London Fire and Aftermath RIP

orangerhyme

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I'd say that telling people to stay in their flats was probably a procedure in place for some time which is now redundant in buildings with cladding suspected of being flammable.

It makes total sense for a contained fire, but they must have known it was spreading and out of control, and in that context its poor advice.

http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/100428_kctmo_rydon_grenfell_tower_newsletter_may_2016_vff.pdf

This is final newsletter.

"The ‘stay put’ fire policy
The smoke detection systems have been upgraded and extended. The Fire Brigade has asked us to
reinforce the message that, if there is a fire which is not inside your own home, you are generally safest
to stay put in your home to begin with; the Fire Brigade will arrive very quickly if a fire is reported.
The only reason you should leave your home is if the fire is inside your home. In this case you and your
family should leave the flat immediately: close your door behind you, leave the building and call the 999,
giving your address and postcode.

If there is a fire in the block near your flat, and you believe you are at risk and would prefer to evacuate
the building, then please do so using the stairs and wait outside the building for the Fire Brigade to arrive. "

By "block" in the UK they mean building as opposed to american use.

Samaris

orangerhyme wrote: »

"We’ve now put up samples of the cladding panels for the Council’s planners to look at and approve;
these panels overlook the walkway. "

"Cladding: the Council has selected a smoke silver metallic (grey) colour for the cladding.
You can still view a sample of this above the main entrance."

Some quotes from the KCTMO Grenfell Tower Regeneration Tower.

So, it appears the council chose the panels, as opposed to the TMO.

I dunno, hard to say from that. Which selection were put before them, and were the council members aware that there was a significant difference in the safety of it. None of them are likely to be experts and from how it's put, it looks like they were mostly choosing the colour! I don't know though, maybe they were given all the information. Just can't really tell from that quote.

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2017/jun/17/architects-grenfell-tower-fire-was-an-avoidable-tragedy

Interesting take on it, particularly talking about the lessening of expert control (be it fire safety officers or architects) in favour of a profit-lead approach where contractors and subcontractors can modify the specs and self-report that it is fire-safe.

Also, sounds like Phillip Hammond was wrong - the cladding was NOT illegal in the UK. There's another 87 tower blocks clad in it or similar.

A Dub in Glasgo

Samaris wrote: »

Also, sounds like Phillip Hammond was wrong - the cladding was NOT illegal in the UK. There's another 87 tower blocks clad in it or similar.

Hammond was chancing his arm with caveats like 'my understanding is...'. It is just a pity the media are useless and let him state his view rather than the facts

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I'd say that telling people to stay in their flats was probably a procedure in place for some time which is now redundant in buildings with cladding suspected of being flammable.

They may have also had concerns about the only stairwell being a bottleneck for casualties.

There's no point in second-guessing the FB, those guys know what they're doing and we can only speculate. I've nothing but admiration for people who run into a burning building while the rest of us are running out, I'd hate to see them criticized for following what their training says is best practice.

mikeybrennan

Candie wrote: »

They may have also had concerns about the only stairwell being a bottleneck for casualties.

There's no point in second-guessing the FB, those guys know what they're doing and we can only speculate. I've nothing but admiration for people who run into a burning building while the rest of us are running out, I'd hate to see them criticized for following what their training says is best practice.

i think there may have been a gas leak on the stairwell also

very hard to change a tried and tested system too where fires are normally contained in the affected flat

im thinking there has to be either bad workmanship on the refurb or other factors causing the fire to spread internally ,the insulation and cladding couldn't account for it alone

A Dub in Glasgo

mikeybrennan wrote: »

i think there may have been a gas leak on the stairwell also

very hard to change a tried and tested system too where fires are normally contained in the affected flat

im thinking there has to be either bad workmanship on the refurb or other factors causing the fire to spread internally ,the insulation and cladding couldn't account for it alone

Gas mains in the emergency evacuation area, what could go wrong in the event of a fire?

orangerhyme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ENPdSoBEBI

Panorama

Samaris

orangerhyme wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ENPdSoBEBI

Panorama

That is heartbreaking. I'll admit, I was in tears by the point of the story of Maria's disabled brother on the 20th floor, unable to get out, and the younger woman having to tell her that she was talking to him by 3AM and he was still trapped. He couldn't walk.

God. Whether it's regulations or poor construction or poorly planned renovations or the myriad of factors that have already been released, this must never happen again. And it is awful that the Grenfell Action Group writing that it would take a catastrophe with great loss of life to draw attention to what these places can be like were shamefully accurate. Why does it seem to need a tragedy for basic safety to be taken into account?

Samaris

(Sorry for double posting)

mikeybrennan wrote: »

i think there may have been a gas leak on the stairwell also

very hard to change a tried and tested system too where fires are normally contained in the affected flat

im thinking there has to be either bad workmanship on the refurb or other factors causing the fire to spread internally ,the insulation and cladding couldn't account for it alone

From something I was reading, the internal walls are also supposed to act as fire breaks. After a partial tower collapse in East London of a new tower (in 1968) called Ronan Point, where a small explosion (very small, the woman who turned on the kettle(?) that went bang was thrown back, but survived) took out a load-bearing wall and the entire corner just collapsed in. Several people were killed.

Building methods were changed (including for Grenfell, built a few years later) to make for a much stronger outside shell. This also meant that the internal walls could be taken down and moved or rebuilt without affecting the structural loading - but potentially drastically reducing the safety effects of how the internal walls were constructed in the first place with an eye to stopping fire spread. You can see from the tower itself that the outer shell is strong enough that it's still standing and is relatively safe structurally despite losing its entire inner support.

It seems -possible- that gradual internal changes to the walls just..left a path open for fire. All the smoke was being guided inwards, into the stairwells and halls.

Ironically, a safety concern from a different tower tragedy may have indirectly contributed to the total lack of safety of Grenfell. But it was a combination of various disastrous choices that lead to this.

123shooter

Samaris wrote: »

(Sorry for double posting)



From something I was reading, the internal walls are also supposed to act as fire breaks. After a partial tower collapse in East London of a new tower (in 1968) called Ronan Point, where a small explosion (very small, the woman who turned on the kettle(?) that went bang was thrown back, but survived) took out a load-bearing wall and the entire corner just collapsed in. Several people were killed.

Building methods were changed (including for Grenfell, built a few years later) to make for a much stronger outside shell. This also meant that the internal walls could be taken down and moved or rebuilt without affecting the structural loading - but potentially drastically reducing the safety effects of how the internal walls were constructed in the first place with an eye to stopping fire spread. You can see from the tower itself that the outer shell is strong enough that it's still standing and is relatively safe structurally despite losing its entire inner support.

It seems -possible- that gradual internal changes to the walls just..left a path open for fire. All the smoke was being guided inwards, into the stairwells and halls.

Ironically, a safety concern from a different tower tragedy may have indirectly contributed to the total lack of safety of Grenfell. But it was a combination of various disastrous choices that lead to this.

Sad thing is these things happen and we cant really do anything about them until a problem arises which it always does in some unforeseen form.

If you put fire escape ladders on outside all the way to the top, then jokers and kids could use them.

These buildings were the answer to a problem of over population to a city which had been almost leveled by war and redeveloped over the following 20 years at a time of cheap and plentiful fuel so insulation and keeping costs down was not an issue. Just somewhere to house people in a building not designed for insulation.

Perhaps they should be knocked.


Its a game of catch-up.

B_Wayne

123shooter wrote: »

Sad thing is these things happen and we cant really do anything about them until a problem arises which it always does in some unforeseen form.

If you put fire escape ladders on outside all the way to the top, then jokers and kids could use them.

These buildings were the answer to a problem of over population to a city which had been almost leveled by war and redeveloped over the following 20 years at a time of cheap and plentiful fuel so insulation and keeping costs down was not an issue. Just somewhere to house people in a building not designed for insulation.

Perhaps they should be knocked.


Its a game of catch-up.

There's a strong indication of systemic failures so cop on with your justification of the state of the tower.

B_Wayne

B_Wayne wrote: »

There's a strong indication of systemic failures so cop on with your justification of the state of the tower.

??

123shooter

Deleted User wrote: »

??

I think he wants to blame a Tory;)

B_Wayne

123shooter wrote: »

I think he wants to blame a Tory;)

No, actually I await the outcome of the investigation. Problem is your claiming that it was not preventable. Your treating the issue in a blaise fashion tbh.

123shooter

B_Wayne wrote: »

No, actually I await the outcome of the investigation. Problem is your claiming that it was not preventable. Your treating the issue in a blaise fashion tbh.

Not at all I was just saying that these things happen no matter what. I don't suppose they had crystal balls back then to see that people had to pay so much for heat so the building need expensive insulation. If they did they would have installed it obviously.

Also back in those days there was basically no plastic used in building construction, just brick, steel, concrete and wood. There would have been very little plastic or plastic based materials used in household goods either so the fire hazard would not have been so great or such a high priority possibly.

So like I said.........a game of catch-up.

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

??

Well, there is, tbh. Even what we've heard so far. Even what we -saw- that night, how quickly the flames spread. That isn't inevitable to a tower block. It's specifically NOT supposed to be inevitable to a tower block. It is very specifically NOT supposed to happen! There are indications that there have been serious systemic failures so far.

I too will wait for the report to be released. But honestly, I expect that it will turn out that this tragedy was unnecessary and not inevitable if safety had been held a higher priority.

JupiterKid

123shooter wrote: »

Also back in those days there was basically no plastic used in building construction, just brick, steel, concrete and wood. There would have been very little plastic or plastic based materials used in household goods either so the fire hazard would not have been so great or such a high priority possibly.

So like I said.........a game of catch-up.

Actually, there was quite a lot of plastic in household products and even in aspects of construction by the mid 1970s.

9or10

Samaris wrote: »

Well, there is, tbh. Even what we've heard so far. Even what we -saw- that night, how quickly the flames spread. That isn't inevitable to a tower block. It's specifically NOT supposed to be inevitable to a tower block. It is very specifically NOT supposed to happen! There are indications that there have been serious systemic failures so far.

I too will wait for the report to be released. But honestly, I expect that it will turn out that this tragedy was unnecessary and not inevitable if safety had been held a higher priority.

Agreed.

Came across this on Beeb of firefighters reaction when they first saw the blaze. The allude to something really wrong here.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40332427/grenfell-tower-fire-moment-firefighters-first-saw-the-blaze

I always get a bit of a lump in my throat when people who are usually so stoical and matter fact are otherwise.One of the last voices is "There's kids in there"

Fratton Fred

Samaris wrote: »

Well, there is, tbh. Even what we've heard so far. Even what we -saw- that night, how quickly the flames spread. That isn't inevitable to a tower block. It's specifically NOT supposed to be inevitable to a tower block. It is very specifically NOT supposed to happen! There are indications that there have been serious systemic failures so far.

I too will wait for the report to be released. But honestly, I expect that it will turn out that this tragedy was unnecessary and not inevitable if safety had been held a higher priority.

I would put money on there being a number of factors, that came together to produce the "Perfect Storm" so to speak.

tara73

regarding the internal spread of the fire and structural walls: normally, the structural walls are the dividng apartment walls, there are no structural walls as partition walls inside the apartments. so if tenants altered walls/teared down walls inside their apartment, they would be not loeadbearing.

And the tower didn't collapse, another factor why I think there were no major alterations to loadbearing walls.

I don't really wonder why the fire spread so quickly inside. The fire was raging on the outside, it were warm days, so many tenants probably left their windows open, fire caught the curtains, spreading on to sofas of soft materials and you have a living room burning in a few seconds.

I don't know, I don't wonder much about the inside fire, the burning like hell cladding is the main issue here.

Water John

Well, any professional engineer, signing off on a cladding material containing PE, is just nuts.
Any professional engineer, signing off on gas pipes running up through the stairs/fire escape, is just nuts.
The decision not to install sprinklers, esp when a refurb was going on, is just nuts

Arguing that these things are a conflagration of circumstance is not credible.
It is, and calling it what it is, cutting corners to save money.

mikeybrennan

Water John wrote: »

Well, any professional engineer, signing off on a cladding material containing PE, is just nuts.
Any professional engineer, signing off on gas pipes running up through the stairs/fire escape, is just nuts.
The decision not to install sprinklers, esp when a refurb was going on, is just nuts

Arguing that these things are a conflagration of circumstance is not credible.
It is, and calling it what it is, cutting corners to save money.

It was National Grid that put in the Gasworks, surely they're working to a code

I Can't understand how it took so long to turn off the gas either

tara73

9or10 wrote: »

Agreed.

Came across this on Beeb of firefighters reaction when they first saw the blaze. The allude to something really wrong here.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40332427/grenfell-tower-fire-moment-firefighters-first-saw-the-blaze

I always get a bit of a lump in my throat when people who are usually so stoical and matter fact are otherwise.One of the last voices is "There's kids in there"

the reaction of the firefighters shows how f*** up the whole fire safety subject with all it's elements, like usable materials etc. in the UK is.

the firefighters are shocked because they weren't aware that the building industry is using such a flammable material on the outside of high rise buildings!
then they applied the 'stay put' rule, when this flammable stuff was completely working against this rule, which again, is not the fault or was the decision made by the firefighters.

and this catastrophe can happen in any minute again in the UK. I would like to know on how many high rise buildings this cladding is applied.
the poor tenants, I don't think anybody in this blocks is sleeping very well anymore.
The British government has f*** around with their cuts too long and too much and now it's coming back to haunt them.
Many hundred millions to be spend to re-refurb all the buildings cladded in this s***. And I'm not sure if they will really do that or find a way around it again to safe their money

Water John

Again, don't care who did it. Don't care which political party in Govn't allowed, in sufficient regs, or which political party controlled the council.

Right is right and wrong is wrong and people died, horribly.

mikeybrennan

Apparently Dubai and Qatar have loads of buildings cladded with the stuff

They're building and fire safety laws are lax

mikeybrennan

How much would a new build tower block cost?

10 million spent turning the place into a death trap

Truly shocking in 2017

DvB

tara73 wrote: »

regarding the internal spread of the fire and structural walls: normally, the structural walls are the dividng apartment walls, there are no structural walls as partition walls inside the apartments. so if tenants altered walls/teared down walls inside their apartment, they would be not loeadbearing.

And the tower didn't collapse, another factor why I think there were no major alterations to loadbearing walls.

I don't really wonder why the fire spread so quickly inside. The fire was raging on the outside, it were warm days, so many tenants probably left their windows open, fire caught the curtains, spreading on to sofas of soft materials and you have a living room burning in a few seconds.

I don't know, I don't wonder much about the inside fire, the burning like hell cladding is the main issue here.

Thats largely correct.
The only loadbearing elements were the central core containing the lift shafts, lobby and stairwell (meant to be a protected shaft) & the RC floors, columns & beams. This original design allowed for flexibility outside of these so the walls that would normally be used to support the structure would generally act as compartment walls also. In this case by removing the loadbearing requirement the compartment (fire resisting) walls between the apartments could/may have been constructed using stud partitions or similar with fire resistant linings. These construction methods if employed correctly do meet fire regulations, there is however huge issues with futureproofing these against damage/alteration by tenants etc.

I believe internal modifications within the apartments themselves may also have been an issue, this could help explain why the fire spread so quickly internally between the apartments, at the end of the day its easier to punch holes in a few millimetres of plasterboard than through a masonry wall. Each hole potentially compromises the fire resistance of the wall so whilst its (the buildings) structural integrity wasnt compromised its ability to resist the spread of flame & smoke clearly was. This would explain the fire spread horizontally across individual floors, the vertical spread would have been a different matter however, this clearly was aided by the external cladding which most definitely compromised the vertical spread of the fire, uPVC window frames would offer little in terms of protection to increased temperatures so them being open or closed makes little difference, they'd have failed in minutes allowing heat & flame into each apartment relatively quickly & easily. So whilst the internal compartment failure has yet to be confirmed (though is likely) the external spread was one of, if not 'the' key element in compromising the entire fire strategy for the building.

orangerhyme

9or10 wrote: »

Agreed.

Came across this on Beeb of firefighters reaction when they first saw the blaze. The allude to something really wrong here.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40332427/grenfell-tower-fire-moment-firefighters-first-saw-the-blaze

I always get a bit of a lump in my throat when people who are usually so stoical and matter fact are otherwise.One of the last voices is "There's kids in there"

This is the original video unedited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPnRT15LN0o

You'll notice that the curse words are bleeped out but also at 0:31 seconds a firefighters laugh is edited out. I'm not saying its wrong to laugh, he's simply laughing at the absurdity of it and the fact he has to go in there. Neither am I saying its wrong of the BBC to edit it as I can imagine people might take it the wrong way.

ohnonotgmail

orangerhyme wrote: »

This is the original video unedited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPnRT15LN0o

You'll notice that the curse words are bleeped out but also at 0:31 seconds a firefighters laugh is edited out. I'm not saying its wrong to laugh, he's simply laughing at the absurdity of it and the fact he has to go in there. Neither am I saying its wrong of the BBC to edit it as I can imagine people might take it the wrong way.

i've known a lot of firefighters in my time. i dated one for 10 years. they are issued a black sense of humour when they pass out from training.

orangerhyme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnKiukWEI0A

Here is a video of cladding fire in Baku, Azerbaijan from 2015. It's lethal. Goes up in less than a minute.
The authorities began removing this cladding from building over two years ago, in what is quite frankly a far less civilised country than the UK in terms of corruption, human rights, health and safety.

"A day after more than a dozen people were killed in a massive fire in a Baku high-rise, angry residents are calling on the government to strip city buildings of flammable Styrofoam facing installed as part of a "beautification" scheme aimed at boosting Azerbaijan's global profile.

In some Baku districts, city authorities eager to avoid public unrest ordered workers to begin the process of removing the polyurethane panels from the concrete hulls of aging buildings. But elsewhere, private residents took matter into their own hands, using hammers and sometimes just their fingers to chop off chunks of the crumbly material surrounding their apartment windows and ground-floor walls."