Is this an inappropriate time to ask whether a shift to EU Certified building materials was a contributory factor?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47478091

May 9, 2019 at 2:23 PM | tomo

With the Inquiry underway, I have tried to avoid speculating, and this link:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47478091
Mar 7, 2019 at 7:53 AM | golf charlie

... contained this:

"Campaigners have reacted with frustration at news that criminal charges over the Grenfell Tower fire may not be considered until 2021.

Scotland Yard said it would not hand a file to prosecutors until the end of a public inquiry into the disaster.

Survivors' group Grenfell United said families were disheartened by a lack of official progress.

But police said it "would be wrong" not to take into account evidence given to the independent hearing."

When an Insurance Company or its Policy Holder accepts any responsibility, there may be financial liability, and where there's blame, there is a claim.

Rightly and wrongly, the Inquiry represents a Legal process superior to decisions by insurance claims handlers, the media, politicians and those emotionally involved.

Crash for Cash has revealed the scale of some insurance frauds. The Government offering blank cheques has invited fraudsters, many are now in jail. More will probably follow, before the Police are able to proceed with any Criminal Charges.

This story raises some interesting questions:
"£200 million grant for private cladding replacement - BBC story HERE
Still no sign of the architects in front of cameras / microphones.
May 9, 2019 at 2:23 PM | tomo"

What is a Privately Owned Block of Flats? Obviously there are investment companies (including Insurers) building blocks of flats for sale, rent and leasehold for profit. But, because Grenfell Tower was built by a Council and then transferred to a Housing Association, did it become "Privately Owned" under the BBC's definition? I don't know! Blocks of Flats MAY be owned by a private individual, but every flat is rented to those claiming their rent from one or other Taxpayer funded department.

" .. throwing some on a bonfire shows it to flare and then char (burn with a MAPP torch"
May 11, 2019 at 12:17 AM | tomo

I remember 30(?) years ago being asked to take some material samples into the car park with a cigarette lighter. They all reacted to a flame in some way, allowing it to move across a surface, or glowing or releasing some gas, smoke or fumes. The material samples were all labelled in a manner that I presumed meant "didn't burn".

I suspect that many windows were open before the fire as it was a warm night. I expect many windows were opened by those trapped, seeking fresh air. I suspect that if the fire warmed the closed windows, the frames would have deformed allowing the sealed glazing units to fall out anyway.

May 13, 2019 at 12:46 AM | tomo

Installing new windows within the new cladding would have been cheaper and quicker for contractors, than replacing them like-for-like within the concrete panels, and then detailing and trimming the new cladding back towards the windows. Residents would have benefitted from larger window cills for their pot plants.

The new windows would not have been structural, neither adding to the strength of the cladding, nor being part of it. If no fire breaks or barriers were installed around the window frame, then flames rising within the cladding will have come in to direct contact with the window frames (uPVC?)

Heat will have melted/deformed the frames, even if they did not actually burn. The glass will not have remained insitu even if it didi not shatter.

The fire spread very rapidly up and within the cladding. Via the wiindows, the fire will have entered and risen within the building as AK has pointed out. The rising heat and diminishing supply of fresh air may have caused people to open their windows, but empty and evacuated may have had windows open anyway.

https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/the-grenfell-tower-fire

" .... that the eco-cladding burned very rapidly indeed assisted by convection."
May 15, 2019 at 6:28 AM | tomo

At this stage, be careful about describing it as "eco-cladding". The Green Party would have preferred compressed straw as insulation. The window frames were not made from sustainable timber shipped across oceans.

Total cost will have been the top priority for the designers, manufacturers and on-site installers.

Whether Greenie/Brownie Points were awarded for exceeding current insulation standards, and whether the "cladding" as installed, including the windows met required standards is not yet clear. Sections of cladding have now been tested, and they failed. Has anyone tested a section of cladding that included a window, all fixed to a concrete panel as was the case on Grenfell?

The chimney or flue effect, is the rushing in of air to fill the void caused by hot combustion flames and gases rising and expanding. The incoming air accelerates the fire. This occurs in most buiding fires, as air rushes in at low level and fans the flames to higher levels. On a larger scale, with multiple buildings, it is known as a Firestorm. See Dresden for details.

tomo, the absence of evidence does not mean there isn't any, just that it cannot be released yet. The Inquiry is NOT a Trial, but you cannot expect Expert Witnesses and their Evidence to be available for public discussion before being presented.

The timing of the Gas Supply being isolated will have been recorded, along with the timing of the instruction/request to have it isolated. Gas was not involved in starting the fire, or for it escaping the Flat or spreading up the cladding. The location of the Gas Main(s) rising within the building will be on the Plans, along with pipe routes within each flat.

ANY pipe rising through a building must pass through the concrete slabs of each floor, whether it is a Soil and Vent Pipe or Gas Pipe, and can allow fire to spread, and fresh air to feed it.

Changes in design and specification during construction should be approved by "Building Control" if they effect Fire Ratings etc. Who was responsible for deciding that they did or did not?

Everyone involved will be seeking to shift the blame on to everyone else, and their Liability Insurers will be very reluctant to allow the voluntary release of incriminating evidence.

It would be interesting to know how much was paid to "Professionals" for their expertise, when all they demonstrated was complacency.

I think that's only until tomorrow. It was so that they could see the report before it's officially released.

I can't understand why the 'stay in place' plan lasted two hours. 20mins would have been too much. I remember wondering when the two Dubai fires happened on brand new buildings built by reputable companies - 'I hope we haven't got any of that cladding'. Given that we did, as would have been obvious after the fire started spreading, they should have got everyone out ASAP. Does anyone in power ever watch the news?

"Does anyone in power ever watch the news?
Oct 29, 2019 at 6:26 PM | TinyCO2"

They may watch the news, but they relied on the expert advice that Taxpayers had already paid for.

The press releases have concentrated on the policy failures that were implemented so disastrously, not the declines in Fire Resistance that had been incorporated and approved with "improved" Building Regulations

I get the impression that senior firechiefs had been warned about the cladding on high rises even before Dubai, it just hadn't worked its way down. But part of the responsibility of a job like what's her name's, is that you keep up to date with the latest advice. The moment it was apparent that the fire wasn't in control, the public should have been evacuated. The main reason for Stay in place is so that the fire brigade aren't impeded by the occupiers. They were up there long before two hours were up.