It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Flavian
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.
originally posted by: ipsedixit
How this cladding ever got approved for use is a pertinent question, I think. Witnesses said it was burning off the building like paper.
The insulation material used in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower "will burn if exposed to a fire of sufficient heat and intensity", according to its manufacturer.
Celotex confirmed that it supplied its RS5000 insulation for the £8.6 million renovation of the London tower block, where at least 12 people died and scores were injured.
It came after experts warned that the process of adding rain-proof cladding to tower blocks could create an additional fire risk.
....,.,..,
"So basically you have got a cavity with a fire spreading behind it."
RS5000, according to Celotex's website, has a Class 0 rating under UK building regulations, meaning it has the highest rating for preventing the spread of flames and prevents the spread of heat.
However, its "health and safety datasheet" notes: "The products will burn if exposed to a fire of sufficient heat and intensity.
"As with all organic materials, toxic gases will be released with combustion."
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
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.
I think it's more bodies than that. 400-600 lived there.
I think less than 200 got out
The top 3 floors are all dead.
originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: violet
I think it's more bodies than that. 400-600 lived there.
I think less than 200 got out
The top 3 floors are all dead.
I just checked the latest news, the death toll has risen to 17 now.
Are you saying that many of the people still haven't been accounted for yet ??
Jeezus this is horrendous.
originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: violet
I think it's more bodies than that. 400-600 lived there.
I think less than 200 got out
The top 3 floors are all dead.
I just checked the latest news, the death toll has risen to 17 now.
Are you saying that many of the people still haven't been accounted for yet ??
Jeezus this is horrendous.
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
I saw on a news ticker that it will take weeks to search the building and there could be a 100 bodies still inside?
I remember thinking that was crazy amount of time and bodies.
Did I misread?
originally posted by: violet
originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: violet
I think it's more bodies than that. 400-600 lived there.
I think less than 200 got out
The top 3 floors are all dead.
I just checked the latest news, the death toll has risen to 17 now.
Are you saying that many of the people still haven't been accounted for yet ??
Jeezus this is horrendous.
They can't get into the top floor flats to retrieve bodies . It's not safe and needs shoring up first before they can enter and top 3 floors are all said to be dead.
They'll be taking (cadaver?) dogs in there as well.
Their remains will be so badly degraded to even find.
Nobody wants to say it right now but it's likely hundreds dead.
Too many obeyed the stay put rule.
It's so heartbreaking.
originally posted by: ipsedixit
How this cladding ever got approved for use is a pertinent question, I think. Witnesses said it was burning off the building like paper.
Cladding believed to have been used on Grenfell Tower is banned in the US, it has emerged, amid revelations that it would have cost just £5,000 extra for the contractors to apply a fire-resistant version of panelling to the building.
Speculation is growing about the construction of the tower after a blaze ripped through it "like a matchstick" in the early hours of Wednesday morning, killing at least 17 people died and injuring scores more.
It has now emerged that the aluminium panels thought to have been added to the outside of the block as part of a £10 million refurbishment completed in May 2016 are banned in the US on buildings taller than 40 feet for fire safety reasons.
. . .
A salesman for the US company Reynobond, which produces the panels, told The Times the type of panel believed to have been used on Grenfell Tower was banned on tall buildings in the US “because of the fire and smoke spread”.
He said the PE version is used for small commercial buildings and petrol stations, rather than for tower blocks or major public buildings such as hospitals, adding: “It’s because of the fire and smoke spread. The FR [variant] is fire-resistant. The PE is just plastic."edit on 15-6-2017 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)