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.

 

Deadly London Tower Fire Fueled By ‘Green Energy’ Rules

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: Taggart
Yup £5000, out of 12 million. Absolutely disgusting. Heads will roll for this.


IF the cladding is NOT restricted by the Fire Code, heads will not and should not roll. Under the law there is nothing wrong. It is the Fire Code that needs changed.


The fire and building codes are fairly clear regarding the use of combustible material on external walls. This part of the law was clarified after the Summerland tragedy on the Isle Of Mann - where a small fire outside the building started a blaze in a concealed gap in an external galbestos wall.

As such, all external walls should have a fire resistance of at least one hour, this includes any external cladding or decorative features. This can be waived on an individual case by case bases where there is a "safety surplus" (so for example, fire resistance can be limited to 30mins (a deficit) provided extra stairways and exits (surplus) are added.

It would appear - and I am speculating here - that the cladding itself was aluminium rainscreen cladding - which itself is fire resistant - however the insulation between the building exterior wall and the rainscreen panels appears to have been combustible polyurathane foam which has no fire resistance and is actually combustible.

The legal argument therefore appears to rest on how the code is to be interpreted - as technically the exterior was fire resistant (meeting the wording of the code) but the material under it and between the actual original wall of the building was combustible if heated or if a flame came directly into contact - which is against the spirit of the code.

The choice of insulation also appears to have been a deliberate choice as a totally fireproof alternative was available but cost an extra £2 per square metre.

I suspect blame will be shifted around from pillar to post - but ultimately someone somewhere (knowingly or not) made a fateful decision on how to interpret the building code and which materials to use...

Hopefully, the lesson will be learnt.

The Summerland disaster




posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
It will be interesting to find out who received these retrofit contracts and their links to government officials.





That's exactly what I was thinking.

Reminded me of the Clinton Foundation's climate initiative knee deep in these retrofit projects.


edit on 16-6-2017 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: IAMTAT

So, crazy regulations have caused deaths, all in the name of "saving the environment"?


No. The official reason for the recladding was to make the tower more visually appealing as it is visible from several beauty spots plus a set of private luxury flats.

The insulation, upgrading the buildings energy efficiency, was seen as a fortunate side effect. Environmental regulations do not specify the type of insulation (if any) should be retrofitted to any building and indeed only apply to new builds.

On a new build any insulation material must be non combustible and resist fire for a minimum of 30 mins internally, and two hours externally.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: IAMTAT

So, crazy regulations have caused deaths, all in the name of "saving the environment"?


#CLIMATECHANGEKILLS



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Max Fordham is the one who said you could skip the fire stopping between floors while other work got done. So it's unclear if all the others working on the job were putting them back in


The building services engineering firm Max Fordham was also commissioned as a specialist consultant, according to the report. Planning documents published in 2012 show the company suggested temporarily removing “fire stopping” between floors of the building so as to install new heating pipework. It is unclear whether this happened and the company did not return requests for comment, while its website does not mention Grenfell.


There's a long list of who worked on the job.
Contractors who worked on Grenfell Tower

A case of too many cooks spoiling the broth, so to speak

Building Plans

edit on 16-6-2017 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Mikeapollo


Someone proposed the £5,000 saving of using non-retardant material, and others voted for the proposal, both as part of K&C local government.

Are these names a matter of public record?

If so, I think the public deserve to know these names.

I'm replying to your post Mikeapollo, as you seem to know you"re way round this stuff, and also to emphasise in a matter as grave as this there is both law and justice, though the two are not automatically associated.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: violet

A case of too many cooks spoiling the broth, so to speak

Building Plans


Absolutely. I have first hand experience of the council improving properties. One group starts the work, it falls behind schedule or goes over budget so that contractor gets axed and a new contractor takes over and so it repeats. Add into the mix that you have several firms working on the same project at the same time and it means nobody quite knows who has done or not done what. So many times I have seen worked signed off as done when the reality is that it was overlooked. Fortunately in my case, none of the stuff missed has been safety critical - but this type of problem is endemic within local authority contract work.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: Mikeapollo

Someone proposed the £5,000 saving of using non-retardant material, and others voted for the proposal, both as part of K&C local government.

Are these names a matter of public record?


I suspect this is what may have happened - either that or, and again I must strest I am speculating so this is not fact - the local authority approached several firms for the work and chose one that offered a 'winning bid'.

That contractor would have offered a fixed price to the local authority so it is in the interests of that contractor to make as many savings as possible.

The winning contractor then may have had a chief consultant architect specify the materials and how the work should be done, then once this is drawn up the contractors have their own group of in house architects overhaul the plans to see how savings could be made and they then subcontract out the actual job of aquiring the materials (ie. Cladding) to another firm.

Somewhere within this chain, in order to cut the costs to increase the profit from the contract, a sub architect from a separate firm may substitute a material - but this decision may have been made without understanding the whole project as the sub contractors often do not have the full project plans.

So somewhere along the line, someone had a choice of several materials and made a fatal choice - possibly without knowing the project or what implications this could cause as a whole.

Again, I draw a reference to Summerland where plasterboard was specified for use in the amusement arcade, however the main tenant approached the architects to ask for something more sound proof. The main architect then passed this job to a junior architect that had no training in materials and suggested a product called Decalin - which is a plasticised sound proof board, however fatally this material is extremely combustible - but this information was never passed to the tennant (trust house forte) and the materials use was never approved by the architects of the project. It was one decision by someone that was not actually involved in the full project so did not understand the implication of his suggested material.

So, in answer to your question, yes - somewhere someone did make a fatal decision - who that was, and what their motivation was however will probably never become public as it may be a sub contractor of a subcontractor who may not have even known these panels were for a tower block.

The real issue here is that the overall project management appears to have failed causing the chain of decisions and events in the first place - and that is a problem associated with how these types of works are completed by the lowest bidders. Regrettably it also means the local authority - who may have inadvertently signed off a potentially dangerous building - may walk away blameless as they will point the finger to the main contractor, who will then blame a subcontractor who will then point to some small firm somewhere that makes the panels and offered a choice of product without knowing what it was for and ended up suggesting the cheapest material that met the budget rather than the specification. :/



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Mikeapollo

Thanks for the very full answer.

As you rightly remind me, ultimately, someone would have signed off a spec. or change to a spec. in full knowledge of the material being for a residential tower block. I would think the overall Project Manager for the refurbishment would have had this responsibility.

Who was this, is my first question? I should imagine the name is a matter of public record.

My second question is who approved the budget for the project based on this saving?

I'm sorry I don't accept the words "inadvertently signed off" in this context.

I prefer the words "approved by the budget holder without exercising the duty of care required by the role".

Who approved the stated, or restated, budget the Project Manager was stewarding?

Both Project Manager and "approver" are big jobs, with big expectations associated.

We need to know these names, at least as a starter for 10.

As they say, 'sunshine is the best disinfectant'.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Doxanoxa




I'm sorry I don't accept the words "inadvertently signed off" in this context.

I prefer the words "approved by the budget holder without exercising the duty of care required by the role".


On this I absolutely agree. Someone somewhere ultimately signed off the use of an unsuitable material for a reason - that person was criminally negligent either through the deliberate choice of an unsuitable material, ignorance of the materials chosen to be used or deliberately altering the specifications to fit a budget or increase a profit margin.

My fear is we will never know who it was - but ultimately one stroke of a project managers pen on a purchase order condemned the block and the residents inside. Ignorance of the materials or actions of subcontractors can not be a defence, but that person will be hidden by big corporations :/



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
As you rightly remind me, ultimately, someone would have signed off a spec. or change to a spec. in full knowledge of the material being for a residential tower block. I would think the overall Project Manager for the refurbishment would have had this responsibility.

Who was this, is my first question? I should imagine the name is a matter of public record.



All supposedly covered by Construction Design Management (CDM) Regs 2015.

www.hse.gov.uk...

As the refurb works started around the same time as the new regs came into force (April 2015), the main contractor (Rydon) may have still been working to older CDM Regs (2007) that they would have been using at planning and design phases. Certainly, any information provided to the council during the Tendering stages would have referred to the earlier regs and how they would be met.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Mikeapollo

I am reading your very informative posts and all I can think of as an illustration is the beginnings of the old US disaster movie The Towering Inferno where similar circumstances led to cutting the specifications on the electrical wiring used in the building, leading to an electrical wire and the resulting disaster fire in a skyscraper.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Mikeapollo

I am reading your very informative posts and all I can think of as an illustration is the beginnings of the old US disaster movie The Towering Inferno where similar circumstances led to cutting the specifications on the electrical wiring used in the building, leading to an electrical wire and the resulting disaster fire in a skyscraper.


The resemblance is uncanny... from electrical issues to water pumps not working, fire extinguishers condemned as unfit for use and building materials not suitable for the job with lots of cut corners.

The only thing missing is Irwin Allen as all the other ingredients are there. The real tragic thing here is all this was documented, known and absolutely preventable.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mikeapollo

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Mikeapollo

I am reading your very informative posts and all I can think of as an illustration is the beginnings of the old US disaster movie The Towering Inferno where similar circumstances led to cutting the specifications on the electrical wiring used in the building, leading to an electrical wire and the resulting disaster fire in a skyscraper.


The resemblance is uncanny... from electrical issues to water pumps not working, fire extinguishers condemned as unfit for use and building materials not suitable for the job with lots of cut corners.

The only thing missing is Irwin Allen as all the other ingredients are there. The real tragic thing here is all this was documented, known and absolutely preventable.


We've got Lily Allen. If the water pumps had worked, or if the fire alarms had worked, or if the cladding hadn't been used, this disaster wouldn't have happened.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

What water pumps? As far as I know there was not a sprinkler system in place in Grenfell.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell If the water pumps had worked, or if the fire alarms had worked, or if the cladding hadn't been used, this disaster wouldn't have happened.


No... simply if the material used in the cladding had been correct, and the refurbishment carried out to an approved specification then this disaster would not have occurred.

Everything else just added to a situation that was initiated the moment the decision was made on the insulating material between the poly-spray aluminium and the original external wall...



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: secretagent77
a reply to: stormcell

What water pumps? As far as I know there was not a sprinkler system in place in Grenfell.


The tower suffered a series of electrical issues from 2013 to present - and whenever an electrical surge occurred it not only knocked out domestic appliances in people's flats, it also affected the emergency lighting (blowing it so the escape stairs went into total darkness) and took out the buildings water pumps that supplied each floor with water meaning once the pressure in the riser had been drawn off, there was no further water until the pumps were restored.

Source : electrical fault
Source : Water loss when power fails

There were no sprinklers and nothing officially has been confirmed as to the cause of the fire however there is speculation a fridge caught fire... given the past history of appliances bursting into flames in this block plus the issues of water previously being unavailable during power surges and the fact fires appeared everywhere in the building, one could speculate that it is entirely possible that a fire in the building could knock out the electrical systems which also take out the escape lights and the water into each dwelling... I am not saying this occurred but it is a possibility that can not be ruled out at this stage.

We will probably never fully know the exact sequence of events, however the fire investigation may at least shed some light on the ignition source and the reason for the rapid flame spread.
edit on 16-6-2017 by Mikeapollo because: Edit to add



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Just to add my 2p worth, mikeapollo is right, the materials used for the cladding may well have been not up to spec, swapped out from the original spec, or may have been used because they did comply with code but no-one thought it would be a problem.

The cladding wasn't done for any other reason other than to make the place look smarter.

On top of that, their have been rumblings that they wanted to rid the area of social housing tenants, there has been talk of redevelopment in the area, though not the kind of redevelopment which allows for low income population to remain in the area.

Having had work done myself by contractors here in the UK I can tell you that work on completion is never thoroughly checked when being signed off on completion, earlier this year we had some insulation pumped into the cavity wall and a number of flats have found thousands of polystyrene balls in the back of their cupboards and behind their boiler where it breached the internal wall. The company also used ladders instead of a cherry picker to carry out the work as it was cheaper.

There is far too much corner cutting going on at the moment, it really isn't a surprise to me that there may well be a case to answer for.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
but look at the Brightside, that green energy cladding has reduced global warming, oh never mind according to some people it hasn`t reduced anything,global warming is worse than ever. so, green energy cladding didn`t reduce anything ,killed a lot of people,and made some people very rich.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

Yeah, the stuff used was far from "green".




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join