London Fire and Aftermath RIP

arybvtcw0eolkf

Omackeral wrote: »

Just wanna say something on this. My dad was in Dublin Fire Brigade for 30 years, retired last year. There's very few times where they're doing nothing. All DFB personnel are paramedics too so when you ring the ambulance, it's these exact same guys and girls coming to help you. They truly are heroes in my opinion.

Every single member of the emergency services are heros giving massive service to our communities.

You should be very proud of your fathers service.

please helpThank YOU

Magdalena Brave Trio wrote: »

Every single member of the emergency services are heros giving massive service to our communities.

You should be very proud of your fathers service.

Very sad case for London tonite.

Omackeral

Magdalena Brave Trio wrote: »

Every single member of the emergency services are heros giving massive service to our communities.

You should be very proud of your fathers service.

Thanks very much for those words Magdalena Brave Trio. I'm very proud of him and have been since I was a toddler. My dad's brother is in it too and their father was in it before them... and his father before him! I'm opted for the prison service myself so I guess I broke the 4th generational link. Seriously thanks for that though, he's a very humble guy but I love telling him how many people appreciate him and his colleagues.

DominoDub

This thread on a Architecture forum highlights the many world wide issues over the last few years with the type Cladding they wrapped this whole building in ...to make is look good.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1801571&page=2

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=2007285

Sardonicat

Apparently one of the many concerns that the residents of the tower block were repeatedly trying to raise with the local council was power surges.

B.A._Baracus

Absolutely sad.
I think it's time all those tower blocks get demolished.

It's also sad that a tragedy has to happen before any action is taken.

prinzeugen

DominoDub wrote: »

This thread on a Architecture forum highlights the many world wide issues over the last few years with the type Cladding they wrapped this whole building in ...to make is look good.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1801571&page=2

I was reading the specs of the cladding on that site. Aluminium/Styrofoam/Zinc sandwich.

Zinc+fire+water don't mix and Styrofoam is highly flammable.

The fire breaks between sections of cladding, according to one guy, were useless as they were only a few cm thick.

prinzeugen

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Absolutely sad.
I think it's time all those tower blocks get demolished.

It's also sad that a tragedy has to happen before any action is taken.

It is sad but what is worrying is that a lot of apartment/office blocks built here during the boom are covered in exactly the same stuff.

Grandeeod

The companies that provided the rainscreen/facades and the fans/air movement solutions for the refurb appear to have removed any reference to Grenfell tower from their websites. I only know this because I'm a regular visitor to their sites in a work capacity. I'm not trying to start any conspiracy BS, but it seems strange as both companies used the Grenfell refurb for promotional purposes.

GM228

prinzeugen wrote: »

It is sad but what is worrying is that a lot of apartment/office blocks built here during the boom are covered in exactly the same stuff.

And oddly enough Sky News has confirned the block had Celotex RS5000 fitted during the refurb which is the safest Class 0 cladding system you can get, however it "will burn if exposed to a fire of sufficient heat and intensity".

The product has a Class 0 rating under UK building regulations - the highest rating for preventing the spread of flames and prevents the spread of heat.

However, the product's health and safety datasheet notes: "The products will burn if exposed to a fire of sufficient heat and intensity".

If the spread of the fire so rapidly is attributed to the cladding one would wonder was it how the cladding was fitted as opposed to the cladding in itself - i.e where shortcuts taken etc.

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

Just wanna say something on this. My dad was in Dublin Fire Brigade for 30 years, retired last year. There's very few times where they're doing nothing. All DFB personnel are paramedics too so when you ring the ambulance, it's these exact same guys and girls coming to help you. They truly are heroes in my opinion.

DFB are a bit of rarity in that though no?

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

And oddly enough Sky News has confirned the block had Celotex RS5000 fitted during the refurb which is the safest Class 0 cladding system you can get, however it "will burn if exposed to a fire of sufficient heat and intensity".



If the spread of the fire so rapidly is attributed to the cladding one would wonder was it how the cladding was fitted as opposed to the cladding in itself - i.e where shortcuts taken etc.

Anything is only as strong as its weakest part. There'll be gaps, insulation, glues, all things that can be potential failure points.

AllForIt

I have to say some of the reporting on this by both the BBC and Sky News has been appalling.

Sky showed a 3 min smartphone recorded video that was live-streamed on facebook by a woman and a few other occupants on the top floor last night in a panic. Then went on to say it's unknown if they survived. WTF?

When a member of the public informed an on the scene BBC reporter she saw ppl jumping out the windows he goes on to ask 'how high'. The same reporter interviewed another woman who informed him that she had a sister with a son living in the building as she looked on from the street below and he asked her what age the son was at which point she burst into tears.

Talk about being utterly insensitive and gratuitous.

Itssoeasy

https://twitter.com/abc/status/875072084052979712

I've just seen that picture on the abc news twitter account of the building. I mean just imagining what those people who didn't get out or are missing is horrible.

B.A._Baracus

Sky News showed a video that a woman streamed live to Facebook last night. She was above where the fire was at.

They don't know if she survived.

tara73

Deleted User wrote: »

Anything is only as strong as its weakest part. There'll be gaps, insulation, glues, all things that can be potential failure points.

no, it doesn't work like that, such excuses are not valid with (proper) fire regulations and according to this regulations manufactured materials.

fire regulations are there for to protect the building and therefore the people in it for a fixed time which varies between 30 and 90 minutes. If the regulations says the fire resistance has to be, for example, 90 minutes, the used material has to last 90 minutes in a fire.

https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/rs5000
this is apparently the insulation material used. On their website, it is indeed classified for high rise buildings (above 18 m) and fire resistance class 0.

one can only speculate why this horrific tragedy happened. I hope it will be resolved soon and if it is a knowingly made 'mistake' the responsible people will get their punishment they deserve.

Omackeral

Exhausted firefighters from the blaze.

Send In The Robots

Difficult to say what your options would be, if unable to get to a stairwell or even exit apartments (as was very much likely the case).
And if heat build up and oxygen limitation were becoming immediate factors.

What would be the 'gravitational velocity drag resistance' of say
e.g. four double size bed sheets, each tied at corners, then tied to each other as four-group immiataion parachute.

Bearing in mind the somewhat limited building height mightn't allow air to expand these, sufficently well across 100ft or so descent.
30% impact reduction, if half-way up building?

tara73

tara73 wrote: »

no, it doesn't work like that, such excuses are not valid with (proper) fire regulations and according to this regulations manufactured materials.

fire regulations are there for to protect the building and therefore the people in it for a fixed time which varies between 30 and 90 minutes. If the regulations says the fire resistance has to be, for example, 90 minutes, the used material has to last 90 minutes in a fire.

https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/rs5000
this is apparently the insulation material used. On their website, it is indeed classified for high rise buildings (above 18 m) and fire resistance class 0.

one can only speculate why this horrific tragedy happened. I hope it will be resolved soon and if it is a knowingly made 'mistake' the responsible people will get their punishment they deserve.

So even if the material is surrounded by flammable stuff and not installed properly it's still "because of the material"? You can have everything to the highest standard but if it's not installed properly it likely won't reach the expected standards.

...__...

Just as an aside on the building regs front Wooden balconies should be banned in apartment blocks.
I have a friend in Lucan who's apartment had to have them replaced last year due to rotting I can only imagine what would have happened with a fire.
Also one night a jumper in front of a halogen heater caught fire place was filled with smoke but no fire alarm went off 4 in the morning so so lucky he woke up and threw the jumper out the window!

please helpThank YOU

Omackeral wrote: »

Exhausted firefighters from the blaze.

O my god what a picture.

tara73

Deleted User wrote: »

So even if the material is surrounded by flammable stuff and not installed properly it's still "because of the material"? You can have everything to the highest standard but if it's not installed properly it likely won't reach the expected standards.

again:
if it's not installed properly, or surrounded by flammable stuff, and the fire regulations demand a fire resistance -not flammable x amount of time-, surely it's 'because of the material', because the material is not the rightly installed material according to the (as we can see here, very important) regulations.

there are no such excuses, ah, it's always somewhere faulty. and if there is a fault somewhere, it can't mean it sets the whole house in a blaze in seconds. sure, there can be minor faults in materials, but this faults must be compensated within the general functioning of the whole system/material.

you can compare it with planes. do you want to get into a plane where the engineers or the general construction attitude is: ah, surely there's always something faulty, it's only as strong as it's weakest part.
I don't think anybody would set a foot in a plane anymore. and it's kind of the same with buildings and fire regulations, especially for high rise buildings.

josip

...__... wrote: »

Just as an aside on the building regs front Wooden balconies should be banned in apartment blocks.
I have a friend in Lucan who's apartment had to have them replaced last year due to rotting I can only imagine what would have happened with a fire.
Also one night a jumper in front of a halogen heater caught fire place was filled with smoke but no fire alarm went off 4 in the morning so so lucky he woke up and threw the jumper out the window!

That would be the correct behaviour in a properly fitted out apartment block though.
Smoke internal in an apartment will only set off a smoke alarm in that apartment so that somebody burning the rashers on a Saturday morning doesn't evac the building.
An internal fire detector, activated by heat, not smoke should cause a building wide alarm, as should smoke in the common areas.

tara73

tara73 wrote: »

again:
if it's not installed properly, or surrounded by flammable stuff, and the fire regulations demand a fire resistance -not flammable x amount of time-, surely it's 'because of the material', because the material is not the rightly installed material according to the (as we can see here, very important) regulations.

there are no such excuses, ah, it's always somewhere faulty. and if there is a fault somewhere, it can't mean it sets the whole house in a blaze in seconds. sure, there can be minor faults in materials, but this faults must be compensated within the general functioning of the whole system/material.

you can compare it with planes. do you want to get into a plane where the engineers or the general construction attitude is: ah, surely there's always something faulty, it's only as strong as it's weakest part.
I don't think anybody would set a foot in a plane anymore. and it's kind of the same with buildings and fire regulations, especially for high rise buildings.

What in the **** are you talking about?
The material was the subject, there were links to the site where it's sold. If they supply it and it's not installed properly and guidelines aren't followed is it their fault?
There was no "ah sure" in my posts.

Grandeeod

In terms of intensity and speed, this terrible event reminds me of Summerland, Isle of Mann in 1973. Cladding was the issue in that case. Whatever the cause, I hope its found quickly and something new as opposed to a repeat of previous mistakes/neglegience.

...__...

josip wrote: »

That would be the correct behaviour in a properly fitted out apartment block though.
Smoke internal in an apartment will only set off a smoke alarm in that apartment so that somebody burning the rashers on a Saturday morning doesn't evac the building.
An internal fire detector, activated by heat, not smoke should cause a building wide alarm, as should smoke in the common areas.

it didn't set off the internal one that was in the room and if you push the button it would beep!

josip

...__... wrote: »

it didn't set off the internal one that was in the room and if you push the button it would beep!

Perhaps it was a carbon monoxide alarm?

...__...

josip wrote: »

Perhaps it was a carbon monoxide alarm?

No it was a smoke alarm I cant remember the make but I ended up putting another one in the apartment after.
It could be the sensors blocked with dust etc there is no requirement to replace every 2 years etc. that's the problem with regulations it takes people dying to have them enforced or upgraded.

Enzokk

The building is still on fire even now. You can see it in the background of the live BBC News coverage.

Murrisk

AllForIt wrote: »

I have to say some of the reporting on this by both the BBC and Sky News has been appalling.

Sky showed a 3 min smartphone recorded video that was live-streamed on facebook by a woman and a few other occupants on the top floor last night in a panic. Then went on to say it's unknown if they survived. WTF?

When a member of the public informed an on the scene BBC reporter she saw ppl jumping out the windows he goes on to ask 'how high'. The same reporter interviewed another woman who informed him that she had a sister with a son living in the building as she looked on from the street below and he asked her what age the son was at which point she burst into tears.

Talk about being utterly insensitive and gratuitous.

I lost all faith in media sensitivity when I saw RTÉ's handling of that terrible pier tragedy in Donegal last year. Camping outside the bereaved woman's home and pressing the young lad who rescued the baby to describe the scene when he was still clearly traumatised. The Berkeley balcony collapse also crossed the line in how invasive the coverage was, IMO.

It absolutely sickens me, especially when these news outlets hide behind the excuse of trying to be informative and up to date. No, you're sensationalist ghouls.