En el artículo . com,
dennis@home escribió:

Do stop trying to hide the real issue.

You really are thick as pig ****, dennis. Here it is in words of less
than one syllable for you, since you seem rather hard of thinking:

1. The core was designed to allow escape from one or two individual
flats if those were on fire. It was not designed for a mass evacuation.

2. The building was originally designed to contain a fire within a flat
for up to 30 minutes or an hour, depending which spec you read.

3. The residents were told to stay put if the fire was not in their
flat. Here's a picture for you, since you appear to have reading
comprehension issues:

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3f...mage/2017/06/1
4/09/stay-put.jpg

4. The cladding, fitted after the building was constructed, started
simultaneous fires in multiple flats, meaning mutiple tenants needed to
escape, which meant the escape stairwell and smoke ventilation system
were not able to cope.

5. Had the cladding been fire-retardant as per the original spec, the
disaster would not have occurred. Why do you think councils and housing
associations all over the country are right this minute ripping off non-
fire-retardant cladding?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West