Tower Block fire in London?

All things Rugby
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 17023
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Gavin Duffy »

the Judge wrote:
Gavin Duffy wrote:
the Judge wrote:
camroc1 wrote:What is scary is that a fridge fire should have been contained within an individual flat- that was the fire strategy.
So there are more basic problems than wrapping the building in fire lighter. Pl
Those who designed and signed off the latter should end up in jail.
That's a bold opinion. You must be either an Architect; structural engineer or Building Surveyor?

No? Then what gives you the right to spout about jail sentences? The question is not whether the Reynobond cladding itself burns as a small sample. It is whether the composite rainscreen system including the (fire-resistant) mineral insulation behind the panels met the relevant British Standard and/or ISO at the time the designer selected it.

Unless you or anyone else posting here can answer that question (which I doubt very much) try winding your neck in until the facts are properly investigated and presented.
He is a structural engineer I think.
In which case he should know better.
Better than what? It should have been containable.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Mick Mannock wrote:
Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:Show me the tender documentation, cumbucket.
Why not just accept I'm right. The EU regs are piss poor in that they allowed this cladding to be used. it should have been outlawed

But its not just an EU issue (NZ and Aust allow it too)
I have no idea if you are right about these EU regs, but you have certainly got some eyes swiveling, and some frothing at the mouth from other posters.
its just a tactic. Attack anyone who has an opposing viewpoint to them regardless
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Mick Mannock wrote:
Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:Show me the tender documentation, cumbucket.
Why not just accept I'm right. The EU regs are piss poor in that they allowed this cladding to be used. it should have been outlawed

But its not just an EU issue (NZ and Aust allow it too)
I have no idea if you are right about these EU regs, but you have certainly got some eyes swiveling, and some frothing at the mouth from other posters.
I'm not saying he is wrong about what the EU says regarding these boards. I'm just saying he has no idea how if they were legally used on the tower blocks in the UK and if the councils knew they were used. It seems clear that the vast majority of council buildings that have been clad have had more expensive fire resistant cladding. I keep hearing (from silver as well) the builders will use the cheapest material that conforms to code.
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10493
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Leinsterman »

Silver wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:Show me the tender documentation, cumbucket.
Why not just accept I'm right. The EU regs are piss poor in that they allowed this cladding to be used. it should have been outlawed

But its not just an EU issue (NZ and Aust allow it too)
I have no idea if you are right about these EU regs, but you have certainly got some eyes swiveling, and some frothing at the mouth from other posters.
its just a tactic. Attack anyone who has an opposing viewpoint to them regardless

Links to the EOI and RFP please
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Gavin Duffy wrote: Better than what? It should have been containable.
There were thousands of fires in tower blocks over the years before they were wrapped in flammable cladding.
the Judge
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by the Judge »

Gavin Duffy wrote:
the Judge wrote:
Gavin Duffy wrote:
the Judge wrote:
camroc1 wrote:What is scary is that a fridge fire should have been contained within an individual flat- that was the fire strategy.
So there are more basic problems than wrapping the building in fire lighter. Pl
Those who designed and signed off the latter should end up in jail.
That's a bold opinion. You must be either an Architect; structural engineer or Building Surveyor?

No? Then what gives you the right to spout about jail sentences? The question is not whether the Reynobond cladding itself burns as a small sample. It is whether the composite rainscreen system including the (fire-resistant) mineral insulation behind the panels met the relevant British Standard and/or ISO at the time the designer selected it.

Unless you or anyone else posting here can answer that question (which I doubt very much) try winding your neck in until the facts are properly investigated and presented.
He is a structural engineer I think.
In which case he should know better.
Better than what? It should have been containable.
Please explain how your contention that "it should have been containable" relates to the obligations on the designer who Camroc believes should go to jail. You don't know what the designers appointment obliged it to do not do you know the requirements stipulated by the Council in their tender invitation.

If you can't answer those questions your statement is meaningless in the context of the designers potential liability.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Leinsterman wrote:
Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:Show me the tender documentation, cumbucket.
Why not just accept I'm right. The EU regs are piss poor in that they allowed this cladding to be used. it should have been outlawed

But its not just an EU issue (NZ and Aust allow it too)
No you're saying the EU forced the UK to comply with these standards. Show the tender documents that state the minimum spec.
Its part of being in the EU and single market. the EU now has shared competency for cladding regulations. that's a fact

Full competency. EU reg must be applied
Shared competency. EU regs must apply UNLESS country had regs in place before the changeover date. in this case country can choose. UK applied EU regs
Country has competency. No Eu regs and countries regs apply
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10493
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Leinsterman »

Show us the specs outlined in the tender.
This has nothing to do with competency. You've demonstrated a complete and utter lack of knowledge here. That's alright though. I'll educate you.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Leinsterman wrote:Show us the specs outlined in the tender.
This has nothing to do with competency. You've demonstrated a complete and utter lack of knowledge here. That's alright though. I'll educate you.
UK specs must comply with EU regs for CLADDING. You are in a small box and can't see outside of it
User avatar
bessantj
Posts: 9114
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:55 am
Location: Newport, Gwent

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by bessantj »

JM2K6 wrote:
bessantj wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE STILL RESPONDING TO HIM

LIKE, EVER
So, tell me, what's it like screaming into the void?
I used "screaming into the void" in a company meeting recently.

I got some very concerned looks...
Well you knew the risks of working at a nursery.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 37187
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by JM2K6 »

bessantj wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
bessantj wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE STILL RESPONDING TO HIM

LIKE, EVER
So, tell me, what's it like screaming into the void?
I used "screaming into the void" in a company meeting recently.

I got some very concerned looks...
Well you knew the risks of working at a nursery.
Given the age of some of our newest hires you're not far wrong :lol:
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Anonymous. wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:Show me the tender documentation, cumbucket.
Why not just accept I'm right. The EU regs are piss poor in that they allowed this cladding to be used. it should have been outlawed

But its not just an EU issue (NZ and Aust allow it too)
I have no idea if you are right about these EU regs, but you have certainly got some eyes swiveling, and some frothing at the mouth from other posters.
I'm not saying he is wrong about what the EU says regarding these boards. I'm just saying he has no idea how if they were legally used on the tower blocks in the UK and if the councils knew they were used. It seems clear that the vast majority of council buildings that have been clad have had more expensive fire resistant cladding. I keep hearing (from silver as well) the builders will use the cheapest material that conforms to code.
link please. (and maybe the tender price was the lowest received)
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10493
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Leinsterman »

Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:Show us the specs outlined in the tender.
This has nothing to do with competency. You've demonstrated a complete and utter lack of knowledge here. That's alright though. I'll educate you.
UK specs must comply with EU regs for CLADDING. You are in a small box and can't see outside of it
MINIMUM specs you vegetative mong. Nothing stopping UK adopting more stringent specs, you disingenuous spaz.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Leinsterman wrote:
Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:Show us the specs outlined in the tender.
This has nothing to do with competency. You've demonstrated a complete and utter lack of knowledge here. That's alright though. I'll educate you.
UK specs must comply with EU regs for CLADDING. You are in a small box and can't see outside of it
MINIMUM specs you vegetative mong. Nothing stopping UK adopting more stringent specs, you disingenuous spaz.
I never said it did. But council are often required to go with the lowest quote that confirms with the tender

And my view is the EU regs re cladding are shit.

This cladding should have been outlawed. Not left to councils etc to impose higher stds. Even though these higher stds may have been considered no tariff trade restrictions. Esp say if the higher spec excluded a French product (the cladding used) but not a UK product
Last edited by Silver on Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bessantj
Posts: 9114
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:55 am
Location: Newport, Gwent

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by bessantj »

JM2K6 wrote:
bessantj wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
bessantj wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE STILL RESPONDING TO HIM

LIKE, EVER
So, tell me, what's it like screaming into the void?
I used "screaming into the void" in a company meeting recently.

I got some very concerned looks...
Well you knew the risks of working at a nursery.
Given the age of some of our newest hires you're not far wrong :lol:
:lol: :lol: getting too close to 40.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Silver wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:Show me the tender documentation, cumbucket.
Why not just accept I'm right. The EU regs are piss poor in that they allowed this cladding to be used. it should have been outlawed

But its not just an EU issue (NZ and Aust allow it too)
I have no idea if you are right about these EU regs, but you have certainly got some eyes swiveling, and some frothing at the mouth from other posters.
I'm not saying he is wrong about what the EU says regarding these boards. I'm just saying he has no idea how if they were legally used on the tower blocks in the UK and if the councils knew they were used. It seems clear that the vast majority of council buildings that have been clad have had more expensive fire resistant cladding. I keep hearing (from silver as well) the builders will use the cheapest material that conforms to code.
link please. (and maybe the tender price was the lowest received)
The other day the government claimed 600 blocks had similar cladding. They have now admitted they made a mistake and it's 600 blocks that have cladding. Maybe it was the original government claim that had you wanking yourself silly. They now believe the figure should not rise much above 25 so probably less that 5%. I think that would count as the vast majority not having similar cladding wouldn't you
At least 14 buildings across eight local authority areas in England have been found to have flammable cladding, But at least 25 are believed to have aluminium composite cladding, like that which was fixed to Grenfell. 600 are being tested at a rate of 100 per day

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4kraB15oo
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:
Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:Show us the specs outlined in the tender.
This has nothing to do with competency. You've demonstrated a complete and utter lack of knowledge here. That's alright though. I'll educate you.
UK specs must comply with EU regs for CLADDING. You are in a small box and can't see outside of it
MINIMUM specs you vegetative mong. Nothing stopping UK adopting more stringent specs, you disingenuous spaz.
I never said it did. But council are often required to go with the lowest quote that confirms with the tender

And my view is the EU regs re cladding are shit.

This cladding should have been outlawed. Not left to councils etc to impose higher stds. Even though these higher stds may have been considered no tariff trade restrictions. Esp say if the higher spec excluded a French product (the cladding used) but not a UK product
Hold on. You've been adament that they cannot impose higher standards. Now you use the phrase "may have been considered no tariff trade restrictions"

Not so sure anymore ?
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10493
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Leinsterman »

C'mon Anon, he hasn't a clue yet will still flip flop.
A complete and utter liar.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Anonymous. wrote:
Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:
Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:Show us the specs outlined in the tender.
This has nothing to do with competency. You've demonstrated a complete and utter lack of knowledge here. That's alright though. I'll educate you.
UK specs must comply with EU regs for CLADDING. You are in a small box and can't see outside of it
MINIMUM specs you vegetative mong. Nothing stopping UK adopting more stringent specs, you disingenuous spaz.
I never said it did. But council are often required to go with the lowest quote that confirms with the tender

And my view is the EU regs re cladding are shit.

This cladding should have been outlawed. Not left to councils etc to impose higher stds. Even though these higher stds may have been considered no tariff trade restrictions. Esp say if the higher spec excluded a French product (the cladding used) but not a UK product
Hold on. You've been adament that they cannot impose higher standards. Now you use the phrase "may have been considered no tariff trade restrictions"

Not so sure anymore ?
The reason why the Eu sets the regs is to remove the option of local or national Govts using stds to restrict products from other countries. The appropriate bodies determine these issues if a complaint is received

Why can't you accept that regs that allowed this cladding to be used are piss poor. It can turn building into fire traps
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 43361
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by camroc1 »

the Judge wrote:
camroc1 wrote:What is scary is that a fridge fire should have been contained within an individual flat- that was the fire strategy.
So there are more basic problems than wrapping the building in fire lighter. Pl
Those who designed and signed off the latter should end up in jail.
That's a bold opinion. You must be either an Architect; structural engineer or Building Surveyor?

No? Then what gives you the right to spout about jail sentences? The question is not whether the Reynobond cladding itself burns as a small sample. It is whether the composite rainscreen system including the (fire-resistant) mineral insulation behind the panels met the relevant British Standard and/or ISO at the time the designer selected it.

Unless you or anyone else posting here can answer that question (which I doubt very much) try winding your neck in until the facts are properly investigated and presented.
I'm a c/s engineer who has prepared fire cert applications under the Irish regs.
Which is why I'm shocked as to what appears to have gone on under the English regs.
the Judge
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by the Judge »

camroc1 wrote:
the Judge wrote:
camroc1 wrote:What is scary is that a fridge fire should have been contained within an individual flat- that was the fire strategy.
So there are more basic problems than wrapping the building in fire lighter. Pl
Those who designed and signed off the latter should end up in jail.
That's a bold opinion. You must be either an Architect; structural engineer or Building Surveyor?

No? Then what gives you the right to spout about jail sentences? The question is not whether the Reynobond cladding itself burns as a small sample. It is whether the composite rainscreen system including the (fire-resistant) mineral insulation behind the panels met the relevant British Standard and/or ISO at the time the designer selected it.

Unless you or anyone else posting here can answer that question (which I doubt very much) try winding your neck in until the facts are properly investigated and presented.
I'm a c/s engineer who has prepared fire cert applications under the Irish regs.

Which is why I'm shocked as to what appears to have gone on under the English regs.
I'm a QS which is why I'm shocked you're suggesting negligence on the part of the designer without considering whether the cladding design complied with what was probably a defective standard. The panels themselves have a BBA certificate. Why do you therefore suggest prison for the designer?
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

camroc1 wrote:
the Judge wrote:
camroc1 wrote:What is scary is that a fridge fire should have been contained within an individual flat- that was the fire strategy.
So there are more basic problems than wrapping the building in fire lighter. Pl
Those who designed and signed off the latter should end up in jail.
That's a bold opinion. You must be either an Architect; structural engineer or Building Surveyor?

No? Then what gives you the right to spout about jail sentences? The question is not whether the Reynobond cladding itself burns as a small sample. It is whether the composite rainscreen system including the (fire-resistant) mineral insulation behind the panels met the relevant British Standard and/or ISO at the time the designer selected it.

Unless you or anyone else posting here can answer that question (which I doubt very much) try winding your neck in until the facts are properly investigated and presented.
I'm a c/s engineer who has prepared fire cert applications under the Irish regs.
Which is why I'm shocked as to what appears to have gone on under the English regs.
Re cladding?

Surely Ireland had the same cladding regs to comply with. Unless you had regs in place like Germany before these EU regs were introduced and Ireland held onto these regs
armchair pundit
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by armchair pundit »

Silver wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Silver wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
So when you wrote the following you were talking out of your arse
Silver wrote: Try to engage you brain. why do you think this flammable cladding is on buildings. do you think all these councils etc just ignored the regulations?
Google it.
Your claim. Why not post the link on your FOURTH attempt ?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... nfell-fire
Camden council announced it would immediately remove cladding from five tower blocks on the Chalcots estate

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -buildings
Fears for residents as cladding on 14 tower blocks fails fire tests
2006.

I think Jezza might be realising by now maybe he should have shut his gob instead of going on his press diva frenzy.
User avatar
Torquemada 1420
Posts: 29067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Hut 8

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Torquemada 1420 »

Jake wrote:
Anonymous. wrote: The council would have every type of insurance you could think of including freehold insurance.
What about voiding on account of professional negligence?
Yup. This. They may be reaching for their PI wording now.
User avatar
Torquemada 1420
Posts: 29067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Hut 8

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Torquemada 1420 »

Mick Mannock wrote:
croyals wrote:
RodneyRegis wrote:
cubby boi wrote:Can anyone explain why this £5m is coming from the government rather than London council?
Also, could any legal types spread some light on any precedent that's being set here by giving 5k to everyone who loses their home due to fire?
Surely the legal precedent of the PM, without any court ruling, giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants in high-profile disasters is more of a concern.
I know this was called for but has this actually happened?
Why should it? I don't see why anyone other than the legal tenants should be re-housed either
Including the morgue presumably?
Mick Mannock
Posts: 25954
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Mick Mannock »

Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
croyals wrote:
RodneyRegis wrote:
cubby boi wrote:Can anyone explain why this £5m is coming from the government rather than London council?
Also, could any legal types spread some light on any precedent that's being set here by giving 5k to everyone who loses their home due to fire?
Surely the legal precedent of the PM, without any court ruling, giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants in high-profile disasters is more of a concern.
I know this was called for but has this actually happened?
Why should it? I don't see why anyone other than the legal tenants should be re-housed either
Including the morgue presumably?
Want to explain?
User avatar
Sefton
Posts: 16222
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Sefton »

So many dead, injured and missing and yet the primary concern of some is illegal immigrants. :(
Mick Mannock
Posts: 25954
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Mick Mannock »

Sefton wrote:So many dead, injured and missing and yet the primary concern of some is illegal immigrants. :(
Really? I think you just made that up.

If people are to be housed, I think it reasonable that some proof of residency in GT is provided. If that means "giving up" scrotes who have been illegally subletting social housing, so be it.
User avatar
Leinster in London
Posts: 5995
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Leinster in London »

Silver wrote:
Leinsterman wrote:Show me the tender documentation, cumbucket.
Why not just accept I'm right. The EU regs are piss poor in that they allowed this cladding to be used. it should have been outlawed

But its not just an EU issue (NZ and Aust allow it too)
Only sheeple, fruitcaakes and loons would ever take your word for it.
You accept you are out of the matrix, but that does not mean you ignore the principle of proof.

You are a piece of shit that has polluted too many threads. Get a proper job and stop sucking off the russian príck.
User avatar
Torquemada 1420
Posts: 29067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Hut 8

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Torquemada 1420 »

Mick Mannock wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Why should it? I don't see why anyone other than the legal tenants should be re-housed either
Including the morgue presumably?
Want to explain?
I'm asking if you think the dead illegals should be left amongst the rubble too? It's not a hard question.
User avatar
some dude
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by some dude »

This fire is a great excuse for some ethnic cleansing
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Why should it? I don't see why anyone other than the legal tenants should be re-housed either
Including the morgue presumably?
Want to explain?
I'm asking if you think the dead illegals should be left amongst the rubble too? It's not a hard question.
If K&C council had found someone was sub-letting the day before the fire they would have kicked them out on the street and rehoused someone on their waiting list in that property. I see no reason why they should now go to the top of that waiting list.
Mick Mannock
Posts: 25954
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Mick Mannock »

Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Why should it? I don't see why anyone other than the legal tenants should be re-housed either
Including the morgue presumably?
Want to explain?
I'm asking if you think the dead illegals should be left amongst the rubble too? It's not a hard question.
What is wrong with you? :?
User avatar
Bobcock
Posts: 1231
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Bobcock »

Just went past..... eerily dark amongst the other tower blocks
User avatar
MungoMan
Posts: 14229
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Coalfalls

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by MungoMan »

Bobcock wrote:Just went past..... eerily dark amongst the other tower blocks
Are there still unretrieved bodies inside?
User avatar
wamberal99
Posts: 4105
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:02 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by wamberal99 »

MungoMan wrote:
Bobcock wrote:Just went past..... eerily dark amongst the other tower blocks
Are there still unretrieved bodies inside?

I heard a news report that said that there might well be, but because of the very high temperatures in parts of the building, some remains might never be found amongst the rubble.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

I give up with the info coming out from the government. First they say there are 600 tower blocks with the similar cladding to Grenfell tower. Then they say they got it wrong and it's 600 blocks that need testing and they are testing 100 samples a day and upwards of 27 are expected to fail.
Now they are saying they are working round the clock but have only had 34 samples and all 34 have failed but not to worry because councils are only sending samples of cladding they are worried about. If they have the capacity to test 100 a day and they are working round the clock since Wednesday how is it they have only tested 34. I'm thinking another correction to the info is likely.
ID2
Posts: 3253
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:47 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by ID2 »

wamberal99 wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
Bobcock wrote:Just went past..... eerily dark amongst the other tower blocks
Are there still unretrieved bodies inside?

I heard a news report that said that there might well be, but because of the very high temperatures in parts of the building, some remains might never be found amongst the rubble.
What actually happens to the tower and site after the investigations are complete, it'll be demolished and possibly rebuilt?
User avatar
Flockwitt
Posts: 6814
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Flockwitt »

Anonymous. wrote:I give up with the info coming out from the government. First they say there are 600 tower blocks with the similar cladding to Grenfell tower. Then they say they got it wrong and it's 600 blocks that need testing and they are testing 100 samples a day and upwards of 27 are expected to fail.
Now they are saying they are working round the clock but have only had 34 samples and all 34 have failed but not to worry because councils are only sending samples of cladding they are worried about. If they have the capacity to test 100 a day and they are working round the clock since Wednesday how is it they have only tested 34. I'm thinking another correction to the info is likely.
Do they state in what way are they failing Anon?
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:I give up with the info coming out from the government. First they say there are 600 tower blocks with the similar cladding to Grenfell tower. Then they say they got it wrong and it's 600 blocks that need testing and they are testing 100 samples a day and upwards of 27 are expected to fail.
Now they are saying they are working round the clock but have only had 34 samples and all 34 have failed but not to worry because councils are only sending samples of cladding they are worried about. If they have the capacity to test 100 a day and they are working round the clock since Wednesday how is it they have only tested 34. I'm thinking another correction to the info is likely.
Do they state in what way are they failing Anon?
‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J
Post Reply