Massive West London Apartment fire

by Original Quill Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:23 am

First topic message reminder :

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

Massive West London Apartment fire - Page 2 Am980-85-walnut-google-maps

(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.

Massive West London Apartment fire - Page 2 Screen%20shot%202017-06-13%20at%2073745%20pm

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.

by Victorismyhero Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:08 pm

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.

Massive West London Apartment fire - Page 2 3359862487

granted we agree on high rise blocks...BUT

there is a world of difference between high rise blocks and domestic houses
Given that we HAVE high rise blocks then sprinklers SHOULD be fitted and bugger the cost....how much is a life worth?

there is NO urgent need for domestic houses and bungalows to have sprinklers fitted, since with a properly fitted fire alarm you have plenty of time to get out...and, if push comes to shove you CAN safely exit even the first floor, Also unlike this paticular block MOST (if not all ) houses have two escape routes (via fron and back door.)

yes it can happen folks get trapped, usually by criminal intent....accelerant through the letter box being the classic....or by inadvertant obstuction of an escape route...BUT nothing on this level...

there is NOTHING to say that enforcing the installation of sprinklers into high rise blocks IN ANY WAY imposes such a requirement on ordinary houses and flats.

oh and btw......you need to revise on sprinkler systems, if you think MODERN ones would necessarily be triggerd by "knocking" them....they dont ALL rely on the fragile bulb anymore...that the cheapskate ones.....many now are linked to electronic thermal detectors, and only trigger in the immediate area of a fire

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:08 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

They have a much better chance of getting out than someone in a high-rise flat though.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

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.

They have a much better chance of getting out than someone in a high-rise flat though.

Where did i deny that and even argued again against high rise buildings?

Again you would be hard pressed to find many situations where people have died where there is a sprinkler system fitted. It would be a very rare occurrence. However even with smoke detectors people are in some cases unable to walk properly, or even walk at all for example. So how is a smoke detector going to save them? A sprinkler system would

by Victorismyhero Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:12 pm

climb out of yout first floor window, hang from the window sill and get someone to measure how far your feet are from the floor... no more than 12 feet....

FFS let go and bend your knees.....

ok if you are elderly or infirm then that may be a problem....but IN THE MAIN..........................

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:14 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They have a much better chance of getting out than someone in a high-rise flat though.

Where did i deny that and even argued again against high rise buildings?

Again you would be hard pressed to find many situations where people have died where there is a sprinkler system fitted. It would be a very rare occurrence. However even with smoke detectors people are in some cases unable to walk properly, or even walk at all for example. So how is a smoke detector going to save them? A sprinkler system would

You appear to be implying that the risk is the same, whether someone is in a house or a high-rise flat.

A smoke detector detects smoke at an early stage - obviously.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:14 pm

Lord Foul wrote:climb out of yout first floor window, hang from the window sill and get someone to measure how far your feet are from the floor... no more than 12 feet....

FFS let go and bend your knees.....

ok if you are elderly or infirm then that may be a problem....but IN THE MAIN..........................

And how do you train or encourage a child to do that, when they will always panic?
How do you equate for the panic also in humans, even as adults, when they will have a natural aversion to jumping such a height? Its blooming easy to say when not faced with such a situation or taking into account how people will and do panic

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Where did i deny that and even argued again against high rise buildings?

Again you would be hard pressed to find many situations where people have died where there is a sprinkler system fitted. It would be a very rare occurrence. However even with smoke detectors people are in some cases unable to walk properly, or even walk at all for example. So how is a smoke detector going to save them? A sprinkler system would

You appear to be implying that the risk is the same, whether someone is in a house or a high-rise flat.

A smoke detector detects smoke at an early stage - obviously.

Where did I say the risk was the same?

What I said was the risk of deaths is greatly diminished by sprinklers

And do you know how quickly fires spread?

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:22 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You appear to be implying that the risk is the same, whether someone is in a house or a high-rise flat.

A smoke detector detects smoke at an early stage - obviously.

Where did I say the risk was the same?

What I said was the risk of deaths is greatly diminished by sprinklers

And do you know how quickly fires spread?

So now you're in favour of sprinklers. Make up your mind. Laughing

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Where did I say the risk was the same?

What I said was the risk of deaths is greatly diminished by sprinklers

And do you know how quickly fires spread?

So now you're in favour of sprinklers. Make up your mind.

Am I?

I am undecided actually, hence my first post

My view is though, they would save more lives, but this is also about also costs for people

by Victorismyhero Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:38 pm

Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:climb out of yout first floor window, hang from the window sill and get someone to measure how far your feet are from the floor... no more than 12 feet....

FFS let go and bend your knees.....

ok if you are elderly or infirm then that may be a problem....but IN THE MAIN..........................

And how do you train or encourage a child to do that, when they will always panic?
How do you equate for the panic also in humans, even as adults, when they will have a natural aversion to jumping such a height? Its blooming easy to say when not faced with such a situation or taking into account how people will and do panic

perhaps we would do better training folks NOT to panic

panic comes from fear...fear is the mind killer....bloody ell 14 ft is nowt...

I'm not saying fire fighting stuff shouldnt be in homes...

my study, wherin there is an almighty concentration of electronics, computers, ham radio gear and more wall warts than maplins have is fully protected, having a detetctor which sniffs for carbon monoxide and the combustion products of most common plastics, and a heat sensor that looks for a) a sudden temperature increase and b) an absolute temperature increase over 100 deg c at around 50 different points all conneted to an arduino that a sounds an alarm that MUST be responded to or it triggers
after 90 seconds cutting all power to that room, and discharging 4 x 5kg co2 extinguishers bearing in mind that when not occupied the door is always closed you may be certain the fire is out....smothered, since the total of 20kg of co2 at room pressure is more than 10 times the rooms volume....

for safety when the door is open the system is inactive...... now...how much do you think that cost????

oh and if it is triggerd....the arduino also sends me a text to say so...

Now thats a HIGH risk room to be fair, with a lot of valuable stuff so ...

the other high risk room is the kitchen of course....

BUT there are extinguishers handy in the coridor to it, and just inside the door,. there are foam extinguishers in the other coridor, a foam extinguisher within reach of the cooker and dry powder extinguishers scatterd all over (about 8 of em at last count) and the kitchen is "low fire promoting, being ceramic tiled walls and floor, hard wood (which is slow to ignite ) and inspected before i go to bed (yes, I'm paranoid)

obviously smoke alarms are fitted and we do, living in a bungalow, have the option of climbing out of the window, BUT I can assure you my FIRST priority would be to fight the fire, whilst the missus evacuated the dogs cats and birds. that of course is our choice...I'm not suggesting its for everyone.....

but the point remains.....the high rise blocks MUST be retrofitted with sprinklers untill such time as we can get away from these monstrosities
the risks are many many times greater than for a house etc.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:40 pm

I have read that the fire started at one of the lower levels of the block at around just before 1.00am... but within about 15 minutes had engulfed most of the building in flames because the newly fitted outside cladding was what was burning and was quickly spreading the fire throughout...

Who's idea was it to allow flammable cladding to be used to encase this building...!!!???

I was involved in a job last year on a tower block revamp doing a new install of lights and power in the communal areas... but on the outside was work fitting a load of cladding very much like what appears to have been fitted in op fire block...

And i have seen similar being fitted on many others too over last couple years...

Surely this stuff is properly fire protection rated...???

by Victorismyhero Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:43 pm

ah tommy ...ONLY the outside face of the material must be "class 0" rated....whats underneath doesnt have to be rated

now, given that the cladding was spaced 30mm or so away from the underlying insulation....you have a very nice chimny with, once a fire starts a damn fine draught up it

there is no requirement for fire breaks/fire check barriers or compartmentalising so its a cimney from top to bottom.....

by Victorismyhero Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:44 pm

as you will know tommy if you have ducting carrying cables that penetrate a floor or roof space you have to have fire chec barriers installed in said ducting to prevent that very effect occuring inside the building

by Victorismyhero Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:45 pm

absolute insanity

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:50 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:

And how do you train or encourage a child to do that, when they will always panic?
How do you equate for the panic also in humans, even as adults, when they will have a natural aversion to jumping such a height? Its blooming easy to say when not faced with such a situation or taking into account how people will and do panic
perhaps we would do better training folks NOT to panic

panic comes from fear...fear is the mind killer....bloody ell 14 ft is nowt...

I'm not saying fire fighting stuff shouldnt be in homes...

my study, wherin there is an almighty concentration of electronics, computers, ham radio gear and more wall warts than maplins have is fully protected, having a detetctor which sniffs for carbon monoxide and the combustion products of most common plastics, and a heat sensor that looks for a) a sudden temperature increase and b) an absolute temperature increase over 100 deg c at around 50 different points all conneted to an arduino that a sounds an alarm that MUST be responded to or it triggers
after 90 seconds cutting all power to that room, and discharging 4 x 5kg co2 extinguishers bearing in mind that when not occupied the door is always closed you may be certain the fire is out....smothered, since the total of 20kg of co2 at room pressure is more than 10 times the rooms volume....

for safety when the door is open the system is inactive...... now...how much do you think that cost????

oh and if it is triggerd....the arduino also sends me a text to say so...

Now thats a HIGH risk room to be fair, with a lot of valuable stuff so ...

the other high risk room is the kitchen of course....

BUT there are extinguishers handy in the coridor to it, and just inside the door,. there are foam extinguishers in the other coridor, a foam extinguisher within reach of the cooker and dry powder extinguishers scatterd all over (about 8 of em at last count) and the kitchen is "low fire promoting, being ceramic tiled walls and floor, hard wood (which is slow to ignite ) and inspected before i go to bed (yes, I'm paranoid)

obviously smoke alarms are fitted and we do, living in a bungalow, have the option of climbing out of the window, BUT I can assure you my FIRST priority would be to fight the fire, whilst the missus evacuated the dogs cats and birds. that of course is our choice...I'm not suggesting its for everyone.....

but the point remains.....the high rise blocks MUST be retrofitted with sprinklers untill such time as we can get away from these monstrosities
the risks are many many times greater than for a house etc.

And how do you train people not to be succumbed to fear?

I mean 3 men with knives had hundreds of people running rightly for their lives did they not?

A fire induces fear, so to say to not be in fear shows you have never even faced such a fear. Have you not seen how all animals react to fires? What does that tell you?

I mean every army in the world tries to prepare soldiers for combat and to face their fears, but when it happens and many soldiers who have faced this will tell you they feared for their lives. Its a natural bodily reaction adrenaline, called fight or flight and its something you cannot control. For you to even suggest that you can, shows you know very little about the effects of adrenaline. Nobody can predict or be trained how they will react in any such given situation. Sometimes you find it can be those with the least most common sense who act best in a crisis. I have seriously seen this happen and be very surprised.

Interesting what you have fitted, but you are intelligent and understand engineering, when many people would not even have the most basic understanding that you do on this. Which is one of your faults mate, that you hold people to the same standard of yourself. You cannot hold people to what you want them to be, when they may not have the ability to do so.

I have no argument against your last point highlighted, but the there is still as many risks with houses, so if you legislate for one, you have to do with all houses, if the bases and methodology is on saving lives

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:01 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You appear to be implying that the risk is the same, whether someone is in a house or a high-rise flat.

A smoke detector detects smoke at an early stage - obviously.

Where did I say the risk was the same?

What I said was the risk of deaths is greatly diminished by sprinklers

And do you know how quickly fires spread?

Well now you've said it.

I have no argument against your last point highlighted, but the there is still as many risks with houses, so if you legislate for one, you have to do with all houses, if the bases and methodology is on saving lives

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:01 pm

It's absolutely obvious that it's going to be easier to get out of a house than a flat which is at the top of a high-rise building. I don't know why anyone would argue against that.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Where did I say the risk was the same?

What I said was the risk of deaths is greatly diminished by sprinklers

And do you know how quickly fires spread?

Well now you've said it.

I have no argument against your last point highlighted, but the there is still as many risks with houses, so if you legislate for one, you have to do with all houses, if the bases and methodology is on saving lives

Well is anything I have said wrong?

Would more lives be saved by sprinklers?

Seriously are you trying to attempt to catch me out here or actually take on my points Rags?

As the above backs what i have already said

by Victorismyhero Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:04 pm

Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:

And how do you train or encourage a child to do that, when they will always panic?
How do you equate for the panic also in humans, even as adults, when they will have a natural aversion to jumping such a height? Its blooming easy to say when not faced with such a situation or taking into account how people will and do panic
perhaps we would do better training folks NOT to panic

panic comes from fear...fear is the mind killer....bloody ell 14 ft is nowt...

I'm not saying fire fighting stuff shouldnt be in homes...

my study, wherin there is an almighty concentration of electronics, computers, ham radio gear and more wall warts than maplins have is fully protected, having a detetctor which sniffs for carbon monoxide and the combustion products of most common plastics, and a heat sensor that looks for a) a sudden temperature increase and b) an absolute temperature increase over 100 deg c at around 50 different points all conneted to an arduino that a sounds an alarm that MUST be responded to or it triggers
after 90 seconds cutting all power to that room, and discharging 4 x 5kg co2 extinguishers bearing in mind that when not occupied the door is always closed you may be certain the fire is out....smothered, since the total of 20kg of co2 at room pressure is more than 10 times the rooms volume....

for safety when the door is open the system is inactive...... now...how much do you think that cost????

oh and if it is triggerd....the arduino also sends me a text to say so...

Now thats a HIGH risk room to be fair, with a lot of valuable stuff so ...

the other high risk room is the kitchen of course....

BUT there are extinguishers handy in the coridor to it, and just inside the door,. there are foam extinguishers in the other coridor, a foam extinguisher within reach of the cooker and dry powder extinguishers scatterd all over (about 8 of em at last count) and the kitchen is "low fire promoting, being ceramic tiled walls and floor, hard wood (which is slow to ignite ) and inspected before i go to bed (yes, I'm paranoid)

obviously smoke alarms are fitted and we do, living in a bungalow, have the option of climbing out of the window, BUT I can assure you my FIRST priority would be to fight the fire, whilst the missus evacuated the dogs cats and birds. that of course is our choice...I'm not suggesting its for everyone.....

but the point remains.....the high rise blocks MUST be retrofitted with sprinklers untill such time as we can get away from these monstrosities
the risks are many many times greater than for a house etc.

And how do you train people not to be succumbed to fear?

I mean 3 men with knives had hundreds of people running rightly for their lives did they not?

different scenario...fire generally follows rules....granted it may not play fair all the time, but it is, within a domestic scenario, fairly predictable...
3 loons with knives are not...and...of course not EVERYONE ran...one has to wonder what the outcome would have been if everyone around had swarmed them...all jumped on them at once....I seriously doubt the death and injury toll would have been any higher

A fire induces fear, so to say to not be in fear shows you have never even faced such a fear. Have you not seen how all animals react to fires? What does that tell you?

it tells me I am not an animal moreover (some) animals can be trained out of their fear of fire...
I may well be in fear...the man with no fear is a fool...but overcoming that fear and not being reduced to a gibbering wreck by it is another matter....which can be done with training and experience....I have faced fire, respect it like a wild beast and you can survive (most times).

I mean every army in the world tries to prepare soldiers for combat and to face their fears, but when it happens and many soldiers who have faced this will tell you they feared for their lives.

but they didnt give in to it...did they....

Its a natural bodily reaction adrenaline, called fight or flight and its something you cannot control. For you to even suggest that you can, shows you know very little about the effects of adrenaline

the last statement shows YOU know nothing of people...adrenaline or rather its fight or flight reaction CAN be "channeled" into FIGHT...by training (and not specific training to any given situation), which is whats required....the ability to act logically, given the info you have at the time.

infact the ability to make judgements and take calculated risks...

Interesting what you have fitted, but you are intelligent and understand engineering, when many people would not even have the most basic understanding that you do on this. Which is one of your faults mate, that you hold people to the same standard of yourself. You cannot hold people to what you want them to be, when they may not have the ability to do so.

I think you missed the point there ....the cost was not incredibly high for the materials....so systems like this COULD be made and marketed at a reasonable price if the will was there

I have no argument against your last point highlighted, but the there is still as many risks with houses, so if you legislate for one, you have to do with all houses, if the bases and methodology is on saving lives

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:It's absolutely obvious that it's going to be easier to get out of a house than a flat which is at the top of a high-rise building. I don't know why anyone would argue against that.

Who has denied that?

The point is would sprinklers save more lives if installed in houses?

The answer is emphatically yes.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:11 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
but they didnt give in to it...did they....

"channeled" into FIGHT...by training (and not specific training to any given situation), which is whats required....the ability to act logically, given the info you have at the time.

infact the ability to make judgements and take calculated risks..

I think you missed the point there ....the cost was not incredibly high for the materials....so systems like this COULD be made and marketed at a reasonable price if the will was there[/color]

Yes many did give in to this and turned tail, many others did not. The point is on flight or flight is about with soldiers. Is as they say by grabbing their balls and running forward. Being able to overcome that fear, which is very hard to do, when facing certain death in such a situation. You are yet again holding people to the same standard as you and again there is no way you can predict yourself how you would react.

Sorry, but no training in the world can prepare you for how the body will react to many situations and as seen this is eloquently proven by combat. Where people hard as nails and have turned tail and fled.

So if we go by calculated risks with combat, the result would be based on your reasoning to always a tactical retreat, as this would reduce the risk of dying. Not sure how many wars have been won that way mate? Its is near impossible to act logically, as people react on instinct. Some people like today, will look to save lives and others will walk the other way in such a situation. Adrenaline kicks in and either people become actively involved or move as far away as possible. There is no doubt that control is needed, but its very difficult to control, when that adrenaline has kicked in.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:15 pm

LF... it is common sense that if there is a fire in one flat, that the flames/heat would likely come out of a window and therefore ignite anything flammable directly outside of it...

Surely nobody decided that a flammable material is ok to put in the space between the external concrete and the outer layer of cladding...!?

That is just madness as it is obvious that any flat fire or outside light fault/fire could likely result in whole building going up in flames as has happened here in op event!!!

by Victorismyhero Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:21 pm

Well tommy that appears to be the case, sky news live was interviewing some sort of building contol expert and this is what he said has been done...

the outer face is and has to be class 0 whats underneath doesnt

ps are you a sparkie?

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:30 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It's absolutely obvious that it's going to be easier to get out of a house than a flat which is at the top of a high-rise building. I don't know why anyone would argue against that.

Who has denied that?

The point is would sprinklers save more lives if installed in houses?

The answer is emphatically yes.

You have.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Who has denied that?

The point is would sprinklers save more lives if installed in houses?

The answer is emphatically yes.

You have.

Really?

I do not that I have as explained.

So you have no point on the debate other than to try and catch me out and have failed.

Wow, is that it?

You have made me chuckle big time on that Rags

Show me where i denied anything over all my points?

Man are you looking for an argument Laughing

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:40 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Well tommy that appears to be the case, sky news live was interviewing some sort of building contol expert and this is what he said has been done...

the outer face is and has to be class 0 whats underneath doesnt

ps are you a sparkie?

As i said... completely stupid to allow flammable material between the concrete and outer layer...

Who is responsible for deciding that this is ok???

They should be up in court on serious charges!!!

And yes i suppose some would call me a sparkie... although i'm a bit more than that... Twisted Evil

by Victorismyhero Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:Well tommy that appears to be the case, sky news live was interviewing some sort of building contol expert and this is what he said has been done...

the outer face is and has to be class 0 whats underneath doesnt

ps are you a sparkie?

As i said... completely stupid to allow flammable material between the concrete and outer layer...

Who is responsible for deciding that this is ok???

They should be up in court on serious charges!!!

And yes i suppose some would call me a sparkie... although i'm a bit more than that...

that explains a lot then Tommy Razz

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:02 pm

Says the noggin boy...

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:03 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You have.

Really?

I do not that I have as explained.

So you have no point on the debate other than to try and catch me out and have failed.

Wow, is that it?

You have made me chuckle big time on that Rags

Show me where i denied anything over all my points?

Man are you looking for an argument

Not at all.

I made this point:

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

You insisted on arguing against it.

Then you said this:

I have no argument against your last point highlighted, but the there is still as many risks with houses, so if you legislate for one, you have to do with all houses, if the bases and methodology is on saving lives

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:07 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Really?

I do not that I have as explained.

So you have no point on the debate other than to try and catch me out and have failed.

Wow, is that it?

You have made me chuckle big time on that Rags

Show me where i denied anything over all my points?

Man are you looking for an argument

Not at all.

I made this point:

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

You insisted on arguing against it.

I said quite clearly that if all home had such a system, more lives would be saved

Is that false or true rags?

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:08 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Not at all.

I made this point:

You insisted on arguing against it.

I said quite clearly that if all home had such a system, more lives would be saved

Is that false or true rags?

But not as many lives as it would save in a high rise building. That is what you appear to be arguing against. It's quite obvious that it's harder to get out of a top floor flat 20 storeys up than it is to get out of a bungalow or a house.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:10 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I said quite clearly that if all home had such a system, more lives would be saved

Is that false or true rags?

But not as many lives as it would save in a high rise building. That is what you appear to be arguing against. It's quite obvious that it's harder to get out of a top floor flat 20 storeys up than it is to get out of a bungalow or a house.

Really?

First of all you would need to show how many die from house fires compared to High rise buildings

Second, even without that, my point still holds true

With a sprinkler system, more lives would be saved no matter whether a house or not

Prove me wrong on this?

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:12 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

But not as many lives as it would save in a high rise building. That is what you appear to be arguing against. It's quite obvious that it's harder to get out of a top floor flat 20 storeys up than it is to get out of a bungalow or a house.

Really?

First of all you would need to show how many die from house fires compared to High rise buildings

Second, even without that, my point still holds true

With a sprinkler system, more lives would be saved no matter whether a house or not

Prove me wrong on this?

No, I wouldn't need to show that. It's completely obvious that someone on the top floor of a high building which is on fire is less likely to get out that someone who is not on the top floor of a high building.

I'm not arguing against sprinker systems - you were, and then you changed your mind.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Really?

First of all you would need to show how many die from house fires compared to High rise buildings

Second, even without that, my point still holds true

With a sprinkler system, more lives would be saved no matter whether a house or not

Prove me wrong on this?

No, I wouldn't need to show that. It's completely obvious that someone on the top floor of a high building which is on fire is less likely to get out that someone who is not on the top floor of a high building.

I'm not arguing against sprinker systems - you were, and then you changed your mind.

Of course you would as you are making the claims

Its well know that its very rare for people to die where there is a sprinkler system

So its evident that in any household it would save more lives

I have already stated my position is neutral here as the jury is out on what i will in the end decide.

Anything else, or has your need to start an argument failed?

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:17 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I wouldn't need to show that. It's completely obvious that someone on the top floor of a high building which is on fire is less likely to get out that someone who is not on the top floor of a high building.

I'm not arguing against sprinker systems - you were, and then you changed your mind.

Of course you would as you are making the claims

Its well know that its very rare for people to die where there is a sprinkler system

So its evident that in any household it would save more lives

I have already stated my position is neutral here as the jury is out on what i will in the end decide.

Anything else, or has your need to start an argument failed?

As I said, it's completely obvious. You are arguing about nothing.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Of course you would as you are making the claims

Its well know that its very rare for people to die where there is a sprinkler system

So its evident that in any household it would save more lives

I have already stated my position is neutral here as the jury is out on what i will in the end decide.

Anything else, or has your need to start an argument failed?

As I said, it's completely obvious. You are arguing about nothing.

Is that why you cannot back your point?

You jumped in and looked very silly here rags and it seems you did to try and prove me wrong

Now that i find very silly, when you debate normally very well.

Its not a competition Rags

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:20 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

As I said, it's completely obvious. You are arguing about nothing.

Is that why you cannot back your point?

You jumped in and looked very silly here rags and it seems you did to try and prove me wrong

Now that i find very silly, when you debate normally very well.

Its not a competition Rags

I don't need to back it up - it's completely obvious. You know it too, but you just want to argue. You've already changed your stance once or twice in order to argue.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:23 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Is that why you cannot back your point?

You jumped in and looked very silly here rags and it seems you did to try and prove me wrong

Now that i find very silly, when you debate normally very well.

Its not a competition Rags

I don't need to back it up - it's completely obvious. You know it too, but you just want to argue. You've already changed your stance once or twice in order to argue.

So you are just repeating your same flawed claim

Try again

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:23 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't need to back it up - it's completely obvious. You know it too, but you just want to argue. You've already changed your stance once or twice in order to argue.

So you are just repeating your same flawed claim

Try again

It's not flawed - it's obvious, and you know it.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So you are just repeating your same flawed claim

Try again

It's not flawed - it's obvious, and you know it.

is that why you cannot back your claim?

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:29 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not flawed - it's obvious, and you know it.

is that why you can back your claim?

Are you seriously suggesting that someone on the top floor of a very high building stands the same chance of getting out as someone who lives in a house with a couple of exits and who could climb out of an upstairs window?

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

is that why you can back your claim?

Are you seriously suggesting that someone on the top floor of a very high building stands the same chance of getting out as someone who lives in a house with a couple of exits and who could climb out of an upstairs window?

Where did i suggest that?

Would they stand the same chance as surviving whether in a house or high rise with sprinklers?

The answer would be yes

Now do you see why you made a flawed argument rags?

Opps

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:39 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that someone on the top floor of a very high building stands the same chance of getting out as someone who lives in a house with a couple of exits and who could climb out of an upstairs window?

Where did i suggest that?

Would they stand the same chance as surviving whether in a house or high rise with sprinklers?

The answer would be yes

Now do you see why you made a flawed argument rags?

Opps

I don't agree. Clearly, a person at the top of a high rise building which is on fire stands less chance.

by eddie Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:41 pm

Anyone seen this?? Worth a watch!

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Where did i suggest that?

Would they stand the same chance as surviving whether in a house or high rise with sprinklers?

The answer would be yes

Now do you see why you made a flawed argument rags?

Opps

I don't agree. Clearly, a person at the top of a high rise building which is on fire stands less chance.

I am not asking you to agree, I am asking you to show me and prove how you think i am wrong.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:43 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't agree. Clearly, a person at the top of a high rise building which is on fire stands less chance.

I am not asking you to agree, I am asking you to show me and prove how you think i am wrong.

I told you - it's obvious. Is is more difficult to escape from a very high building than from a low building? Of course it is.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I am not asking you to agree, I am asking you to show me and prove how you think i am wrong.

I told you - it's obvious. Is is more difficult to escape from a very high building than from a low building? Of course it is.

"So can you tell me how you know?" Says the Judge

"its obvious" Says Rags

Judge sighs

by Original Quill Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:21 pm

eddie wrote:Anyone seen this?? Worth a watch!

Language?

Fuck!! How many people are dead? Some people...where do they get their priorities? Mad

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Anyone seen this?? Worth a watch!

Language?

Fuck!! How many people are dead? Some people...where do they get their priorities?

Sadly some people need something to focus their blame on Quill

Its starts where people cannot equate something as tragic as this can happen.

Its then when conspiracies form out of this.

Sadly where we would never discount any possibility of the cause. Those who form such conspiracies live off them and thrive in order to promote their own views on the world. All tragic acts are seen as an evil force. To who has done this. Its a religiousidiocy mindset in action again.

by Original Quill Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:53 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Language?

Fuck!! How many people are dead? Some people...where do they get their priorities?

Sadly some people need something to focus their blame on Quill

Its starts where people cannot equate something as tragic as this can happen.

Its then when conspiracies form out of this.

Sadly where we would never discount any possibility of the cause. Those who form such conspiracies live off them and thrive in order to promote their own views on the world. All tragic acts are seen as an evil force. To who has done this. Its a religiousidiocy mindset in action again.

Conspiracy theories? I believe he's posing an hypothesis. And apparently he has some facts to bear him out. He should be heard.

I don't think you can sweep this catastrophe under the rug of normalcy, didge. As I said earlier, this is third world stuff>> Fires like this don't happen in modern, post-industrial countries. People know better...authorities know better. As one expert said:

BBC wrote:Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, told the BBC’s Newsnight that people living in Grenfell Tower “have the right” to ask questions about whether alterations to the cladding compromised the safety of the building. “The starting point is there needs to be an absolutely thorough investigation,” he said. “The truth is this should not be happening in the UK, one of the wealthiest countries in the world.”

Can I get an Amen!?

So, we can bet that something under the table happened here. Listen to the young man. Listen to all who have something to say. Something happened here, and can't just shrug our shoulders and think it won't happen again.

by Sponsored content