Massive West London Apartment fire

London fire: fears of people trapped as major blaze engulfs tower block


(CNN)A huge fire has engulfed a 24-story apartment block in West London.

Around 200 firefighters and 20 fire trucks have been deployed to tackle the blaze as rescue workers try to evacuate the building in Lancaster West Estate in North Kensington, London Fire Brigade said.


The fire broke out before daybreak local time Wednesday. In a statement posted to Twitter, London police say two people are currently being treated for smoke inhalation and they're waiting updates on further injuries.

Photos and video shared on social media show the tower block engulfed in flames.
"The whole building is on fire (and) spreading fast," witness Goran Karimi told CNN.
He said he saw people jumping from the building.

Grenfell Tower

The 24-story Grenfell Tower was built in the 1970s and recently subject to a $10.9 million redevelopment, according to property firm Rydon.

Close to Notting Hill, the tower block is around a five minute walk from the Latimer Road Underground station and near the Westfield shopping center in the west London suburbs.
According to property website RightMove, the average rent in the building is around $2,500 a month.

News is just now breaking.  This is all there is, save for live TV.

Quill, I don't think your picture is of Grenfell Tower, watching TV now it's nothing like it. It's a 27 floor Tower in North Kensington West London.200 FIRE MEN and 40 engines on scene.

nicko wrote:Quill, I don't think your picture is of Grenfell Tower,   watching TV now it's nothing like it.   It's a 27 floor Tower in North Kensington West London.200 FIRE MEN and 40 engines on scene.

I don't know London very well at all, but it's is being named as Grenfell Tower on TV.

I don't think I've ever seen a fire as bad as that one in my life, not in this country at least, and now the fire service are starting to talk about known fatalities.

Tragic. Thoughts and prayers for those poor people.

Talk on LBC from a lot of high ranking fire officials and Govt spokespeople, that the recommendations for improving fire safety for this and other similar aged buildings has been sat in the Housing Ministers in tray for 4 !!!! years whilst he pondered a response.
It is a question of dry risers and integrated sprinkler systems.
The minister involved lost his seat and is now May's chief of staff.
Austerity to blame?

My heart goes out to those killed, injured or have lost everything they owned.

Dreadful. God knows how many will have died.

It's horrific. Many dead, some jumping out of the building

Fucking hell Andy , trying to blame the Tory's for it, your unbelievable.

It was started by a faulty fridge allegedly. Is the block council owned? One would presume so.

Just repeating the main topic on national rafio.
It seems residents have countless warnings that the building and others like it are unsafe. The warnings fell on deaf ears.
Go watch tv or listen to the radio Nicko.
Ffs, SOMEONE IS TO BLAME,!!

It is our conviction that a serious fire in a tower block or similar high density residential property is the most likely reason that those who wield power at the KCTMO will be found out and brought to justice! The Grenfell Action Group believe that the KCTMO narrowly averted a major fire disaster at Grenfell Tower in 2013 when residents experienced a period of terrifying power surges that were subsequently found to have been caused by faulty wiring. We believe that our attempts to highlight the seriousness of this event were covered up by the KCTMO with the help of the RBKC Scrutiny Committee who refused to investigate the legitimate concerns of tenants and leaseholders.

We have blogged many times on the subject of fire safety at Grenfell Tower and we believe that these investigations will become part of damning evidence of the poor safety record of the KCTMO should a fire affect any other of their properties and cause the loss of life that we are predicting:

The Grenfell Action Group predict that it won’t be long before the words of this blog come back to haunt the KCTMO management and we will do everything in our power to ensure that those in authority know how long and how appallingly our landlord has ignored their responsibility to ensure the heath and safety of their tenants and leaseholders. They can’t say that they haven’t been warned!
https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/kctmo-playing-with-fire/#Grenfell

Heads will roll.

A mother dropped her baby from the 9th or 10th floor and some one caught it!

The London Fire Brigade has confirmed that there have been fatalities in the Grenfell Tower fire, which consumed the block in west London in the early hours of the morning.

People have been desperately searching for their loved ones who live in the building as people appeared to be trapped inside.

The leader of Kensington and Chelsea Borough Nick Paget-Brown said "several hundred" people would have been in the block when the fire broke out.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/fatalities-grenfell-tower-fire-confirmed-relatives-desperately/

And bitching about the blame game won't  bring back rhe dead, nor will it put the minds at rest for those orher thousands living in similar blocks will identical  lack of fire safety.
As HT said, heads should roll,

Angry Andy wrote:And bitching about the blame game won't  bring back rhe dead, nor will it put the minds at rest for those orher thousands living in similar blocks will identical  lack of fire safety.
As HT said, heads should roll,

Why are you giving reds to people on this thread?

Not me,

HoratioTarr wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:And bitching about the blame game won't  bring back rhe dead, nor will it put the minds at rest for those orher thousands living in similar blocks will identical  lack of fire safety.
As HT said, heads should roll,

Why are you giving reds to people on this thread?

Not bothered to be honest Horatio, if they give a red to an article on those missing from this fire, what does that say about the poster who gave the red?

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Why are you giving reds to people on this thread?

Not bothered to be honest Horatio, if they give a red to an article on those missing from this fire, what does that say about the poster who gave the red?

Sick.

Angry Andy wrote:Not me,

It's either you or Quill. So if Quill denies it too, he's implicating you.

A survivor broke down on live TV as he said his neighbour on the fourth floor had confessed that his 'fridge had exploded' before fire swamped the building - but the fire service told MailOnline it is too early to confirm the cause

Samira Lamrani, 38, said: 'He was just beside himself. He was just as surprised at how quickly the fire spread as anybody else.


A series of violent fridge explosions is believed to have been caused by leaks of 'environmentally-friendly' coolant.
Safety standards for manufacturers might have to be reviewed following the blasts, which have destroyed several kitchens.
At least four similar explosions have been reported in the last three years in the UK, two of them since May.
The problem appears to result from a widespread switch to 'Greenfreeze' technology over the past 15 years and the use of isobutane and propane hydrocarbon gases as refrigerants.
Previously CFCs and HFCs were used in fridges but these gases damaged the ozone layer and contributed significantly to global warming. There are now more than 300million Greenfreeze fridges around the world.
They are designed with safety features to ensure the flammable natural gas inside the pipework cannot leak into the fridge.
However, if this happens there is a risk of a powerful blast as the gas could be ignited by a spark when the thermostat switches off.
Graeme Fox, an air-conditioning and refrigeration contractor, said: 'During the day when the fridge door is frequently opened there isn't a problem.
'But at night, when everyone is sleeping and the door remains shut, this leaked highly flammable gas can build up in the fridge cabinet.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210334/Alert-new-wave-exploding-fridges-caused-environmentally-friendly-coolant.html

It was clad in some kind of plastic. Are they insane?

nicko wrote:Quill, I don't think your picture is of Grenfell Tower,   watching TV now it's nothing like it.   It's a 27 floor Tower in North Kensington West London.200 FIRE MEN and 40 engines on scene.

I don't personally know; never been to the building.  It's the picture that accompanied one news story.  The story was just breaking (my dinner hour is about 4 am in London's morning), so I'm sure there was a lot of confusion.

Here's a picture from a google search:



The picture with the building on fire is correct, I assume because of the title.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Not me,

It's either you or Quill.  So if Quill denies it too, he's implicating you.

Deffo not me. I would have given a green to Thors post. 
Do we have trolls on here?
Yes.

Could they resort to sick reds?
Most definitely.

Angry Andy wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's either you or Quill.  So if Quill denies it too, he's implicating you.

Deffo not me. I would have given a green to Thors post. 
Do we have trolls on here?
Yes.

Could they resort to sick reds?
Most definitely.

Nonsense.  First, I don't give out reds as a matter of policy, having nothing to do with Andy or anyone.  Second, it's no implication as there are an infinite universe of possibilities.   Your pissed, HT...sober up.

Regarding the red - possibly a mistake if someone was scrolling on a touchscreen, it happened tbe other day by a poster and I've done it myself on my iPad.

Regarding the OP that tower block has just had a £10 million makeover recently yet they didn't think of adding sprinklers.

How the hell did they think anyone would get out of there was a fire?

eddie wrote:Regarding the red - possibly a mistake if someone was scrolling on a touchscreen, it happened tbe other day by a poster and I've done it myself on my iPad.

Regarding the OP that tower block has just had a £10 million makeover recently yet they didn't think of adding sprinklers.

How the hell did they think anyone would get out of there was a fire?

That was my first question. How primitive! A vertical tower without sprinklers would not have passed inspection in the 1920's in America; this is 2017...whose running that show over there?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Regarding the red - possibly a mistake if someone was scrolling on a touchscreen, it happened tbe other day by a poster and I've done it myself on my iPad.

Regarding the OP that tower block has just had a £10 million makeover recently yet they didn't think of adding sprinklers.

How the hell did they think anyone would get out of there was a fire?

That was my first question.  How primitive!  A vertical tower without sprinklers would not have passed inspection in the 1920's in America; this is 2017...whose running that show over there?

Quill to my knowledge, none of these Tower Blocks have sprinklers? Unless they are purpose-built for the rich of course, because their lives matter doncha know?

I lived on the sixth floor of a 13 storey one back in the 90's and I often wondered how the hell I'd get out in a fire. Those people in there must have felt so frightened

Should be mandatory in a vertical tower. How're people going to evacuate...jump?

[*]Met Police confirms 12 people have died 'and will sadly increase'

[*]A total of 68 people taken to six hospitals, 18 in critical care






http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-london-40239008

Original Quill wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
Deffo not me. I would have given a green to Thors post. 
Do we have trolls on here?
Yes.

Could they resort to sick reds?
Most definitely.

Nonsense.  First, I don't give out reds as a matter of policy, having nothing to do with Andy or anyone.  Second, it's no implication as there are an infinite universe of possibilities.   Your pissed, HT...sober up.

Whatever...

Original Quill wrote:Should be mandatory in a vertical tower.  How're people going to evacuate...jump?

Jump. Apparently.

I've never seen a building so fully engulfed in fire. Usually it's contained to one or two partial floors...not the whole tower, all around.

The fact that it happened in the west end, near Notting Hill, means this wasn't poverty row, either. Do they have an aversion to fire suppression in London? I'm reminded of 1666. Oh well...shouldn't be sarcastic.

I think you're bringing up some very pertinent points, Quill. I think everyone seems to be surprised that this building was so fully engulfed - and quickly too - this is an affluent area, postcode-wise.

I'm wondering why it didn't collapse like the twin towers did. Is it made from sturdier stuff?

eddie wrote:I think you're bringing up some very pertinent points, Quill. I think everyone seems to be surprised that this building was so fully engulfed - and quickly too - this is an affluent area, postcode-wise.

I'm wondering why it didn't collapse like the twin towers did. Is it made from sturdier stuff?

Twin towers had the head-on hit of two Boeing 767's, plus explosions from full wing tanks of JP-4, which apparently heat-weakened the structural support of one floor.  Then, when the support of that floor went, the increasing cumulative weight of succeeding collapses started, and brought the whole thing down.

That's the theory I've heard.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I think you're bringing up some very pertinent points, Quill. I think everyone seems to be surprised that this building was so fully engulfed - and quickly too - this is an affluent area, postcode-wise.

I'm wondering why it didn't collapse like the twin towers did. Is it made from sturdier stuff?

Twin towers had the head-on hit of Boeing 767's, plus explosions from full wing tanks of JP-4, which apparently heat-weakened the structural support of one floor.  Then, when that support of that floor went, the cumulative weight of succeeding collapses started and brought the whole thing down.

That's the theory I've heard.

Yeah. It's the one I've heard too.

they may not have an aversion to fire supression quill, but they have an aversion to spending money. they would sooner put a plastic coating on and "beautify" the thing than spend a relatively few pounds on fitting sprinkler systems.

bear in mind these are not "council owned" but privately owned via management companies every penny not spent on safety is a penny more nto te pockets of teh shareholders and management.
whatever else, Corbyn is bang on the money with his comments on this...

those responsible for te penny pinching, no matter how involved should be burned at the stake over this.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I think you're bringing up some very pertinent points, Quill. I think everyone seems to be surprised that this building was so fully engulfed - and quickly too - this is an affluent area, postcode-wise.

I'm wondering why it didn't collapse like the twin towers did. Is it made from sturdier stuff?

Twin towers had the head-on hit of two Boeing 767's, plus explosions from full wing tanks of JP-4, which apparently heat-weakened the structural support of one floor.  Then, when the support of that floor went, the increasing cumulative weight of succeeding collapses started, and brought the whole thing down.

That's the theory I've heard.

also jet fuel...being kerosine a sort of thin diesel fuel half way between diesel and parafin burns at a very high temp in favourable conditions...I have known it to burn hot enough to liquify aluminium (aprox 659deg C 1218deg F) and I have know that to then ignite from contact with diesel vapours.

another problem...

the tower block is far higher than can be reached with the hose ladders.

Lord Foul wrote:they may not have an aversion to fire supression quill, but they have an aversion to spending money. they would sooner put a plastic coating on and "beautify" the thing than spend a relatively few pounds on fitting sprinkler systems.

bear in mind these are not "council owned" but privately owned via management companies every penny not spent on safety is a penny more nto te pockets of teh shareholders and management.
whatever else, Corbyn is bang on the money with his comments on this...

those responsible for te penny pinching, no matter how involved should be burned at the stake over this.

Still, there should be city and county codes, and inspections before release of the property unto the public. Same with renovations. It's not up to the developers. They are policed (in this country) by inspectors and by really strict codes.

Fire sprinklers are basic, basic...particularly in towers, where there is limited ability to evacuate. Anything less, is considered third-world. Heads should roll on this one.

And if they dig and find inferior materials, or cost-cutting, it's jail-time, baby! You just are not supposed to hive this in one of the greatest cities in the world.

This could have been started deliberately.

There was a rumour flying around Facebook last night where a man had posted that he "knew without doubt" that there had been talks of ISIS' next move was to knock on people's doors and assisinate them on their doorsteps and starting fires through letterboxes....  

Now the post has gone. Most probably just a weird coincidence. Loads of my friends saw it too.

I'd say it's most likely a technical fault.

you would think so wouldnt you...but quill, you are talking money here, and money people

It will be neatly whitewashed and no one will be held directly accountable, the buck will pass round like an endless game of musical chairs

New sprinkler system £6million per block.
The lical council sitting on a warchest of £150 million. Do the math.

eddie wrote:I think you're bringing up some very pertinent points, Quill. I think everyone seems to be surprised that this building was so fully engulfed - and quickly too - this is an affluent area, postcode-wise.

I'm wondering why it didn't collapse like the twin towers did. Is it made from sturdier stuff?

I don't think it's an affluent area, despite the post code.

It's just awful - how can it have just gone up in flames like that?

Lord Foul wrote:they may not have an aversion to fire supression quill, but they have an aversion to spending money. they would sooner put a plastic coating on and "beautify" the thing than spend a relatively few pounds on fitting sprinkler systems.

bear in mind these are not "council owned" but privately owned via management companies every penny not spent on safety is a penny more nto te pockets of teh shareholders and management.
whatever else, Corbyn is bang on the money with his comments on this...

those responsible for te penny pinching, no matter how involved should be burned at the stake over this.

How many Flats and houses have sprinkler systems and how much does it cost to maintain them?
Then ask yourself of the cost of accidents with these system to such apartments with water damage.
Sorry but where people go off in hindsight to such a tragic accident like this shows again how people look to point the finger of blame. When to me we should never have high rise residential buildings in the first place due to their fire risk, just as we see today is what is wrong. When you crowd people into high rise buildings, psychologically lead as to higher levels of crime and why many were pulled down from when were built in the 1960's and 1970's. Its a known fact that when people are crammed into small living areas, that crime levels increase. People are looking at this all wrong with sprinklers, when the reality is no such residential high rise buildings should exist.

This is about weighing up the pros and cons here, but if the view is to install sprinklers then is an irrelevant measure unless its made by law that all homes have this installed, which means added costs for all home owners to maintain and added insurance costs to accident water damage. If you knock one by accident, your property is basically fucked.

Thorin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:they may not have an aversion to fire supression quill, but they have an aversion to spending money. they would sooner put a plastic coating on and "beautify" the thing than spend a relatively few pounds on fitting sprinkler systems.

bear in mind these are not "council owned" but privately owned via management companies every penny not spent on safety is a penny more nto te pockets of teh shareholders and management.
whatever else, Corbyn is bang on the money with his comments on this...

those responsible for te penny pinching, no matter how involved should be burned at the stake over this.

How many Flats and houses have sprinkler systems and how much does it cost to maintain them?
Then ask yourself of the cost of accidents with these system to such apartments with water damage.
Sorry but where people go off in hindsight to such a tragic accident like this shows again how people look to point the finger of blame. When to me we should never have high rise residential buildings in the first place due to their fire risk, just as we see today is what is wrong. When you crowd people into high rise buildings, psychologically lead as to higher levels of crime and why many were pulled down from when were built in the 1960's and 1970's. Its a known fact that when people are crammed into small living areas, that crime levels increase. People are looking at this all wrong with sprinklers, when the reality is no such residential high rise buildings should exist.

This is about weighing up the pros and cons here, but if the view is to install sprinklers then is an irrelevant measure unless its made by law that all homes have this installed, which means added costs for all home owners to maintain and added insurance costs to accident water damage. If you knock one by accident, your property is basically fucked.

If you live in a house or bungalow, and there's a fire, the chances are that you can get out in time - if you have a smoke alarm. In high-rise flats there's less chance of that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How many Flats and houses have sprinkler systems and how much does it cost to maintain them?
Then ask yourself of the cost of accidents with these system to such apartments with water damage.
Sorry but where people go off in hindsight to such a tragic accident like this shows again how people look to point the finger of blame. When to me we should never have high rise residential buildings in the first place due to their fire risk, just as we see today is what is wrong. When you crowd people into high rise buildings, psychologically lead as to higher levels of crime and why many were pulled down from when were built in the 1960's and 1970's. Its a known fact that when people are crammed into small living areas, that crime levels increase. People are looking at this all wrong with sprinklers, when the reality is no such residential high rise buildings should exist.

This is about weighing up the pros and cons here, but if the view is to install sprinklers then is an irrelevant measure unless its made by law that all homes have this installed, which means added costs for all home owners to maintain and added insurance costs to accident water damage. If you knock one by accident, your property is basically fucked.

If you live in a house or bungalow, and there's a fire, the chances are that you can get out in time - if you have a smoke alarm. In high-rise flats there's less chance of that.

Hence my point on being against high rise residential buildings and not just on fire safety, but on the increased risk levels of crime.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If you live in a house or bungalow, and there's a fire, the chances are that you can get out in time - if you have a smoke alarm. In high-rise flats there's less chance of that.

Hence my point on being against high rise residential buildings and not just on fire safety, but on the increased risk levels of crime.

My point was that not all homes would need a sprinkler system, as you suggested.

Lord Foul wrote:you would think so wouldnt you...but quill, you are talking money here, and money people

It will be neatly whitewashed and no one will be held directly accountable, the buck will pass round like an endless game of musical chairs

This is the issue, when politicians are speaking about eliminating regulations.  Trump is on an anti-regulation kick right now.  In an interesting conversation I had with Prof. George Lakoff a few weeks ago, he made an interesting point.  Language is framing, he said, when someone says let's eliminate 'regulations' substitute the term 'public protections'.  See how many people will say, public protections are too costly and unnecessary!

I know it's white collar crime, and jail sentences are infrequent.  But it takes something like this to see what's at stake.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Hence my point on being against high rise residential buildings and not just on fire safety, but on the increased risk levels of crime.

My point was that not all homes would need a sprinkler system, as you suggested.

Well they would being that would save lives with anything on two floors, where even bungalows have loft conversions. If they fires has started down stairs and they are trapped up stairs a sprinkler system is going to save lives. There is many calls to have such systems fitted. People still die in house fires, even with smoke alarms.