Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
I thought all buildings with that cladding now had to have a “waking watch”, someone on the premises actively managing the premises 24 hours a day. A half-hour delay in the alarm being raised is concerning.
|
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
Link Panels a few mm thick wouldn't catch fire like at Grenfell, whereas 100mm/150mm thick blocks of inflammable insulation that encased the building, would. Those type of blocks can be found up and down the country in houses. |
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
|
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
If the panels at Grenfell had been made of napalm. they wouldn't have gone up like that. They were too thin. The fire risk of cladding is NOT spreading upwards, but of spreading DOWNWARDS from dripping. The advice on panels was to be careful of what was placed at the base of any building in case it also caught fire from dripping from the panels. According to the manufacturers the insulation is meant to be surrounded by non-combustible material to limit the spread of fire, between the insulation panels for each flat. Without that extra protection, the material was banned from use, here and the US, above a certain height. That height was determined by the reach of fire ladders and no other factor. Some of us try to see beyond the pack of lies spread by the media, and do their own research on issues. It looks like only ONE flat was badly damaged, with the rest of the appearance being soot. No spreading involved. |
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
You have insufficient evidence to support your claims. That’s the only useful fact here. |
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
The inquiry report thought otherwise… Quote:
|
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
almost every thread on this forum becomes a flame war ( see what I did there ) |
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
I have previously supplied all the evidence, and of course it's ignored because it doesn't fit the bogus agenda. Are you denying that the cladding panels aren't thin(ie a few mm)? Are you denying the insulation at Grenfell was only rated for use above a certain height, if and only if, surrounded by non-combustible material? Are you denying that the insulation is used on smaller buildings? Did I make up the 100mm and 150mm thickness of insulation or did I look up the planning documents?:rolleyes: Did I make up the restrictions on use of the insulation, or did I look up the manufacturers advice and that of the Royal Institute of British Architects(RIBA)? Take a wild guess.:mad: ---------- Post added at 15:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:49 ---------- Quote:
Quote:
The designers would've seen the manufacturers comment of it being the only similar insulation material legally allowed in building above a certain height. It was listed as such on the Royal Institute of British Architects(RIBA) website. I checked it at the time. The designers didn't look any further into what design restrictions came with that claim from the manufacturers. In this recent example there appears to have been NO or little spreading of the fire. |
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
|
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
You don’t know. I don’t know. My only advantage over you is that I haven’t accused anyone of having a “bogus agenda”. That you have done so, firmly locates you in the category “internet conspiracy nut who should probably just be ignored”. So you feel free to continue your fevered pseudo-research. I’ll await the views of actual experts. |
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
https://assets.grenfelltowerinquiry....volume%201.pdf Quote:
|
Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
Quote:
It could be seen at the time that the fire spread OUTSIDE the building, in an upwards and sideways manner. Regardless of any limited spreading via the cladding, the insulation would've spread it anyway. There is a reason the manufacturers specified that the insulation had to be surrounded by non-combustible material, eg cement panels. From a design point of view, if you had looked at the listing of potential materials on the RIBA website, then you would've seen an entry for the insulation material used, that said it was the only one of its type that could be used in high buildings. It didn't go into any further details, and it was more expensive than the insulation originally in the plans(yes I checked plans and prices at the time:rolleyes:) Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:43. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.