http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4659106/181-tower-blocks-51-areas-fail-cladding-tests.html.

On 7/2/2017 12:13 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4659106/181-tower-blocks-51-areas-fail-cladding-tests.html.


Never should have been used. Never should have been made with flammable
material. The Brits were dumb to allow it when others do not.

I wonder though, can it be removed and later replaced instead of
evacuating everyone?

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 14:38:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2017 12:13 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4659106/181-tower-blocks-51-areas-fail-cladding-tests.html.


Never should have been used. Never should have been made with flammable
material. The Brits were dumb to allow it when others do not.

I wonder though, can it be removed and later replaced instead of
evacuating everyone?
British LAW only allows it on buildings under 18 meters, IIRC (still
foolishness, but - - - ) and yes, it should be possible to strip it
off of every affected building, limitting how long people need to be
displaced - but mabee there are also other deficiencies that need to
be fixed before the towers are safe to live in - like mabee installing
fire and smoke alarms? Or mabee even sprinkler systems?? Kinda hard to
make the IMPORTANT upgrade though - a second staircase for evacuation
purposes.

I really cannot see how they were allowed to be built that way in the
first place - That cannot have been a simple lack of oversight like
letting the wrong version of a cladding material to be retrofitted (or
allowing a flammable material to be mislabelled as the non-flammable
version, if that is what happened)

On 7/2/2017 7:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 14:38:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2017 12:13 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4659106/181-tower-blocks-51-areas-fail-cladding-tests.html.


Never should have been used. Never should have been made with flammable
material. The Brits were dumb to allow it when others do not.

I wonder though, can it be removed and later replaced instead of
evacuating everyone?
British LAW only allows it on buildings under 18 meters, IIRC (still
foolishness, but - - - ) and yes, it should be possible to strip it
off of every affected building, limiting how long people need to be
displaced - but maybe there are also other deficiencies that need to
be fixed before the towers are safe to live in - like maybe installing
fire and smoke alarms? Or maybe even sprinkler systems?? Kinda hard to
make the IMPORTANT upgrade though - a second staircase for evacuation
purposes.

I really cannot see how they were allowed to be built that way in the
first place - That cannot have been a simple lack of oversight like
letting the wrong version of a cladding material to be retrofitted (or
allowing a flammable material to be mislabelled as the non-flammable
version, if that is what happened)



I hear people bitching all the time about codes, testing, inspections,
and such, but with proper codes in place this would not happen. Most of
the blame has to go to the agency that writes the codes there.

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 9:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I hear people bitching all the time about codes, testing, inspections,
and such, but with proper codes in place this would not happen. Most of
the blame has to go to the agency that writes the codes there.

Code is the worst you are allowed to build to.

You can do better if you want, just not worse.

On 7/3/2017 8:32 AM, TimR wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 9:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I hear people bitching all the time about codes, testing, inspections,
and such, but with proper codes in place this would not happen. Most of
the blame has to go to the agency that writes the codes there.

Code is the worst you are allowed to build to.

You can do better if you want, just not worse.



Yes, but better = more money so the cheap *******s go with the worst
allowed. IMO, a lot of people should go to jail over this.

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 7:55:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 14:38:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2017 12:13 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4659106/181-tower-blocks-51-areas-fail-cladding-tests.html.


Never should have been used. Never should have been made with flammable
material. The Brits were dumb to allow it when others do not.

I wonder though, can it be removed and later replaced instead of
evacuating everyone?
British LAW only allows it on buildings under 18 meters,



You've claimed that before, I asked for a cite, nothing was forthcoming.
Articles posted here about the tragedy said exactly the opposite,
that code did not bar it and that the manufacturer sold it for use
on any height building in the UK.

"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
news
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4659106/181-tower-blocks-51-areas-fail-cladding-tests.html.

Area 51 !!!

Aliens are to blame.

On 7/3/17 8:39 PM, catalpa wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
news
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4659106/181-tower-blocks-51-areas-fail-cladding-tests.html.

Area 51 !!!

Aliens are to blame.

I wonder what Art Bell is doing nowadays.