Deadly London Tower Fire Fueled By ‘Green Energy’ Rules

a reply to: teapot

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The use of 'sandwich panel' cladding was recognised as a risk as early as 2000, and stated in a 'Technical Briefing' from the Association of British Insurers and the Building Research Establishment in May 2003.

Regs is no defence in respect of e exercising the duty of care on the of the Project Manager or budget holder, as the technology would have been 'suspect' in the instance of a cladding application.

(The significance of the ABI report as above in regard to insuring the building is another can of worms)

originally posted by: Painterz
It wasn't green energy rules that lead to this cladding being fitted.


According to the people in the block the cladding was mostly fitted to make it look more attractive on the eye for the rich people who had views of the place.


The green energy insulation cladding has much more stringent fire safety regulations than whatever this stuff was they used.

What rich people? Those in the adjacent tower blocks?

The cladding was additonally intended to make the building more attractive to those living in it (who wants to live in a grotty looking tower block with 50 year old grey concrete cladding?), but its primary purpose was insulation.

a reply to: Doxanoxa

Sorry I gave the wrong impression? In no way have I ever supported the private/public partnership arrangements that under govt rules, are often the only way councils and other social landlords can access funding to upgrade properties.

The point is, CDM regs were designed to improve accountability right across the lifetime of the project and, under the builder's guarantee, further 10yrs after the project/build is complete.

Already, I see the main contractor have quoted to the press that they/sub-contractor used suitably approved products. Their issue is the Principle Designer (required and named under the regs) should have been monitoring the project to ensure correct practice etc. All in the regs and as the landlord is a public body, a matter of public domain and open to any FOI requests.

I think any external insurance company covering the building is key to establishing the true course of events and determining what went wrong and if there is any party to blame. Certainly, any contents insurance companies used by the residents will not pay out if the damage was caused/could have been mitigated by the landlord and all responsibility for loss will fall to the landlord and their buildings insurance company.

If the building insurance company could prove the extent of the damage and the loss of life was caused by any negligence or fraudulent action by the landlord or their representatives, including the contractor and their subbies, the burden for compensating any/all victims will fall to the landlord (and their representatives).

But as most local authorities self-insure, there is a direct conflict of interest in ensuring all scrutiny is just and resulting reports reflect the true nature of the calamity.

a reply to: teapot

I never thought you did!

I see the responsibility for this disaster as being with a) the nominated Project Manager of the works, and b) the 'Budget Holder' for the works, ie a K&C. elected rep.

Your comment re. self insurance is well made, and even more reason to focus on the Budget Holder, as this individual knowingly accepted all risks associated with the refurbishment on behalf of K&C.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: IAMTAT

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

#CLIMATECHANGEKILLS

I tend to believe that's their real goal, as stated in places like those creepy "guide stones".

Thats quite a few lives lost based on a climate hoax.

originally posted by: Mikeapollo

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...

That's true. This picture really gets to me:


This wasn't the first time that this kind of fire has happened. And they did nothing back then.

www.celotex.co.uk...

The sole source for this story is The Daily Express which is the second-most unreliable newspaper in Britain and campaigned strongly for both Theresa May's election and for Brexit. It has a strong motivation for blaming EU regulations for this fire, and an equally strong motivation for absolving the Tory Government. No other newspaper has corroborated the Express story.

It's bulls#!7

a reply to: IAMTAT


The "chimney effect" was compounded by the aluminum siding construction materials. They sandwiched polyethylene between aluminum sheets. When plastic burns it turns back into a liquid and drips downward while on fire. This heat was retained by the aluminum sheets and spread, there by pre-heating the plastic before it erupted in fire. Since the cladding was not flush against the building, smoke and heat also spread upward, again pre-heating the cladding to the floors above. Add in some oxygen to the party and you have a roman candle going off.

Great write-up, here, abc.net.au - Why aluminium composite cladding is flammable and how buildings can be made safe.

Taking out the fire breaks to add heating pipes was not a good idea especially if you don't know if they ever were replaced!

Add to all that, aluminum, with water and sunlight, actually breaks plastics down and releases hydrogen. They are thinking of a method to do that with the plastics hauled from the ocean! So who knows if a refrigerator is the real culprit or this cladding is a ticking time bomb.

Makes you look at buildings a bit differently knowing this!