Tower block on fire in London

originally posted by: Smellthecoffee
Perhaps a Mohammedan was storing explosives, for his next terrorist attack, in his fridge?

Karma or God?

It seems even God is fed-up with Mohammedans.

The building had had a problem with power surges in recent years.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: firerescue

This begs the question then - why would anyone live in one?

If a fire gets started, there seems to be no real way out.

It's mostly social or welfare housing at Grenfell Tower so many don't have a choice to where they are housed.

The fire department should be telling people to block the air vents in bathrooms and wherever the ventilation system within the building enters the flat. Just putting towels by the door is not enough to block all the smoke.

a reply to: andy06shake

Absolutely agree with you, these tower block's in most cases are still up well past there original intended life span's, we used to live in a new town, well planned street's though all pedestrianized like all thing's 1960's-70's, the gable end wall used to freeze over in winter as the condensation turned to ice and so too did the single pained glass window's they had put into those home's.

Thing's have improved but sadly not for those living in the poverty range were in fact it has gotten far worse and is accelerating to even worse under Tory leadership especially since the EU started the Austerity ball rolling in what has to be the biggest anti social policy EU fraudulent scam in history.

And all while they bail out rich Bankers, what next workhouses?.
These people are victim's of politics and corruption.

But will they EVER see justice while the responsible party's seek around for a convenient scapegoat.

Most of the 1960's and 1970's built tower block's have long since been demolished, originally they tore down aging and established neighborhood's using the excuse that they were slum's and then having broken apart established community's they funneled the former resident's into these monstrosity's, it was always only the poor that they did this too though and never the well to do do nae good's.

originally posted by: Smellthecoffee
Perhaps a Mohammedan was storing explosives, for his next terrorist attack, in his fridge?

Karma or God?

It seems even God is fed-up with Mohammedans.

The resident's were people from all ethnicity's and religious back ground's, a lot of them sheltered in the local church so I am certain that is not the case, there are many in this country angry about the murder of our kid's whom would dearly love to take revenge but how does hurting one innocent to avenge another formulate any form of justice, it simply does not and that I am certain is not the case here, however I Would dearly love to know WHAT was in that guy's fridge as one other comment made a very intriguing suggestion on that matter, just let's not lynch someone until we know the truth.

Over 100 people missing they are saying,just as bad as the terrorist attacks,actually worse in some ways.

Hoping it was not set on fire by a terrorist.
Even so that is sad and really bad.

An obvious terrorist act orchestrated by the EU to attempt to avert brexit.

I've lived and worked in high rise buildings. In one Glasgow office I worked in, the official guidance was "to place disabled colleagues in a fire proof room" in the event of a fire, so that they didn't cause delay/obstruction on the stairs as the rest of us evacuated. Hard to believe, I know, but true. So it doesn't surprise me that there was a stay put policy in place.

I enjoyed living in a high rise as a student. But ours had a concierge and decent occupants. I know of other towers where the fire hydrants and alarm systems were deliberately damaged, fire doors were wedged open, with fires being set in the rubbish chutes and bin/refuse areas by local youths.

The 1960s type towers were particularly unattractive, brutalist type architecture. Many of those in Glasgow and West of Scotland are still there, many received cladding in the 1990s to improve their appearance. I can't guess how much it might cost to replace all that. But it all needs checked, quickly. And the authorities need to study how the wind circulates around these buildings, eddy currents and such like even on calm days, to see how circulating air can interact with fires and cladding systems.

A bit of common decency would be appreciated too. PM Theresa May visited the area today but didn't speak to survivors. How awful was that ? And no minutes silence for the victims either ... do we only observe a minutes silence for victims of Islamic terrorism nowadays ?

What about those killed by corporate negligence, don't they count ?

originally posted by: Flanker86
An obvious terrorist act orchestrated by the EU to attempt to avert brexit.

That would be funny if it wasnt just sick and pathetic

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast
I've lived and worked in high rise buildings. In one Glasgow office I worked in, the official guidance was "to place disabled colleagues in a fire proof room" in the event of a fire, so that they didn't cause delay/obstruction on the stairs as the rest of us evacuated. Hard to believe, I know, but true. So it doesn't surprise me that there was a stay put policy in place.

Whilst on the face of it the stay put instruction seems strange, there is a simple, logical reason for it: firemen trying to reach a fire in a tall building need a free stairwell to work in - they dont want hundreds of panicing civillians piling down the stiar as they are trying to get up it. Thats the reason.

Obviously it assumes a small fire contained within one apartment /floor of the building - not one which rapidly spreads to the whole building via the external cladding.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: violetso the fire department told them on saturday that in case of fire stay put sorry but that sounds very fishy to me. i was always taught if you got away out of burning building then get the blank out. this sounds to me like a planned incident.

Aapparantly there's a stay put policy in most high rises there. It was put in place in the 1950's.

The idea being if one flat is on fire, it's contained to that one flat, won't spread or if it does, it's very slow and I think they might have fire doors for their front doors ( if those were installed in this refurnish ?), so they were told they had 30 minutes of extra time before it came through their door. In by which that time firefighters are on the scene to save them

I think I read that this retarded stay put rule stops the hallways and stairwells from being congested. Or that the Hallways are filling with smoke and they'd die of smoke inhalation.

I agree with you, I was always taught you get out down the stairs, don't use the elevators.

At first I didn't get who told them to stay? One of the first reports I saw was a guy in the street saying we yelled you have to get out and a tenant yelled back, No the fireman told us to stay. I thought wtf? You mean firemen are on the scene now saying to stay? It was that the firemen visited them days before to remind them of the stay put rule, as it is called.

Those poor people thought it was best to listen to the advice of the professionals.

a reply to: violeti am sorry but if i am in a building that i know is on fire there is no way in hell i am going to stay put unless the fire is right outside my door blocking way to fire stairs
first thing we did to my grandfathers house when when we remodeled attic into a giant bedroom was to add an outside escape ladder. telling someone in a highrse to stay in place in a sit like this is criminal negligence plan and simple.

I hope there's some accountability for this to those who should be.
The cladding is obviously in question, but who was inspecting this job as it went along?

The laws in Canada are much stricter. If you're renovating an older building, it has to be brought up to today's codes. Fire codes etc. You neeed permits and before proceeding to the next stage and those permits are inspected and "closed". There's no way a sprinkler system could be left off the list.

Of course most people working on their homes say to heck with permits, it slows the job down. They want those new fancy appliances and are adding in electrical work or installing bigger panels, gas lines etc that won't take the load. Most homeowners are unaware and it's up to the contractors to inform them. The thing is, if a fire is caused by overloading circuits or improperly installed gas lines, or that new heavy roofing tile you put on wasn't upgraded under it with trusses and it collapses, you won't be paid out by your insurance company, should they discover you never got the permits. They check on the permits through city hall. Your original floor plan is on record at city hall. I've known people who bought homes that had been renovated, something went wrong and it was their fault ( not the previous homeowner) for not getting the permits.

At any rate this doesnt apply in this case but I still question who was approving this job to go through.

I did read that the fire dept had visited the construction on this tower to check on things. How was this cladding missed? Somebody was told to just overlook it.

a reply to: proteus33


In a high-rise, I'd own a quick-deploy parachute, just in case.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: violeti am sorry but if i am in a building that i know is on fire there is no way in hell i am going to stay put unless the fire is right outside my door blocking way to fire stairs
first thing we did to my grandfathers house when when we remodeled attic into a giant bedroom was to add an outside escape ladder. telling someone in a highrse to stay in place in a sit like this is criminal negligence plan and simple.

I know. Another thing too is there was only one center stairwell. No outside fire escapes. Not that an outside one would have been much help in this fire. Some more could have gotten out though.

They will get off any criminal negligence charges because their argument is who knew it would flare up the side of the building like that.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: proteus33

In a high-rise, I'd own a quick-deploy parachute, just in case.

Or have a long rope or ready made sheets tied together
Crates to put a child with a pet in you can lower

The rescue efforts neeed to be improved as well. I'm sure firemen did all they could, but maybe there's things they've not thought about that might have got more people out

a reply to: ipsedixit
yep hitt the nail on the head the proper response wouold have been no we have no plans to replace this building with housing for wealthy people if and when we build back it will be for the people already here. instead the guy started a big hissy fit.

a reply to: violet

If the cladding was legal then there is no case against the construction company that installed it.

There definitely seems to be a very serious case against both the management company and to a lesser extent the council (if councillor Atkinson's tale is true).

There is also a very serious need to reinvestigate the fire safety of that cladding. It may be completely fine for housing say but not for high rise. At the end of the day it was approved for sale here in the UK and that doesn't happen without rigorous testing first - so something has clearly gone wrong in that process too.

a reply to: violetyeah i moved into a 60 year old house 18 years ago and about 10 years ago i started to have trouble with fuses blowing left and right eventually i had to have wiring replaced and a big circuit breaker box installed instead of the very old fuse box. the original electrician had both bedrooms living room and dining room on same circuit went and had each room put on its own circuit . i had a fire their in 2002 that some started to cover a theft the whole main bedroom was engulfed in flame but was stopped by walls and bedroom door till fire brigade showed up and extinguished it spend two weeks washing wall in that room with wire brush and dawn but whole room was salvaged old buildings were well built .

This fire was absolutely brutal.



If you were in the wrong place in the building, and that was most of the building, blocking the smoke, even if you did block all vents, etc., would not have helped. It appears that the entire building was wrapped in flammable material (the cladding). There was just no escape if you stayed in the building, except if you were in one of the few locations on the lower floors which were not reached by the full brunt of the fire.

If there is any justice there will be a lot of people going to jail over this, right back up the line to the manufacturer of the cladding.