On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 13:05:40 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 6/25/2017 10:15 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 6/25/17 9:39 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
The cause was a simple fire that should have been easy to contain and
stop. We often complain about regulations, but they would have saved
lives here. Looks like most of the world does not allow flammable
material, but the Brits allow it.

I also find it unconscionable for Alcoa to make a product that is
known to burn and is not approved in much of the wold. Hey, it
cheaper and the Brits will buy it. A bunch of people should end up in
jail from this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/w...ndon-fire.html


Two major problems in addition, either of which would have made a huge
difference. There was only one stairwell so people couldn't get out. The
other is because of one stairwell, the emergency plan was that people
should shelter in place. Since the burning was outside on the cladding,
it should have given people plenty of time to get out before breaking
through and entering the building.

When I first heard it on the new I figured it was a very old building
never brought up to code. I was amazed at the age and lack of
sprinklers and alarms.
The windows were not designed to be firestops, as the original
exterior was just plain, ugly, non-flammible concrete. Fire was never
SUPPOSED to come racing up the outside of a "fireproof" concrete
structure.

That said, I don't know of anywhere else in the "civilized world"
where a building like that could be occupied with only one staircase
and no central fire alartm or smoke alarm sytem - even if it didn't
have sprinklers.