the organisation who managed the property, against whom some rather fiece accusations had been made prior to this disaster.

Well you say that, That was a 1970's building, it can happen in any building, remember that one in Dubai back at the end of 2015?

 

[Dai Corner]

I very much doubt that that system would even have been able to cope with the amount of smoke being generated.

I expect the design assumption would have been a fire in one flat or one communal area which would be isolated and dealt with within minutes. Nobody would have envisaged lots of flats being on fire simultaneously with many times as much smoke to deal with.

 

[Dai Corner]

I doubt it's a case of destroying evidence, more likely they noticed that their website was getting a lot more hits than usual due to people searching for news and they didn't want their name to be associated with the fire in the court of public opinion.

As already shown, the information is still available in web archives and probably on the hard drive of their web developer as well.

The info on the website is/was just marketing blurb. There will be detailed plans and specifications which the enquiry will look at.

 

[najaB]

The info on the website is/was just marketing blurb. There will be detailed plans and specifications which the enquiry will look at.

Indeed. I can't understand why the suggestion was being made that they were trying to engage in a coverup.

 

[Saint66]

Twelve fatalities now confirmed, with the number expected to rise further. Complex and difficult recovery process in the coming days according to the Met.

 

[All Line Rover]

Indeed. I can't understand why the suggestion was being made that they were trying to engage in a coverup.

Nothing to fear, nothing to hide. Web pages are not deleted simply because of spikes in traffic.

 

[Barn]

Nothing to fear, nothing to hide. Web pages are not deleted simply because of spikes in traffic.

Maybe they just considered that citing this particular tower as an example isn't really the best marketing strategy...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nothing to fear, nothing to hide. Web pages are not deleted simply because of spikes in traffic.

They are if those spikes are such that they constitute an unintentional denial of service attack. Very common for companies to put up a simple text only, monochrome holding page in such circumstances.

 

[najaB]

Nothing to fear, nothing to hide. Web pages are not deleted simply because of spikes in traffic.

You're looking for a conspiracy where none exists. Why would they continue to feature an advertisement for a project where there has just been a major fire with fatalities? Nothing has been destroyed, they would be well aware that the content would be available via web archive services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're looking for a conspiracy where none exists. Why would they continue to feature an advertisement for a project where there has just been a major fire with fatalities? Nothing has been destroyed, they would be well aware that the content would be available via web archive services.

True, they may also have thought that showing off about a building in which people died was a little tasteless. Seems more likely to me actually.

 

[Pinza-C55]

It was 'plastic' Witnesses have reported that it was dripping down the building and the fire was climbing the building up the cladding.

Reports also stated that there was an external gas pipe that was also spreading the fire ?

The thing that struck me watching the fire (on TV) when it was at its height was that there seemed to be a kind of "sparkler" effect on the left hand side like it was chemicals burning rather than ordinary flames. Kind of spitting out ?

 

[507021]

Twelve fatalities now confirmed, with the number expected to rise further. Complex and difficult recovery process in the coming days according to the Met.

That is tragic, RIP.

My thoughts and condolences are with those affected.

 

[Saint66]

Appears that smaller fires have re-ignited in areas which were previously thought to be out.

 

[najaB]

Appears that smaller fires have re-ignited in areas which were previously thought to be out.

That may well occur for several hours or even days.

 

[dgl]

Interesting. I thought mains gas was still more or less verboten in high-rise buildings.

From what I understand it is, can't remember how many floors it is though 4/5 sounds about right.

Calor certainly have it in their terms and conditions that they cannot deliver past a certain story.



Edit: 4 story's maximum and only if they are of traditional construction not panel built.

 

[w0033944]

I can't link to the actual interview directly, but, if you go to the BBC live page on the fire, you'll find an interview with a chartered accountant who specialises in fire protection. He gave a lecture three years ago predicting a fire with multiple fatalities in a British structure like this due to ineffectual regulations surrounding cladding standards. From what he's saying, the only rules are to do with the exterior surface; from a legal standpoint there's nothing specifically to prevent someone using whatever they want under the cladding as insulation.

 

[Dai Corner]

I can't link to the actual interview directly, but, if you go to the BBC live page on the fire, you'll find an interview with a chartered accountant who specialises in fire protection. He gave a lecture three years ago predicting a fire with multiple fatalities in a British structure like this due to ineffectual regulations surrounding cladding standards. From what he's saying, the only rules are to do with the exterior surface; from a legal standpoint there's nothing specifically to prevent someone using whatever they want under the cladding as insulation.

This may or not be the same surveyor, but the message is the same

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...g-to-happen-fire-expert-slams-uk-tower-blocks

Arnold Tarling, a chartered surveyor at Hindwoods and a fire safety expert, says the elephant in the room is the flammability of insulation panels that are being used to clad postwar buildings to bring them up to date with today’s thermal standards. A recent £8.7m refurbishment of Grenfell Tower saw the building clad with “ACM cassette rainscreen” panels, an aluminium composite material covering insulation panels, which could have caused the fire to spread more quickly up the facade of the tower.


“The issue is that, under building regulations, only the surface of the cladding has to be fire-proofed to class 0, which is about surface spread,” says Tarling. “The stuff behind it doesn’t, and it’s this which has burned.” He says he recently inspected a new-build eight storey block in south-east London where there was no fire protection in the external cavity walls. “The insulation behind the external cladding is flammable polyurethane. I know because I took a chunk out and burned it.”

 

[w0033944]

This may or not be the same surveyor, but the message is the same

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...g-to-happen-fire-expert-slams-uk-tower-blocks

That's the chap, thanks.