View Single Post
Old 04-09-2024, 15:47   #486
nomadking
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Northampton
Services: Virgin Media TV&BB 350Mb, V6 STB
Posts: 8,143
nomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze array
nomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze array
Re: [update] Grenfell Tower report published

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
Because Celotex lied…
They DID mention how it was meant to be used on the RIBA website and other places. How else do you think I knew about it?
Any architects would just see it on a list of materials and it was claimed to be the only one suitable for high rise buildings.
It was(probably still is) used all over the place in lower-rise buildings, including houses. The height limit for that type of product was based upon the reach of Fire and Rescue ladders. In the US, that limit was different.
Too much focus on the cladding, when it even if it had been made of solidified napalm, it wouldn't have gone up like that. It was too thin, compared to the 10cm and 15cm thick insulation. The identified risk of burning cladding, was of dripping downwards, not going upwards.
The open purge panels(to let large amounts of air in or out) gave the internal fire access to the exterior insulation.
Any mention of the level of illegal sub-letting and the excess of electrical appliances(fridge/freezers, cookers etc)? The picture of the flat which was the source of the fire, had an excess of electrical appliances.
nomadking is offline   Reply With Quote