Anyone used a building notice rather than submitting plans like they did for the tower block?

[Huge]

Cite, please.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ive tried to burn regular celotex. Yeah even unto a blowtorch. Yes in time in a roaring fire it will disintegrate into a charred mess, presumably by oxidation,. but at 20% oxygen the reaction is not exothermic enough to be considered 'burning'.

The blame has to lie with the polyethylene foam rain cladding, not the insulation.

[Andy Burns]

So how can a new material come into use, if it doesn't pass the old tests?

[Nick]

Would ventilation not have been enough to solve that?

[Andy Burns]

While I agree that the professional investigators will do a better job than we all can from our armchairs, do you *actually* expect the wording in the summary paragraph of the inquiry's report to be much different from

"flammable composite cladding, cavity between insulation and cladding caused chimney effect feeding and spreading the fire"

?

[Brian Gaff]

Who knows but there are many items where non materiel amendments seem to be anything but.

I often wonder if anyone at planning departments can read. Brian

[Huge]

Indeed, but the windows had restricted openings because the tenants threw things out of them.

[Huge]

Someone else who can see into the future.

[Andy Burns]

How is it up your ivory tower? The rest of us have eyes.

[Andrew Gabriel]

It is a condition of this planning approval that any changes due to building control must come back to be approved by planning too.

[Huge]

But no facts. And over-active imaginations.

[Huge]

Oh, indeed. Which is why it didn't happen. Unless someone didn't follow the spec, in which case they should be punished.

[Tim Watts]

If I push someone off the edge of a cliff, I can expect, with a high degree of confidence, that they will be dead in less than 30 seconds.

It's what humans do - predict the future based on available information.

Too many people seem to work to the notion "only a convened panel of experts can decide anything" when the basics are bloody obvious to the man in the pub.

Given what we *know* - that the exterior cladding was a polythene coated ali skin (banned in the USA), it was fairly obvious that the panels were at the root of the rapid spread of the fire. The details of any gaps and lack of fire breaks will need more detailed examination.

If someone had left windows open, it's also highly likely the heat from the fire outside would have set curtains alight and from there, other materials.

[Tim Watts]

What no facts???

Fact 1: The fire spread up the cladding in a way that should not happen in a tower block;

Fact 2:

"Omnis Exteriors manufactured the aluminium composite material (ACM) used in the cladding, a company director, John Cowley, confirmed to the Guardian.

He also said Omnis had been asked to supply Reynobond PE cladding, which is £2 cheaper per square metre than the alternative Reynobond FR, which stands for ?fire resistant? to the companies that worked on refurbishing Grenfell Tower."

So the cladding was not fire resistant and the fire spread rapidly up the cladding.

[Andy Burns]

Predicting the past should be easier, no?

[Tim Watts]

This is partly why I lined my attic roof with plasterboard down to the tops of the joists. Not 100% covered, but it's the best I could do that was practical.

[Huge]

Oh, indeed. But we don't *know* anything much, so far. What you're doing is fantasizing, based on guesswork.

Ah, yes, the wisdom of the drunken idiot.

Wrong. Ergo everything else you've posted is wrong.

[Huge]

Quite.

You've just contradicted yourself. That inspires great confidence. Not.

[Huge]

[27 lines snipped]

A (functionally bankrupt) newspaper? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahahahahahahaha

[mechanic]

A lot of this kind of work seems to be self-certified by trusted contractors.