Cladding tests. 100% failure rate

[Dean Hoffman]

[Ed Pawlowski]

Never should have been used. Never should have been made with flammable material. The Brits were dumb to allow it when others do not.

I wonder though, can it be removed and later replaced instead of evacuating everyone?

[clare]

British LAW only allows it on buildings under 18 meters, IIRC (still foolishness, but - - - ) and yes, it should be possible to strip it off of every affected building, limitting how long people need to be displaced - but mabee there are also other deficiencies that need to be fixed before the towers are safe to live in - like mabee installing fire and smoke alarms? Or mabee even sprinkler systems?? Kinda hard to make the IMPORTANT upgrade though - a second staircase for evacuation purposes.

I really cannot see how they were allowed to be built that way in the first place - That cannot have been a simple lack of oversight like letting the wrong version of a cladding material to be retrofitted (or allowing a flammable material to be mislabelled as the non-flammable version, if that is what happened)

[Ed Pawlowski]

I hear people bitching all the time about codes, testing, inspections, and such, but with proper codes in place this would not happen. Most of the blame has to go to the agency that writes the codes there.

[TimR]

Code is the worst you are allowed to build to.

You can do better if you want, just not worse.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Yes, but better = more money so the cheap bastards go with the worst allowed. IMO, a lot of people should go to jail over this.

[trader_4]

You've claimed that before, I asked for a cite, nothing was forthcoming. Articles posted here about the tragedy said exactly the opposite, that code did not bar it and that the manufacturer sold it for use on any height building in the UK.

[catalpa]

Area 51 !!!

Aliens are to blame.

[Dean Hoffman]

I wonder what Art Bell is doing nowadays.