Massive fire in London

Behind Enemy Lines said:
Reminds me of WTC7; Larry Silverstein bought the lease for it in June 2001 for $3.2bn, couple of months later the 9/11 attacks occur and WTC7 catches fire and is hit by falling debris from the other two towers, causing this to happen:

Logon or register to see this image


Insurance pay out to the new owner was $4.5bn, he wanted $7bn but lost a court case. Silverstein was supposed to be in a meeting on one of the top floors of WTC1 on 9/11 but his wife made him go to a medical appointment instead. Lucky bloke.
Click to expand...

Yeah lucky, sure!
 


sketchy said:
Cheers mate. I am a labour voter but would like to know on who's watch it was on as it sounds moronic to me
Click to expand...

I am too, but they have both cut the fire service to ribbons ! and stolen our pensions !
there was no way ffs should have had to repeatedly go min that building, they will have been totally goosed after 1 wear ! how we haven't lost tens and tens of ffs is a freak of nature
 
Jardin said:
For those wondering about cladding, my view is as follows:

The tender was submitted to government with different cost options for each section. Governement, under cost pressures, opted for the cheapest of each option. Nowhere in the tender was it highlighted that the cheapest type was less fire-proof or that it could only be fitted to a certain height. Once the tender was returned, no-one deigned to mention that cladding couldn't be used over 12m in height or that it was more of a fire risk than the alternatives. So, unless the council clarified and then ignored that info by other means, the cladding being illegal is Rydon at fault.

Regarding the government, labour from 1999 were warned about cladding being a fire risk and ignored it. That was then ignored along with unreported issues from 2009 fire (report not completed) by the coalition. The conservatives and particularly Gavin Barwell then sat on a report from 2013 until present day regarding sprinklers in high rises, despite direct prompts from fire safety groups. All 3 governments should be held to account for that.

The local council seem quite lucky as they can currently only be held responsible alongside the conservatives for the appalling response to the disaster (apologised for by TM but no sign of anything but contempt and stupidity from Piggott- brown).
Click to expand...

do you know this is as a fact or are you reading your interpretations of it. I would have thought that when going out to tender, a complex requirement would have been stipulated. It would also be expected that all aspects of the tender would comply with aspects of building regs. It would also have to comply and ensure that no aspects are including of what is known or suspected to be dangerous. the tender should have been inspected by planners to ensure it is safe. If any changes are made after the tender agreed, then surely these changes have to be notified in writing and the planners consent given in writing.
 
soapster said:
do you know this is as a fact or are you reading your interpretations of it. I would have thought that when going out to tender, a complex requirement would have been stipulated. It would also be expected that all aspects of the tender would comply with aspects of building regs. It would also have to comply and ensure that no aspects are including of what is known or suspected to be dangerous. the tender should have been inspected by planners to ensure it is safe. If any changes are made after the tender agreed, then surely these changes have to be notified in writing and the planners consent given in writing.
Click to expand...

Just my view of the facts released on it so far. No-one is going to deliberately choose a fire-risk to shave a pound or two off each panel imo.
 
Behind Enemy Lines said:
Reminds me of WTC7; Larry Silverstein bought the lease for it in June 2001 for $3.2bn, couple of months later the 9/11 attacks occur and WTC7 catches fire and is hit by falling debris from the other two towers, causing this to happen:

Logon or register to see this image


Insurance pay out to the new owner was $4.5bn, he wanted $7bn but lost a court case. Silverstein was supposed to be in a meeting on one of the top floors of WTC1 on 9/11 but his wife made him go to a medical appointment instead. Lucky bloke.
Click to expand...
Here's another top tit. Guess who liked it
 

Back
Top