Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,720
I thought it was a good read! You never know what to believe these days.
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
I thought it was a good read! You never know what to believe these days.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
OCUK experts have debunked that theory
No, all that nonsense they put on the exterior of the building to make it look better seems was not fireproof, seems like the fire spread from one place vertically along the outside of the building, and then into various flats.
^^^ literally all anyone needs to say.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,720
Fair enough, so basically it does not confirm to building regs? they really are talking tripe on the TV
It confirms to the regulations that were in place at the time. The refurbishment works also conform to current legislation. Just because you clad the outside of a building however doesn't mean you have to then start modifying other unconnected parts.
For those of you interested, here are the current regs for fire safety in residential properties. It's quite interesting actually.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-approved-document-b
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-approved-document-b
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,720
I'm with you, pretty much what they were saying on the news then.
Not just about look better - supposedly better for retaining heat, etc. which supposedly was about "cutting cost to residents" but looks like it went into the pockets of whoever as the residents haven't seen any benefit by all accounts.
It seems like there's a lack of understanding of the relationship between these sorts of modifications and the original building that aren't / are difficult to reflect in building codes. You can clad an old building in a way that is compliant with building regs, but you actually reduce the safety of the original structure to a level below the standards that it met ~40 years ago.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
The forensic architect said it was aluminium sandwiched with a fireproof core but that the gap could have acted like a chimney.
But they must have pretty smart people working out the risks of that?
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.harleyfacades.co.uk/page/8031/article/727
company that fitted the cladding basically saying not our fault guv.
Facades Limited do not manufacture these panels the cladding
At this time, we are not aware of any link between the fire and the exterior cladding to the tower.” really
company that fitted the cladding basically saying not our fault guv.
Facades Limited do not manufacture these panels the cladding
At this time, we are not aware of any link between the fire and the exterior cladding to the tower.” really
I'm not really sure how many contractors would mock up the side of a tower, fit a product to it and then set fire to it to see how it reacts, they'd leave it to the manufacturer of the cladding system to perform the tests and get the certifications, and (hopefully) install it to their specification.
Except for the tools BF harnessing Muslims donating food.
Really?
Really?
Yep. Such a shame that people like this haven't been bred out of the gene pool.
The inbreeding will sort that out over time
They are apparently quite difficult to use, even by a stuntman in controlled circumstances and modest heights. It's easy to miss them, and they deflate to catch a body. If two people tried to use them at the same time, they would both die, even if they could fall and hit a relatively small target. Probably impossible from the top of a burning tower block.