Tower block fire - london

Top_gun said:
If Kensington and Chelsea council had a meaningful conversation with the Grenfell Tower residents then they would have avoided the ambiguity of building regulations on cladding by using the safer cladding option.
Click to expand...
The council didn't choose a cheaper/unsafe cladding option, they chose a safe one (as far as they were aware), likewise the main contractor were under the impression everything was done to spec/code, the only real question as far as intent goes is if the (since liquidated) cladding company intentionally used the cheap flammable cladding to save money, or if they genuinely believed it was just as safe as the more fire resistant type (as implied by it's data sheet).

One of the scariest things to come out of this sage for me personally is knowing I would have picked the same cladding with the data available, believing it met building regs.
 
ubersonic said:
The council didn't choose a cheaper/unsafe cladding option, they chose a safe one (as far as they were aware), likewise the main contractor were under the impression everything was done to spec/code, the only real question as far as intent goes is if the (since liquidated) cladding company intentionally used the cheap flammable cladding to save money, or if they genuinely believed it was just as safe as the more fire resistant type (as implied by it's data sheet).

One of the scariest things to come out of this sage for me personally is knowing I would have picked the same cladding with the data available, believing it met building regs.
Click to expand...

I find this comment scary on the basis there have been several examples of fire caused by cladding around the world, including this country, and yet still continue to use it because there were no change in building regulation/material specs. This is a bit like sailing sailing towards the start of a waterfall where the captain says "I've heard several reports of ships being destroyed in this area but it is okay to sail on because we haven't received guidance yet". What ever happened to using due-diligence.
 
ubersonic said:
Their article is wrong, they are confusing not being banned outright for being fine for use, as opposed to banned for use on buildings over 18m.
Click to expand...

not sure I understand (but I will read back through thread where this has already been chewed over) , agree article title says banned, but inside the article it refines
But several British experts on fire safety said that the existing rules had not, in fact, banned use of the cladding, even in high-rise buildings like Grenfell Tower. The critical building regulation — Clause 13 of Appendix A of Document B — requires only that the exterior “surface of a composite product” used as exterior cladding must be “composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility.”
Click to expand...

I had been trying to find articles which explained precisely why these panels were not premitted in USA, to see how they tested them to establish that,
since the testing they used is probably what is being applied now in uk.
 
Top_gun said:
The rest of the sentences precisely answered your point post #2865.
Click to expand...
That post wasn't a question, could you explain what part of your post you thinks "answers" it? :confused:


Top_gun said:
Not at all erroneous, just blinkered thinking in your belief.
Click to expand...
Well it is because it's wrong, you seem to be under the belief that this happened because the regs weren't up to scratch, when in reality this happened because the regs were not adhered too, it's an important difference. Hence my point that the use of cladding is not an issue if it conforms to the regs/standards/etc. The building I am sitting in has aluminium cladding, I could go outside right now, remove a panel and shoot a flamethrower into the void, the aluminium would melt (because there's a flamethrower shooting it) but the wouldn't be a spread of fire.
 
One thing that struck me as odd yesterday was the mention on the news that the insulation behind the cladding is more combustible than the cladding, yet the cladding is being removed to surely leave buildings more at risk than they were already until a complete refit can be done. Is there a non combustible cladding in existence since a 100% of what's been tested so far has failed?
 
thenewoc said:
One thing that struck me as odd yesterday was the mention on the news that the insulation behind the cladding is more combustible than the cladding, yet the cladding is being removed to surely leave buildings more at risk than they were already until a complete refit can be done. Is there a non combustible cladding in existence since a 100% of what's been tested so far has failed?
Click to expand...


i imagien they take the insulation down at the same time.

cant lerave a bunch of king span style boards tacked to the side exposed to the wind :p
 
ubersonic said:
That post wasn't a question, could you explain what part of your post you thinks "answers" it? :confused:
Click to expand...

Top_gun said:
I find this comment scary on the basis there have been several examples of fire caused by cladding around the world, including this country, and yet still continue to use it because there were no change in building regulation/material specs. This is a bit like sailing sailing towards the start of a waterfall where the captain says "I've heard several reports of ships being destroyed in this area but it is okay to sail on because we haven't received guidance yet". What ever happened to using due-diligence.
Click to expand...

In fact the signals I'm getting from you is I am professional and therefore what ever you say is automatically wrong. This is the sort of behaviour that was faced by the residents of Grenfell Tower.
 
The problem with common sense, is that it isn't that common.

If buildings have caught fire with that material, yet the regulations say otherwise.....well, you go with what's written on a sheet of paper don't you! I think it's called covering ones a***

It's fine guv, my piece of paper says so
 
ubersonic said:
The council didn't choose a cheaper/unsafe cladding option, they chose a safe one (as far as they were aware), likewise the main contractor were under the impression everything was done to spec/code, the only real question as far as intent goes is if the (since liquidated) cladding company intentionally used the cheap flammable cladding to save money, or if they genuinely believed it was just as safe as the more fire resistant type (as implied by it's data sheet).

One of the scariest things to come out of this sage for me personally is knowing I would have picked the same cladding with the data available, believing it met building regs.
Click to expand...

Hold on, didn't the manufacturers specs say something about not for use on buildings over "x" number of floors ? In which case the contractors knowingly misused the product and put people at risk ?
 
thenewoc said:
One thing that struck me as odd yesterday was the mention on the news that the insulation behind the cladding is more combustible than the cladding, yet the cladding is being removed to surely leave buildings more at risk than they were already until a complete refit can be done.
Click to expand...
The insulation is part of the cladding, the cladding basically comprises of a sheet of aluminium bonded to insulation material. This is why in the data sheet for the cladding it appears to have an excellent fire protection rating on par with the fire resistant version (because it's the same aluminium sheet on the outside and that's the side the fire rating/tests mentioned in the sheet test) but in reality it went up like a shell suit because the fire and ignited the flammable insulation.


wildman said:
Hold on, didn't the manufacturers specs say something about not for use on buildings over "x" number of floors ? In which case the contractors knowingly misused the product and put people at risk ?
Click to expand...
That wasn't on the spec sheet I saw, do you have a source for this? As that would rule out it being used improperly by accident.


Top_gun said:
In fact the signals I'm getting from you is I am professional and therefore what ever you say is automatically wrong.
Click to expand...
I didn't simply tell you "I'm right you're wrong", I took the time to explain to you what you had gotten wrong and why you were mistaken, there is a difference there.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
I didn't simply tell you "I'm right you're wrong", I took the time to explain to you what you had gotten wrong and why you were mistaken, there is a difference there.
Click to expand...

I said the signal I'm getting not what you literally said. Perhaps the real issue is that you're not really listening hence why you're in that "I'm right you're wrong mode" and a lot of my comments seems to get lost. Perhaps take a few seconds out in order to understand the other position is a good start.
 
Top_gun said:
Perhaps the real issue is that you're not really listening hence why you're in that "I'm right you're wrong mode" and a lot of my comments seems to get lost. Perhaps take a few seconds out in order to understand the other position is a good start.
Click to expand...
OMG lol, I did listen (well read) what you posted, that is how I knew it was incorrect and why I explained it to you. I understand you're position, just like I understand a flat earthers position too.

Again, this is not a case of the regs allowing the use of dangerous cladding, this is a case of the regs not being adhered to and dangerous cladding being used as a result. If Grenfell tower had had cladding that met the regs then it's highly unlikely the fire would have gotten off the floor it started on or even the flat it started in before being put out by residents or the fire brigade.
 
ubersonic said:
OMG lol, I did listen (well read) what you posted, that is how I knew it was incorrect and why I explained it to you. I understand you're position, just like I understand a flat earthers position too.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your patronising comment which I kindly bolded in the above.

I'm now in the frame of mind that the regulations may not be wrong but the people who are interpreting might be. Particularly fueled by arrogance and even more alarming - blinkered thinking. Also the lack of due-diligence in the aftermath of several exterior clad fires around the UK and the world. You are as part of the problem rather than the solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom