|
Re: [update] Grenfell Tower report published
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
By itself, it wasn't safe. They never claimed it should be used by itself. I'm taking about the info at the time, not stuff that got deleted/removed.
From 7 years ago In post #300.
IIRC they even had example diagrams of panels where it was encased in non-flammable materials in order to prevent any spreading of fire.
Even a building of a mere 18m in height could've been destroyed by similar LEGAL materials.
IIRC the fire started below 18m, so more than one flat would've been affected whatever way you look at it. Other similar flammable insulation was LEGAL for use below 18m, and was originally in the plans.
|
But they lied about the tests, never mentioning the additional materials that were used to pass the test, even in the diagrams…
Quote:
The next page of the Compliance Guide contained a description of the system tested together with a diagram, Figure 4.
The following components were listed:
a. 12mm Fibre Cement Panels;
b. Supporting aluminium brackets and vertical rails;
c. 100mm Celotex RS5000; d. 12mm non‑combustible sheathing board;
e. 100mm SFS system; and
f. 2 x 12.5mm plasterboard.1486 24.112
The description did not disclose either the presence of the 6mm magnesium oxide boards nor the 8mm Marley Eternit boards. Although the text goes on to warn that “the fire performance and classification report issued only relates to the components detailed and constructed in Figure 4” and that “any changes to the components listed and construction method set out in Figure 4 will need to be considered by the building designer”, Figure 4 also omitted any reference to those elements. They had been omitted because, as Mr Evans admitted, any reference to them would have revealed that the system tested had been entirely unrepresentative of a commercial construction.
The failure to refer to the 6mm magnesium oxide boards or the 8mm Eternit boards completely undermined the disclaimers on pages 3 and 4. If the description of the system tested was materially incomplete, as it was, even the most rigorous attempt to reproduce it was bound to fail. In its statements to the Inquiry Celotex was at pains to point out that the statements that RS5000 was suitable for use on buildings over 18 metres in height should be read in the context of the disclaimer on page 3 of the Compliance Guide, but the disclaimer was effectively meaningless, as Celotex well knew.
|
__________________
Thank you for calling the Abyss.
If you have called to scream, please press 1 to be transferred to the Void, or press 2 to begin your stare.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
|