Grenfell and gas pipes.



While the cladding is obviously an issue, it wouldn't have been so much if people had been able to escape.
--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/07/2017 00:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So you do agree that the core killed the people not the cladding.
The cladding is a quick fix that will keep people happy until it happens again.
The cladding needs fixing anyway but I wont say why for what should be obvious reasons to anyone with intelligence. At least for a few floors up anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
remarked:

It's the *combination* which was fatal.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/07/2017 09:47, Roland Perry wrote:

Do stop trying to hide the real issue.
They died because they couldn't get out end of story.
The cladding didn't stop them getting out.
Removing the cladding will not stop it happening again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

no, the fumes and heat from the burning cladding did , though.
n
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very likely. And the point is why did that smoke get into the fire escape route so quickly? It had no windows to fail and let it in.
The refurbishment claimed to have a smoke extraction system.
--
*I yell because I care

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Inadequate" fire doors probably. There are strong hints that the flat with the original fire had a front door which was sufficiently open, suffieicently long, for neighbours to be able to see inside. Perhaps they could be equipped with explosive bolts to ensure that once a fire has started they could never be opened?

To cope with the smoke from one burning flat, not a hundred.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If all the flats were on fire, no need for an escape route. Everyone would be dead.
But the smoke from each flat has to get past the front door and the firedoors protecting the staircase.
--
*You sound reasonable......time to up my medication

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

About 80, by all reports.

Wrong kind of smoke. The problem smoke is that getting into the not-on-fire core from flats which are ablaze. Those are the flats where the cunning evacuation plan only has one per tower block alight at any one time.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 16:13:57 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

ld


Would a huge fan at the entrance help to some extent? During the moments wh en the front door wasn't open it would blow outdoor air in to clear the sta irwell of smoke and to some variable degree reduce smoke in the passages to the stairs. By the time the stairs are clogged with people & the front doo r open all the time it would stop being effective, but it could be of use b efore that point. And it would be very cheap.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/07/2017 17:19, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

It was supposed to have mechanical smoke ventilation fitted already. It should have been able to keep the core fairly clear of smoke.
It didn't do its job and that killed the people.
Now why it didn't is the real issue. No I don't think having multiple fires is a good enough reason for it not to work as there isn't really any limit on the amount of smoke one flat fire could cause.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/4/2017 7:00 PM, dennis@home wrote:

I think that is unfair, I am sure it was sized on the assumption of a small number of flat fires, more than one because it would be conservative to assume that there could be no propagation.
Hopefully the enquiry will come to useful conclusions. And you need someone who is bloody competent at investigating the precise contract terms of the cladding and other refurbishment, not someone who has great empathy like Noel Edmonds or Paul O'Grady.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You really are thick as pig shit, dennis. Here it is in words of less than one syllable for you, since you seem rather hard of thinking:
1. The core was designed to allow escape from one or two individual flats if those were on fire. It was not designed for a mass evacuation.
2. The building was originally designed to contain a fire within a flat for up to 30 minutes or an hour, depending which spec you read.
3. The residents were told to stay put if the fire was not in their flat. Here's a picture for you, since you appear to have reading comprehension issues:
<https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2017/06/1 4/09/stay-put.jpg>
4. The cladding, fitted after the building was constructed, started simultaneous fires in multiple flats, meaning mutiple tenants needed to escape, which meant the escape stairwell and smoke ventilation system were not able to cope.
5. Had the cladding been fire-retardant as per the original spec, the disaster would not have occurred. Why do you think councils and housing associations all over the country are right this minute ripping off non- fire-retardant cladding?
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/07/2017 10:55, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Because its the easy thing to do and it makes tenants happy. It makes you happy. It makes the councillors happy.
You may have to eat your words when it happens again without the need of the cladding.
But you are too thick to work out that there isn't any limit to how much smoke a single fire could cause and its still a better idea to be able to get out when the unexpected happens.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
remarked:

>

It'll stop a fire spreading to more than one flat, at which point the regular evacuation processes will be sufficient in most cases.
Have you forgotten, so soon, that the LFB is called out to two high-rise fires per *day*?
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/07/2017 10:57, Roland Perry wrote:

It may stop it spreading!

Its called out to a lot more but >50% are false alarms.
Many of the actual fires were in blocks fitted with the same cladding but they didn't kill lots of people so I will say again it wasn't the cladding, something else went wrong.
They have to remove the cladding now for obvious reasons that its best not talked about in public until the cladding has gone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
remarked:

Previously they got away with it, because the fire [in one flat] hadn't spread to the cladding.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:

Probably the same reason that glass reinforced concrete panels were used on the ground floor of Grenfell, instead of aluminium composite ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? As I keep on saying, the emergency exit became unusable far too quickly due to smoke, etc. The stairwell didn't collapse (or whatever) as it would have if a core issue. What hopefully an enquiry will find out is just why it no longer worked as designed.

It's the usual meja thing. Non technical journos latching on to the one bit they can sort of half understand.
--
*Income tax service - We?ve got what it takes to take what you've got.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
remarked:

Unfortunately, it has a duty to house them.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.