London Fire and Aftermath RIP

MysticMonk

wes wrote: »

Refute what, exactly? The thread is about a fire. Your have already lied about Taqiyya, and have been exposed about your libelous bigotry. Why should I waste my time, with more of your disgusting hateful nonsense.

.

Don't then..you don't have to talk to me... i don't really give a damn what you think,especially as you havnt the first clue what you're talking about.

Omackeral

MysticMonk wrote: »

quod erat demonstrandum

You're chucking in a lot of questions ( to presumably try and trip me up,or worse admit to racism) but i'm not here to answer your two liners..i'm merely stating my opinion and attempting to open the wider debate.

Don't quote Latin when you can hardly get the nuances of English correct. What I'm getting at there is, how exactly can I accuse you of racism against a religion? That's not what racism is.

You're right though, you're not here to answer two liners, you're here to proclaim your anti-Islamic manifesto. You're well within your rights to question ANY religion, I'm a fairly staunch opponent of organised faith myself as it happens. However, this thread is not the place for that whatsoever.

MysticMonk

Omackeral wrote: »

No you certainly weren't. I doubt you were doing anything to help anyone, unlike she was. You're just looking to make an issue where there isn't one and you're embarrassing yourself on top of being disrespectful.

That's an opinion,not a fact.

What else do you have to offer?

Omackeral

greatlonglaces wrote: »

There was nobody on the observation deck (there was only one deck...on the South Tower) because there was no access to the deck on 9/11. Nobody was outside waiting for helicopters to come.

Poster could be getting facts and dates mixed up there. There was a helicopter rescue conducted from the top of the WTC but that was during the 1993 attack. None on 9/11 as you say though.

MysticMonk

Omackeral wrote: »

Don't quote Latin when you can hardly get the nuances of English correct. What I'm getting at there is, how exactly can I accuse you of racism against a religion? That's not what racism is.

You're right though, you're not here to answer two liners, you're here to proclaim your anti-Islamic manifesto. You're well within your rights to question ANY religion, I'm a fairly staunch opponent of organised faith myself as it happens. However, this thread is not the place for that whatsoever.

i will say this whole thing is very much an emotive subject. My specific issue was with the woman in the video using this tragedy to highlight her religion.

I didnt see her offering help to the christian victims of the various muslim terror attacks in london.

And as the area of the fire has a large muslim population she is being quite specific about who she will "aid".

Now,what were YOU saying?

Omackeral

MysticMonk wrote: »

I didnt see her offering help to the christian victims of the various muslim terror attacks in london.

Oh did you not? Was she interviewed about those attacks was she? Do they seek out this lady anytime there's an incident of some kind? Maybe she's SuperGirl?

She's mostly likely a local resident volunteering and doing her bit for the bloody community.

end of the road

MysticMonk wrote: »

But i wasn't appearing in an interview in a headscarf promoting my religion off the back of it.

neither was she. she is a representative of muslim aid, that is what the organisation she works for is called. she will need to give the name of the organisation so people will know where to send donations. she also mentioned other religions and organisations.

you have no grounds for your little bigoted rant.

MysticMonk wrote: »

No..but then i didn't see her removing her headscarf or failing to name drop her religion either.


Trying to highjack a tragedy to make islam look all good and caring.

Taqiyya

no need for her to remove her headscarf. the organisation she works for is muslim aid.

MysticMonk wrote: »

I'm not jumping to any conclusions but it strikes me as a bit sinister that muslims (and their apologists) seem to be in the forefront of any mass tragedies in the UK lately.

Everybody wants to believe this was a tragic accident and i hope it was but to assume it was is jumping to conclusions also.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-to-supporters-and-recruits-Set-fires-as-terror-method-like-in-Israel-477769

you are jumping to lots of conclusions. muslims like many people help out in times of need because you know, they believe it is the right thing to do.

MysticMonk wrote: »

There we go..if you're not prepared to discuss an issue you scream bigotry to hopefully shut down the discussion..

as far as your little rant is concerned there is no issue.
this thread is about a fire in a tower block in london which has killed people.

MysticMonk wrote: »

And not one bit of it can you refute.

there is nothing to refute.

MysticMonk wrote: »

quod erat demonstrandum

You're chucking in a lot of questions ( to presumably try and trip me up,or worse admit to racism) but i'm not here to answer your two liners..i'm merely stating my opinion and attempting to open the wider debate.

nobody needs to trip you up, you do that all by yourself. you aren't here to open a "wider debate" as there is no "wider debate" in terms of your little islamaphobic rant.

MysticMonk wrote: »

i will say this whole thing is very much an emotive subject. My specific issue was with the woman in the video using this tragedy to highlight her religion.

I didnt see her offering help to the christian victims of the various muslim terror attacks in london.

And as the area of the fire has a large muslim population she is being quite specific about who she will "aid".

Now,what were YOU saying?

muslim aid did offer help to those caught up in the london terror attack. you have no argument

Omackeral

MysticMonk wrote: »

My specific issue was with the woman in the video using this tragedy to highlight her religion.

I almost let this slip by since it's me you were quoting. You are the only one using this tragedy to promote your religious/anti religious sentiment. What the hell was that long rant about the four steps of islamification or whatever it was a page or two ago?! How in the blue hell has this tragedy descended into a crusade against the Muslim faith?! Honestly, it nearly boggles the mind. You call for the lady, offering help no less, to remove her scarf because it rubs you up the wrong way? That's almost funny if it wasn't so sad. She's literally offering aid. Imagine you were at a hospital and you're having bandages applied to you by her or her sister and you're all like "sorry love just whip the aul scarf off there before you do your thing".

gitzy16v

I think its great that communities of all race,religion,creed and colour come together in times of tragedy...
Its a shame the same doesnt happen for acts of terrorism.

LordSutch

Pelvis wrote: »

I expect that number to get a lot higher.

I heard one member of the public throwing out a figure of about 200, on the basis that the top ten floors were inaccessible to firefighters during the inferno.

Scary, very scary whatever the final figure.

Peregrinus

LordSutch wrote: »

I heard one member of the public throwing out a figure of about 200, on the basis that the top ten floors were inaccessible to firefighters during the inferno.

We may hope not. There are reports of people trapped on the upper floors who followed the advice/instructions to stay put (they didn't have much choice, really), stopped up their doors as best the could, and survived.

At this point we don't know how many stayed put and how many tried to leave; how many survived and how many died. We can only wait to find out.

The Black Oil

We've fire awareness training (by DFB) every year where I work. The presentation is fairly standard, usually points to a couple of well-known incidents such as Stardust and Carrickmines. No doubt the presentation will now reference this terrible situation from London.

Can't imagine being caught up in something like this, or having to throw a baby out of a burning building.

Good account of a doctor's experience here.

Samaris

Mod: MysticMonk, do not post in this thread again. This is not the place for this sort of thing.

FrancieBrady

I work with those panels in another application. Their ability to keep off water (which seems to have been a major issue) is second to none.
Like plane crashes, there seems to have been a perfect storm of circumstances here.

A lot of those panels used here in Ireland too but the high rise factor may be the critical factor in how devastating it was as the panels burned they fell down and started more fires with the firefighters water unable to get past the outside skin to extinguish them.
Tragic.

Samaris

The problem with that sort of cladding is that it does indeed insulate the building - people can die of cold in those high-rises as they are not exactly superb heat-retainers - so some sort of insulating factor is needed. But that type of cladding has to be applied expertly or it leaves gaps and weaknesses for fire to get through them (I don't know the details, this is just what I've picked up from reading about a couple of cases). Might be what someone said up above there, about the horizontal fire breaks.

But by god, that went up horrendously fast. Someone being interviewed talked about waking on the 17th floor at about 1.20 (fire started around 1AM), deciding to get the hell out, getting the hell out and by the time they were outside, so presumably only at about 1.40 or so, the fire was already at their apartment. Given it started on the fourth floor, that is insanely quick.

God love the people on the top floors. There have been reports of people surviving the night by staying put (including that elderly blind Asian gentleman that was rescued at 9AM the next morning - so he spent eight hours in that inferno!), so the instructions were probably not -wrong- in and of themselves, just few people expected the sort of conflagration that actually happened. I really hope that by some miracle, most of the top apartments were empty/people got out quickly. There was one guy talking about his sister and brother-in-law with their children on one of the upper floors during the night, that he didn't know what happened to them. They thankfully survived (by staying put in their case, but they may not have had any other option).

FrancieBrady

Samaris wrote: »

The problem with that sort of cladding is that it does indeed insulate the building - people can die of cold in those high-rises as they are not exactly superb heat-retainers - so some sort of insulating factor is needed. But that type of cladding has to be applied expertly or it leaves gaps and weaknesses for fire to get through them (I don't know the details, this is just what I've picked up from reading about a couple of cases). Might be what someone said up above there, about the horizontal fire breaks.

But by god, that went up horrendously fast. Someone being interviewed talked about waking on the 17th floor at about 1.20 (fire started around 1AM), deciding to get the hell out, getting the hell out and by the time they were outside, so presumably only at about 1.40 or so, the fire was already at their apartment. Given it started on the fourth floor, that is insanely quick.

God love the people on the top floors. There have been reports of people surviving the night by staying put (including that elderly blind Asian gentleman that was rescued at 9AM the next morning - so he spent eight hours in that inferno!), so the instructions were probably not -wrong- in and of themselves, just few people expected the sort of conflagration that actually happened. I really hope that by some miracle, most of the top apartments were empty/people got out quickly. There was one guy talking about his sister and brother-in-law with their children on one of the upper floors during the night, that he didn't know what happened to them. They thankfully survived (by staying put in their case, but they may not have had any other option).

From what is available about the refurb, it seems to me, you couldn't have designed a better way for what happened to happen.
Many heads should roll if this was the case because a proper assessment should have seen it.

ThisRegard

MysticMonk wrote: »

No..but then i didn't see her removing her headscarf or failing to name drop her religion either.


Trying to highjack a tragedy to make islam look all good and caring.

Taqiyya

All your posts were from just after midnight and I can be certain I still don't be reading anything dumber on Thursday.

deandean

Wouldn't it be ironic if Priory Hall was clad with this same type of external insulation during the €30m refurbishment?

FrancieBrady

deandean wrote: »

Wouldn't it be ironic if Priory Hall was clad with this same type of external insulation during the €30m refurbishment?

Doesn't look like it to me.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I work with those panels in another application. Their ability to keep off water (which seems to have been a major issue) is second to none.
Like plane crashes, there seems to have been a perfect storm of circumstances here.

A lot of those panels used here in Ireland too but the high rise factor may be the critical factor in how devastating it was as the panels burned they fell down and started more fires with the firefighters water unable to get past the outside skin to extinguish them.
Tragic.

Samaris wrote: »

The problem with that sort of cladding is that it does indeed insulate the building - people can die of cold in those high-rises as they are not exactly superb heat-retainers - so some sort of insulating factor is needed. But that type of cladding has to be applied expertly or it leaves gaps and weaknesses for fire to get through them (I don't know the details, this is just what I've picked up from reading about a couple of cases). Might be what someone said up above there, about the horizontal fire breaks.

.

can you clarify what it is you are referring to? the building had a layer of insulation applied and then a layer of cladding applied with an air gap between. do you think it was the insulation or the cladding that was the problem? they had an expert on BBC this morning with some of the external cladding and while it was fire resistant it did start to burn readily if enough heat was applied.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you clarify what it is you are referring to? the building had a layer of insulation applied and then a layer of cladding applied with an air gap between. do you think it was the insulation or the cladding that was the problem? they had an expert on BBC this morning with some of the external cladding and while it was fire resistant it did start to burn readily if enough heat was applied.

Look up ACM panels.
Two thin layers of aluminium with insulation in between.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Look up ACM panels.
Two thin layers of aluminium with insulation in between.

yeah they were used as an external cladding. there was also a separate layer of insulation under the external cladding with an air gap between.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah they were used as an external cladding. there was also a separate layer of insulation under the external cladding with an air gap between.

The air gap will probably be the issue.

Alf Veedersane

While the external insulation is flammable to some degree, I presume that the air gap between the cladding and the insulation was the problem. It acted like a chimney, funnelling fire up the outside of the building.

The Irish Building Regs reference the fact that there will be a fire risk on a building over 18m with a ventilated cavity outside of external insulation.

tara73

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/14/grenfell-tower-major-fire-london-apartment-block-white-city-latimer-road

the things the people in the last minutes of the video say are significant: they just 'refurbished' that tower to make it look good because it's so close to the new shopping center where the rich people from the area go. they didn't care an inch about the poor, no money bringing in tenants in the tower

there are more blocks there but not so close to the shopping centre and I don't think they were refurbished...

they just put on their ****ty, flammable cladding for cosmetic reasons and made this building an even higher fire trap than it already was.

it makes me sick and I can't stand seeing and hearing the politicians like Theresa May or even the new major looking all concerned and whaffling about how fire regulations will be assesed now or whatever.

tara73

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

While the external insulation is flammable to some degree, I presume that the air gap between the cladding and the insulation was the problem. It acted like a chimney, funnelling fire up the outside of the building.

The Irish Building Regs reference the fact that there will be a fire risk on a building over 18m with a ventilated cavity outside of external insulation.

yes, that's why horizontal fire barriers should be mandatory, especially in high rise buildings. and the cladding wasn't suitable either, it didn't resist fire even for a few minutes.

I'm not too familiar anymore with the british building (fire)regulations, any expert here who knows whether horizontal fire barriers are mandatory in (high rise) buildings or not? if not, the regulations are written down and approved by some irresponsible, stupid idiots.

Atlantic Dawn

Confirmed dead now risen to 17.

kopite386

17 people now the number of deaths with 17 people in hospital in critical condition
Only the core of the building is safe so firefighters can't get into some rooms of the flats as they are unsafe and that is relevant to half of the building

wakka12

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Confirmed dead now risen to 17.

Fire/police say many more are still missing with almost zero chance of anyone else being found alive, it'll be much higher than 17

Gringo180

17 dead is only the tip of the iceberg. There will be over 100 dead and most will be children. Sickening.