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.

 

Tower block on fire in London

page: 22
57
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: skywatcher44

That was quick Panorama online within two days.





posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: illuminnaughty
Here is a link to an interview with Philip Hammond. Where he BRAGS that the conservatives should be PROUD in getting rid of health and safety regulations. The makers of the cladding said that it should not be used on buildings over 10 meters tall. In fact the cladding is banned in Germany and the USA. Its also banned in the UK. But if the Tories can make a few quid then who cares about them being banned or dangerous.


www.independent.co.uk... acebook-post

He was also on the mars show this morning and could not remember how he voted on the motion to make all homes safe for human habitation. Of course Mars reminded him that he voted against the bill. Well seeing that he is a rich land lord he just wants more money regardless if its made at our expense. How were these snakes allowed to vote on this bill if they are landlords? There were about 60 MPs who voted against it. No doubt they were also landlords. Conflict of interests?


They would have made even more money by banning the flammable cladding. There were both cheaper and more expensive fire resistant options available. I've seen the manufacturers website. One brand (rockwool interior) is marketed as being more fire resistant vs. the other brand (plastic interior) which is marketed as being stronger amd more durable.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

That stuff still burns as well through but i think it's heat resistance is around 700–800°C as apposed to around the 250°C heat resistant cladding that was used in Grenfell tower building.

Combined with the PVC window frames/sills and the temperatures/melting plastic they also produce when burning and rockwool interior or otherwise that building would still probobly have gone up like a chip pan fire, just not as fast i suppose.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


probably have gone up like a chip pan fire


This conjured for me an image of a fire blanket and this raised further questions about this fire.

A fire blanket large enough to throw over the entire building and smother the fire out is probably a bit of a stretch but aerial fire-fighting equipment has been around for awhile now.

London Fire Brigade own x2 fire-fighting helicopters based at Hayes www.ukemergencyaviation.co.uk... Were they used? Were they even called out to attend? I saw no footage of the fire being tackled from above.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: teapot

The question begs however, how much water can our helicopters carry and would its have been sufficient to retard the spread of fire in the manner and speed that it travelled through that building?

My bet is that 100s of helicopter journeys would have been required to put any sort of dent or retard that fire which would have required time that the people in that building simply did not have.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: teapot

The page has been deleted? Strange. Was it available to you?

I heard that no helicopters were used due to them fanning the flames and making it worse.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

The building is made of reinforced concrete and is fireproof , what burns is the cladding, windows frames and
once gets inside the contents of each apartment

Once the cladding caught fire it then overwhelmed the fire resistant properties of the building

Fire firefighters call it AUTOEXPOSURE where fire advances from window to window, breaking the glass and getting
inside each apartment in turn to set it on fire



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: daftpink

The direct link in my post does lead to page deleted but if you click on the menu item 'fire' at the top of the page, it will take you to a list of all fire services in the country that own/operate aerial equipment.

I can understand the concerns re 'fanning' the fire, perfectly logical really. And by the time these were scrambled and arrived at the scene, how effective would they have been re load capacity (as per andy06shake's post above yours)?



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Yes i think it's rather evident to all as to what was burning.

Obviously the building is made of reinforced concrete, that's is the only reason its still standing, but that does not make the residents apartments fireproof just the structure really.

Fact of the matter is that it was an accident waiting to happen and one has to wonder given the nature and construction of similar buildings across the nation when its going to happen next really?
edit on 22-6-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: teapot
London Fire Brigade own x2 fire-fighting helicopters based at Hayes www.ukemergencyaviation.co.uk... Were they used? Were they even called out to attend? I saw no footage of the fire being tackled from above.


Not sure this is true. How much water (or other extinguisher) could you carry on a standard helicopter? You'd need at least something the size of Chinook for it to be worthwhile. And even the Chinook has a maximum take-off weight of just over 22 tons. When you consider the fact that a ton is officially defined as the weight of one cubic metre of water, you can see that's not going to get you very far.

As for helicopters generally, IDK whether London Fire Brigade has any "normal-sized" rescue helicopters. If it does, which I doubt, then the reason that they wouldn't have been used is that the updraft of heat alone from the burning building would have made hovering over Grenfell Tower practically suicidal for a helicopter pilot, and almost certainly pointless because no-one made it to the roof anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join