Did UK Government Climate Mania Contribute to the Grenfell Tower Disaster?

Grenfell Tower
Grenfell Tower. By Natalie Oxford – https://twitter.com/Natalie_Oxford/status/874835244989513729/photo/1, CC BY 4.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The flammable building cladding which helped turn Grenfell Tower into a blazing torch which killed at least 58 people on the 14th June this year may have been chosen in part due to its climate credentials.

Grenfell Tower cladding that may have led to fire was chosen to improve appearance of Kensington block of flats

Material would help make the flats look better from outside, planners noted

Andrew Griffin @_andrew_griffin Thursday 15 June 2017 08:59 BST

The cladding that might have led to the horrifying blaze at Grenfell Tower was added partly to improve its appearance.

During a refurbishment aimed at regeneration last year, cladding was added to the sides of the building to update its look. The cladding then seems to have helped the fire spread around the building, allowing it to destroy almost the entirety of the structure and kill people inside.

And that cladding – a low-cost way of improving the front of the building – was chosen in part so that the tower would look better when seen from the conservation areas and luxury flats that surround north Kensington, according to planning documents, as well as to insulate it.

A number of conditions were attached to the 2014 decision to approve the plan – many of which related specifically to the material used in the cladding, so that the council could ensure the “living conditions of those living near the development” were “suitably protected”.

The council noted that the cladding would also improve insulation, helping keep sound and cold out from the building, and improve ventilation. An environmental statement said that the “primary driver behind the refurbishment” was to address the insulation and air tightness.

“The reclad materials and new windows will represent a significant improvement to the environmental performance of the building and to its physical appearance,” the planning application reads. “The design of the scheme as a whole has fully considered policy requirements, expectations and aspirations, fully taking into consideration the immediate and wider surroundings, particularly focussing on creating a wider environment that works as a coherent place,” another part of the same document says.

That planning application concludes with a statement that “the development will provide significant improvements to the physical appearance of the Tower, as well as the environmental performance and the amenity of its residents”.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-cladding-fire-cause-improve-kensington-block-flats-appearance-blaze-24-storey-west-a7789951.html

According to Wikipedia, the cladding used was a mixture of aluminium sheet and Aluminium coated Polyethylene. Polyethylene is a relatively good heat insulator – at least compared to Aluminium, which is a good heat conductor. Production of polyethylene is also much less carbon intensive than producing aluminium, so a sheet of cladding which contains Polyethylene is likely “greener” than a sheet of cladding made entirely of Aluminium.

But Polyethylene is highly flammable.

The type of cladding used on the Grenfell building is reportedly banned for use on tall structures in the USA, due to the fire risk.

I used to be involved with local government in the UK. During this time the council I was involved with was subject to relentless pressure from the UK national government to consider greenhouse gas emissions with every decision. Compliance was often rewarded with increased funding.

I am not suggesting that anyone deliberately sacrificed the safety of the Grenfell tower residents to earn a few points with national government. It is far more likely that whoever made the decision to use the flammable cladding had no idea the cladding presented a serious fire risk. But in my opinion it is possible that the Alumninium coated Polyethylene cladding was chosen in preference to pure Aluminium cladding, in part because the superior insulation properties of the Polyethylene and the more favourable carbon footprint of Polyethylene helped burnish the green credentials of the officers and politicians who made that decision.

Update (EW): Dr Jim Glockling, Technical Director of the Fire Protection Association, said the following in an interview about Grenfell;

“There has been an emerging body of evidence surrounding some of the materials being used and now we have an appalling demonstration of what can happen,” he said.

Alongside the cosmetic appeal of cladding, it is used as an insulation to make buildings more sustainable to meet green energy requirements.

It could be that this is the quest for sustainability trumping other concerns,” Dr Glockling warned.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-inferno-disaster-waiting-happen-concerns-raised/

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

419 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sasha
June 18, 2017 11:25 pm

Council penny pinching and accepting lowest bid for work blamed for Grenfell Tower blaze by former borough worker
Often fire alarms did not work and a new external fire escape was not installed because it would cost too much, says a former council worker. The woman, who worked as a property manager for Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council for 20 years said the deadly blaze could have been prevented if the council had spent money upgrading it. But Grenfell Tower, run by Tenant Management Organization for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council, was not modernized during the employee’s two decades working in the property area of the authority.
Fire alarms did not work and a new external fire escape was not installed because it would cost too much. New cladding fitted to the outside of the building last year caused the blaze to rip through the block because substandard and cheap materials were used in an effort to save cash. ‘They spent £1 million on cladding the outside of the building last year, and surveyors told the council not to use the cheapest possible materials, but they accepted the lowest possible bid. The surveyors weren’t happy about it, but every time we brought it up with management they said ‘we hear you, but we simply can’t spend the money on upgrading the building.’ It was built in the 1970s and the council did not want to spend the money needed to bring it up to date because it would have cost so much money and taken so much work. The materials they used for the cladding was a cheap mixture rather than the more solid concrete. The cladding created a gap between the wall which caused the fire to spread even quicker throughout the floors.’
The woman, who retired in 2010, said she blames council bosses. ‘Kensington and Chelsea Council are responsible and for years bids were being made and they were all being turned down. I’m disgusted with the council. They think more about money than human lives. All the years I worked there it was like that. Every year I went on inspections of the building and every year the same problems continued. There needed to be an external fire escape and the residents were pushing for it, but it never got done because the cost came in too high at around £30m for all the upgrades. The council thought it was too much money to spend on one building and chose not to do it.
‘Seeing what happened this morning, I just couldn’t believe it, they risked over 600 people’s lives to save money. I was absolutely gutted, it really upset me, I knew the building so well and got to know a lot of the families. But I wasn’t surprised, I could see it happening and all the surveyors knew it did not meet the standards. The fire brigade were also unhappy with giving it a fire certificate, but the council did not want to have to re-home all those people.
‘Why did not they have working alarms? There should have been sprinklers in the communal areas too. The Councillors are to blame too, they had the final approval on every project so they knew what was going on. But because they are poor people in north Kensington they don’t want to spend the money.

commieBob
Reply to  Sasha
June 19, 2017 12:01 am

But I wasn’t surprised, I could see it happening and all the surveyors knew it did not meet the standards. The fire brigade were also unhappy with giving it a fire certificate, but the council did not want to have to re-home all those people.

Exactly. I assume the British have building codes the same as we do in America.
One of the issues in the building codes, as well as the fire codes, is flame spread of materials. It’s tested and certified for building materials.
This disaster should not have been a surprise. Where I live I can almost guarantee that the exterior cladding would not have been approved and a stop work order would have been issued.
Some folks should go to jail.

MikeA
June 18, 2017 11:26 pm

I picked up this from the UK blog Bishop Hill
Grenfell Tower outer cladding.
The outer cladding comprised of 150mm of Celotex FR500, 50mm ventilated cavity and 3mm Zinc Composite.
The celotex has Class 0 fire performance rating which is the highest performance classification you can get.
I’m unable to determine the exact zinc composite panels used but they are likely similar to these. Note the the 50mm air gap appears to be needed for the struts the panels are mounted on. The polyethylene core is fire retardant.
There is some fake news going around that the cladding was put on simply because the posh neighbours thought it was an eyesore. This isn’t the case. The cladding was added because the U-value for the existing wall was 1.5W/m2.K which is 5 times higher than current regulations allow.
It is possible that everybody followed or even exceeded the building regulations and still the tragedy occurred.
Source
Just thought I’d quote this in full as I found it quite interesting.
The Source link shows that there was a 50mm cavity. It appears that in some installations where there are cavities a non-flammable barrier is installed in a series of rings around the building to stop flames traveling upwards inside the cavity. A google search of that council’s planning applications and terms such as ‘corofil’ (a brand of barrier) or ‘cavity barrier’ show that there have been applications where barriers were included in the plans. I don’t know if this is something the planning department would insist upon or even consider.
In the same Source link, in the same section detailing the insulation, I noticed that the refurbishment of the panel between the windows was to be insulated with 100mm Celotex FR5000 and also 25mm Celotex FR5000. Celotex FR5000 isn’t available in 25mm thickness according to the Celotex website, but going by web.archive.org it used to be.
Clearly we will need to wait until the proper investigations get underway to get to the ‘truth’ of this truly dreadful event. I’m not suggesting that the above is that. What is very apparent in the UK news reporting (I live in the UK) is that the left are making a big political meal out of this; anything to bring down the democratically elected government. A significant proportion of people I’ve seen being interviewed in the street, that initially seem to present themselves as victims of the fire, turn out to be mouthy, articulate activists, who claim to know someone who was a victim.

Reply to  MikeA
June 19, 2017 7:18 am

nearly correct.
The celotex is there for insulation, and its fire proof in general.
The polypropylene cladding used was NOT fire resistant at all, and is absolutely known to go up like a Roman candle.
The polypropylene cladding is there because the celotex is there, to protect it and reduce the ugliness of it.
The real issue is becoming whether or not that cladding was legal, and if so who let it be, and if not, who specified it and why didn’t building control pick up on it.

Greg
Reply to  MikeA
June 19, 2017 2:50 pm

3mm Zinc Composite.
Crap you can melt zinc as easily as lead’tin solder. Not a very convincing fire protection for the inflammable foam.

AJB
Reply to  MikeA
June 19, 2017 5:38 am

Nope, RS5000: https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/rs5000
A spokesman for manufacturer Celotex said: “Our thoughts are with those affected by the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower. Our records show a Celotex product (RS5000) was purchased for use in refurbishing the building. If required, we will assist with enquiries from the relevant authorities at the appropriate time.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/grenfell-tower-fire-cladding-will-burn-warns-manufacturer-1-4477136
However, like so much in the press that article confuses the insulation with the rain screen. And nobody is talking about the appauling sill/head cold bridge detailing around those replacement windows (“casings” for our US bretheren). Look no further if you want to see how a fridge exploding on the inside managed to quickly ignite that ridiculous polyethylene cored ACM crap on the outside and re-enter elsewhere. Spreading like wildfire and completely negating the building’s fire compartmentalisation strategy throughout. Crap that is not as far as I’m aware permitted above 10m in the UK BTW.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/818321/Grenfell-tower-fire-over-insulated-avoid-repeat-job-cladding
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/Grenfell-Fire-972809.jpg

Reply to  AJB
June 19, 2017 7:14 am

Th fire risk was not the celotex insulation, it was the rain cladding of polypropylene sheet that is possibly illegal
Now the rain cladding may have been needed to disguise the sheer ugliness of external celotex and protect it from birds, but the disaster is not about the insulation, as it transpires, its about the decorative and rainproof layer erected over it.

richard verney
Reply to  AJB
June 19, 2017 8:20 am

Why clad the building at all?
The cladding is simply an enormous waste of money. Money is a valuable resource, and is best not wasted. This is especially so in times of economic downturn.
The Tower Block as per its original design did not have any cladding, so why clad it? Whilst the reasons behind this disaster are many, the answer to that question, will tell you the primary reason for the disaster..

AJB
Reply to  AJB
June 19, 2017 9:36 am

Yes Leo, that’s pretty much what I’ve just said. The ACM apparently had a flammable polyethylene core (it’s not polypropylene sheet). But you also seem to be missing the point regarding closure detailing. From some of the photos I’ve seen it looks like the replacement windows, inner sill and head closures were all UPVC or similar. A small fire on the inside would therefore quickly find its way up behind the flammable ACM rain screen and its game over. The Celotex is largely irrelevant, will just shrivel up and allow the passage of fire to the flammable stuff. Except perhaps for the gases it’ll give off when cooked like that.
I’m old school. In my world you do not shove ludicrous levels of insulation willy-nilly on the outside like that. If you can’t fix the heat loss/cold bridging/condensation problems in old buildings like this properly from the inside then demolish them. Especially if they also have water ingress/evap issues that aren’t easily addressed. Insulation goes on the inside and windows are for ventilation.
High thermal capacity, externally insulated construction does not suit modern living. If you’re designing from scratch you can incorporate centralised heat recovery but in an old building like this the level of external insulation used here is pretty pointless. You still need air change and the extra insulation merely slows down energy dissipation a tad during the day when the heating is off and folk are out and about.
The thermal capacity of all that concrete is massive. But the thermal capacity of regular and necessary air change is also significant. A sensible level of dry lining therefore wins hands down without compromising fire compartmentalisation. Arguments over minor loss of floor space and ease of construction are not significant if the entire block is being refurbed. U-values of externals are misleading if you don’t consider air change and usage patterns.

lewispbuckingham
June 18, 2017 11:41 pm

What I don’t understand is the alleged ignition cause, an exploding refrigerator on the fourth floor.
Possibly the wiring melted down on the motor, but why would it have exploded?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-cause-fridge-faulty-fourth-floor-london-kensington-disaster-latest-a7792566.html
http://www.firstpost.com/world/watch-london-fire-exploding-refrigerator-might-have-caused-grenfell-tower-blaze-say-reports-3646291.html
I wondered if it was a meth lab or something that is explosive.

Greg
Reply to  lewispbuckingham
June 19, 2017 9:32 pm

Of little importance. House fires do occur and should not be allowed to kill 100+ people.

Sasha
June 18, 2017 11:54 pm

There are 1,500 fires in education establishments every year, but there is no corner the Tories will not cut in the name of ‘Austerity’
Austerity kills people. It is a political choice, and a radical economic measure. It is not conventional economic wisdom. People have starved to death, committed suicide, died on trolleys in hospitals and burned to death in their homes. The Tory party made these choices and these are the consequences.
(Compassion is an alien concept to the Tories when they are in power, but they bleat about it a lot when they are out of power.)
###
The Tories watered down rules on sprinklers in schools a week after fire destroyed classrooms
The lack of a sprinkler system is among safety failures that contributed to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The Fire Protection Association said they would have saved lives. Theresa May’s chief of staff Gavin Barwell delayed a review into fire safety regulations for tower blocks when he was Housing Minister.
One policy the Tories did manage to review during the same period was rules on sprinkler systems in schools in England – which are compulsory in Scotland and Wales. In July 2016 the Tory Government held a consultation on the BB100 document, saying it needed simplifying and it was far too long. Afterwards, the Department for Education announced it was dropping the expectation that new schools should be fitted with sprinklers. The Tory document says ‘The Building Regulations do not require the installation of fire sprinkler suppression systems in school buildings for life safety and therefore BB 100 no longer includes an expectation that most new school buildings will be fitted with them.’ This announcement has now disappeared from the Tory Government’s website.
Education Secretary Justine Greening took the decision a week after a big fire at a school in Chichester which destroyed 15 classrooms before being put out by a team of 75 firefighters.
###
In Germany claddings such as those used on Grenfell Tower are forbidden. There is also the requirement for two stairways in all houses taller than 23 meters as this is how far the fire service’s ladders can reach. Houses above 30 meters houses must have extra water connections with special pumps for fire services, as water hoses can only reach a certain hight. There is also a requirement for an extra elevator for fire services because firefighters may become exhausted if they walk up so many stairs in full gear with their equipment. There were people in the upper part of Grenfell Tower that had been waiting for help yet died because they were never reached by fire services.

michel
Reply to  Sasha
June 19, 2017 12:28 am

Its nothing to do with party politics. Nor is it anything to do with green mania.
The tower itself is similar to many others built by both Labour and Conservative councils all over the country during that period. Just as Ronan Point, a tower which collapsed due to an explosion in one kitchen, was similar to towers put up by both Labour and Conservative councils. In fact, in the post WWII period Labour councils in what is now understood to be urban vandalism on a grand scale demolished huge quantities of traditional housing and replaced it with jerrybuilt towers built as cheaply as possible, and turning into welfare ghettos.
The traditional housing that they did not managed to demolish now sells for huge amounts, and the tower blocks they built are no-go areas and unsaleable.
If you want a specific example, look at the Southwark tower block that had a notorious fire in which there were some fatalities. That is comparable to Grenfell. Labour Council, permanent Labour majority, built and maintained by it. They just got lucky that time.
Its not due to green mania, because there is a perfectly safe way of cladding buildings in aluminum, and that is to use mineral insulation as the insulating layer. That will not burn.
it is not due to austerity. The Kensington council did not try to get the building renovated on the cheap. The contractors may have.
The thing that you have to explain is quite simple. Anyone looking at the clips of the fire will have noticed two things. First that the fire went over the front of the building with great speed. This must have been a cladding fire and must have been due to the choice of insulation material.
The second thing is that at a point when about one third of the frontage was in flames, so that the windows behind these flames were invisible, there was fire behind almost all the other windows.
This cannot have been due to cladding fire. This was because the fire had raced through the interior and spread from apartment to apartment. This cannot have been due either to austerity, the Tory government, green mania or any combination of them. The most likely explanation is that it was due to large scale mains gas escape and transmission down airways between buildings. The most likely explanation of how this happened is either original defects of design or construction, or faults introduced during renovation works.
In short, Sasha, stop flailing around blaming generalities, and instead look analytically at cause and effect in a scientific fashion.
The same sort of silly ignorance that is in this post was manifest in the attempts by the various Trotskyite groups to take over demonstrations and turn them into riots. The quality of that can be seen is that a volunteer who had come to help was beaten by the mob because he was wearing a suit, and was taken by it to be therefore a council employee. He was not, and this was a lesson to any other ‘bourgeois’ well meaning people – once the Trots are on site, stay away. And in present day Britain that will be immediately.
The silly ignorance with malice is also found in the shameful demand by Corbyn and McDonnell that the occasion be used as an excuse to seize property of people they call ‘the rich’ and given to the homeless. Which, if it could even be done, and its incompatible with the EU Human Rights Convention to do it, could not be done in time to give prompt assistance. Corbyn is actually suggesting that the mob invade and occupy local buildings. Go through, find some with no-one in them, then occupy. As usual Corbyn is not specific, he says occupy, requisition or whatever. He means occupy.
The Council and government are rightly focused on getting the accommodation problem solved in days and weeks, not months, and by getting living space, not by indulging in political gestures or criminality.
The UK housing problem is a number of different things.
One is the shoddy buildings left over from bad construction practices during the urban vandalism of the post war period. The second is the huge deficits. Contrary to the post, there is no austerity in the UK. The problem on the contrary is the deficit, which leads to the wealth flowing to the finance sector, who manage the debt.
This is coupled with unlimited immgration in search of work, which leads to a housing shortage and high priced housing. And in the face of this government and council policy is to take existing housing off the market by making sure that everyone has the right to housing where they live at the moment, regardless of their circumstances. It is a crazed perfect storm of policy. It is designed to produce a housing crisis and soaring prices in London, while the country is actually full of housing that could be used. But its in Newcastle., and no-one would every suggest an out of work family on welfare should consider moving to Newcastle, would they?

Sasha
Reply to  michel
June 19, 2017 2:05 am

The Tory ideology of ‘austerity’ led to the horror of Grenfell Tower
That fire killed twice as many people in one night than have been killed in terrorist attacks in Britain over the past ten years.
The Grenfell fire was like watching the news of a disaster somewhere in the Third World when an earthquake strikes, ravaging the shanty towns. But this was not Asia, or Africa or Latin America. This was the wealthiest district of the wealthiest city in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We still do not know how many people have died, and perhaps we never will. Whole families have been incinerated, leaving no-one alive who even knows they are missing.
The blackened ruin stands as a monument to dozens of men, women and children who died because they were poor. They lived their lives in an island of poverty surrounded, by an ocean of riches. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has the greatest proportion of high earners anywhere in Britain. It is populated by bankers, stockbrokers, Royals and wealthy celebrities. It has the highest average life expectancy of Britain. Terraced houses in the area change hands for an average of £4.3m. Many stand empty because they are not homes – they are investments. The idle properties of the idle rich.
The poor of this borough die 12 years younger than their rich neighbours. They are packed away in dismal, dilapidated, overcrowded tower blocks that for wealthy residents of the borough were nothing but an irritating eyesore, a blot on an upmarket cityscape. ‘How good it is to dwell in unity’ is the grimly ironic motto of the Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council.
No doubt it will emerge there were many failures that led to the catastrophic loss of life at Grenfell. Most of them could probably be summed in two words. Greed and incompetence. The public do not need a public inquiry to let them know that wrapping a 24-storey tower block in a flammable blanket was a reckless, potentially criminally irresponsible gamble with the lives of hundreds of people. All to save a paltry £6000.
Scores of Grenfell residents were killed by inequality, deregulation, privatisation and the Tories’ fanatical adherence to ‘austerity.’ The tenants predicted it would happen but their pleas were ignored by politicians, the bureaucrats and the profiteers. The lives of people on the margins are cheap.
Social housing was pioneered in Glasgow by Red Clydesider John Wheatley, an Independent Labour Party Councillor and later MP in the East End of Glasgow. Under his influence, graceful council housing schemes such as Riddrie, Mosspark and Knightswood were built in the 1920s and remain to this day some of the finest examples of municipal housing ever built in this country.
Many have since been sold and resold as result of Thatcher’s mass privatization of social housing. Why in the 1920s, with national wealth and GDP a mere fraction of modern levels, were we able to undertake such visionary, far-reaching social projects that transformed the lives of the poor? And why, in the infinitely richer society we live in today, do we still tolerate slums, overcrowding and homelessness?
Before Thatcher, more than a third of people across Britain lived in social housing. In Scotland, the figures were much higher. Two-thirds of Glasgow’s housing stock was owned and run by the elected and accountable council. But ‘right-to-buy’ was introduced, social housing estates became ghettoised and people who needed social housing were stigmatized.
Then we had arms-length housing associations, with tenants passed around from one landlord to another, while all the works associated with maintaining the stock was privatized, contracted out, then further sub-contracted to a multitude of private companies. A visionary idea by pioneering socialists evolved into a profiteer’s dream. As the full horror of Grenfell Tower began to unfold, I was struck by the absence of stirring ministerial announcements telling us that enough is enough, and that the first priority of government is to keep people safe.
After the London Bridge and Manchester terror attacks, money was no object. The Army paraded the streets, armed police appeared on every corner and huge resources were allocated to intelligence and surveillance. So where are the raids on the offices of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenants Management Organisation, which ignored the fears and warnings of Grenfell tenants? Who is rounding up the leaders and officials of Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council and interrogating them? Who is seizing the contracts, documents, risk assessments, email accounts and telephone records of Rydon and the eight companies to which it sub-contracted the Grenfell refurbishment work?
Who among this lot are responsible for the deaths of twice as many people in one night than have been killed in terrorist attacks in Britain over the past ten years? When will the ideological warriors who called for a ‘bonfire of red tape’ be called to account for incitement to send people up in smoke? Like David Cameron, for example, who boasted he wanted his to be the first government in modern history to leave office having reduced the overall burden of regulation, rather than increasing it. The first priority of successive Governments over the past 30 years has not been to keep people safe but to keep profits safe.
Management-speak is an abomination. It talks of ’empowering people’ – workers, tenants and members of the community. What that meant in practice was perfunctory so-called ‘consultation’ and token participation. It was a sham designed to disguise the fact that the middle-class elite (who always know better- or so they think) were running the show from top to bottom. Yet when disaster struck at Grenfell Tower, it was the community that rallied around and provided the emotional support, the food, the clothing and the infrastructure on the ground, while the myriad of arm’s-length organizations, contractors and sub-contractors were nowhere to be seen.
It is horrendous that it has taken a real bonfire, an inferno, to expose the reality of deregulation, privatization and ‘austerity.’ All the protests, all the warnings went unheard.

Reply to  michel
June 19, 2017 7:21 am

This must have been a cladding fire…

..yes…

…and must have been due to the choice of insulation material.

NO!!!
It was due to the choice of CLADDING. Not INSULATION.

catweazle666
Reply to  michel
June 19, 2017 5:46 pm

“The Tory ideology of ‘austerity’ led to the horror of Grenfell Tower”
Utter drivel.
The Tories were not the council responsible for the Grenfell tower update, Labour was.

Reply to  Sasha
June 19, 2017 3:57 pm

Sacha
Austerity kills people. It is a political choice, and a radical economic measure
Total brain-dead leftist bullchit. “Austerity” is inverted Alice-in-Wonderland fantastical disconnect from reality and responsibility.
Austerity is a word only used by people sulking because someone has refused to let them steal their money.
Austerity is a complete nothing-word which simply means NOT going into unrepayable debt.
Austerity simply means spending the money that you actually have.
Austerity means not yanking food out of your children’s mouths and stuffing it into your own.
It’s very obvious why something like Sacha should hate “Austerity”

catweazle666
Reply to  Sasha
June 19, 2017 5:58 pm
Griff
June 19, 2017 12:33 am

no, it didn’t.
anyone here against refurbishing and insulating the homes of poorer people?
[Yes, me, if the insulation puts them at risk of being killed in a fire or other health issue. Green is not the end-all, save-all mandate. People first, Gaia second. Just ask the families of the dead. – Anthony]

michel
Reply to  Griff
June 19, 2017 1:42 am

Anthony, Griff is right. I am afraid! The green mania led perhaps to insulation and cladding. But it did not lead to the choice of this particular cladding. Mineral wool and non-combustible cladding was available, at minimal added cost. Its a real question why they did not use it.
The decision to insulate, particularly if you know the building standards of those old tower blocks, was quite sensible. The problem is implementation, and that was not a green issue.

Reply to  michel
June 19, 2017 1:52 am

The manufacturer of the cladding states that it is not too be used higher than 10 meters. That would appear to be a key point in this tragedy.

Reply to  michel
June 19, 2017 7:28 am

The insulation was not the problem. The overcladding was.
It should have been a mineral board, not aluminium or zinc coated plastic foam.
But I have to laugh at Griffs hypocrisy. One of the reasons the people are poor is on account of Griffs renewable chums forcing energy prices higher to pay for their virtue signalling prayer wheels and Silly panels.
The other reason is that the tower was full of immigrants ‘seeking asylum*,’ and the governments idiotic open door policy foisted on us by the European Union means there is pressure to house people in what may not be the best accommodation.
Instead of telling them the country is full up.
*seeking a free ride

toorightmate
Reply to  Griff
June 19, 2017 6:15 am

And in keeping with Griff’s leadership,, any construction using timber must cease immediately.

sunsettommy
Reply to  Griff
June 19, 2017 9:59 am

Griff, you missed this part:
“Update (EW): Dr Jim Glockling, Technical Director of the Fire Protection Association, said the following in an interview about Grenfell;
“There has been an emerging body of evidence surrounding some of the materials being used and now we have an appalling demonstration of what can happen,” he said.
Alongside the cosmetic appeal of cladding, it is used as an insulation to make buildings more sustainable to meet green energy requirements.
“It could be that this is the quest for sustainability trumping other concerns,” Dr Glockling warned.”
Another example of misguided environmental concern.

Joel Snider
Reply to  sunsettommy
June 19, 2017 12:29 pm

He didn’t miss it. He’s whitewashing it.

catweazle666
Reply to  Griff
June 19, 2017 5:51 pm

“anyone here against refurbishing and insulating the homes of poorer people?”
So, along with dead birds, dead bats, dead whales and dead pensioners, you consider dead children to be an acceptable trade-off to make to ‘Save the World™ from the evils of CO2 emissions.
No surprise there…

wws
Reply to  Griff
June 19, 2017 8:38 pm

Excellent point, Anthony. I should point out that shredded paper makes fine insulation, and it is very cheap. Griff, do you think we should surround every house in the UK with cladding consisting of 2 parallel layers of plywood 6 inches apart, and the gap between them stuffed with shredded paper? It would be great insulation, I promise, but do you think there might be something that could go wrong with that plan???

rd50
June 19, 2017 12:47 am

Nothing new about this fire. See same pictures in previous fires.
https://foursevenfive.com/reason-foam-fails-2-unacceptable-fire-hazard/

Chris Hanley
June 19, 2017 1:01 am

Climate Change™ was a factor in the cladding fire IMO.
A quick google search came up with two examples of the composite panels being recommended as retrofitted insulation to residential buildings in London.
BRE Global, the Building Research Establishment Ltd (BRE), a former UK government establishment but now a private organisation “Protecting People, Property and the Planet” in The Green Guide to Specification –External cladding & Facade 2009 states “Coated steel / aluminium composite profiled insulated panels mostly all get A’s”, another example is given in An Urban Politics of Climate Change … etc.: Maintaining the Brixton Low Carbon Zone … “ … large scale energy retrofit programme for 845 homes on the Loughborough estate (started in January 20120 which included: insulated flat roofs system to tower blocks … insulated cladding to external walls …”.
Of course none of that answers whether the particular cladding used had been specified by the architects or approved by the local building authority.

michel
Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 19, 2017 1:45 am

No, Climate Change was only a factor in the decision to clad.
It did not lead to choosing these particular panels rather than the readily available safe and non-combustible ones.
The question is why these were chosen, and the thing that is certain is that climate change was not a factor in that choice.
What was, we shall doubtless find out in due course. The cynical had best keep their thoughts to themselves meanwhile….!

Bryan A
Reply to  michel
June 19, 2017 2:40 pm

And they had best remove/replace the cladding on any other High Rise project where the same materials were used

Roger Knights
Reply to  michel
June 19, 2017 7:07 pm

“The question is why these were chosen, and the thing that is certain is that climate change was not a factor in that choice.”
But mightn’t the panels used have been better insulators, and therefore more green? I’m sure that Mineral board and mineral wool aren’t nearly as good as insulators as the foam that was used.

Jolan
June 19, 2017 1:33 am

For anyone interested in the EU dimesion re; the Grenfell Tower block fire I recommend you read EUReferendum.com (an excellent blog concerning all matters EU) for the 18th and 19th June.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
June 19, 2017 1:36 am

In answer to your headline – Yes it did.
And Government mania is responsible for shed-loads of stupidity around the (English speaking especially) globe.
Windmills are pure cr4p. Mechanically they are nightmares on 2 fronts. You have a heavy rotating load (blades) on a shaft supported at only one end. Its crazy. Take a look at all the bearings supporting the crankshaft in your car or truck engine. Where’s the equivalent in a windmill?
Also, unless they use neodymium magnets, they need a gearbox. A box that goes from typically 18 rpm to 3000 or 3600 rpm. And its an ‘up’ ratio. Just pure he11 to design, build and maintain.
And now they tell us Drax is going to burn natural gas, presumably in the 3 or 4 (out of 6) that aren’t burning American trees.
Again its madness. Natural gas is as near perfect replacement for petrol/gasoline as you’ll get for cars and trucks. Plus, it won’t create smoke when you burn it.
(Some long while ago, before computer controlled common rail injections, the injection of small amounts of propane was perfected as a way of reducing diesel engine smoke. It worked. All the truck needed was a small gas cylinder and a valve connected (indirectly) to the driver’s typically leaden right foot.)
So for Drax, because you cannot put coal in cars or trucks, burn the coal in Drax and clean up the smut with big & heavy and power & water hungry machinery. At the place its created, before it ‘escapes’. Even though Scandinavians loved it because it fertilised their forests.
And lets face it, not a lot else happens in Scandavia.
Maybe and with a modicum of craft, natural gas will go through a fuel cell and that gets rid not only of the soot but most of the NOx as well. What Is Not To Like.
Apart from, nat gas is delivered almost everywhere already so, the snake salesmen & assorted cronies will find it tough going to make their usual mint.
There’s no intelligence anymore. Government is just panicked into one hurried and ill-conceived scheme after another. See, they even apologised for ‘getting it wrong’ when diesel was mandated as a better fuel than petrol, 15+ years ago.
The cynical among us will know that a Government apology is simply something to soften us all up in front of a raft of new taxes and expensive to comply with regulations.
Its more of a cancer than a mania. It just grows and grows, consuming exponentially (because old regulations & taxes are never rescinded) more and more resource and eventually, it kills the host.
So next time soon, when you meet walking down the street an Ancient Roman, Phoenician, Maya, Inca, Rapa-Nui, Himyar or others of that ilk , they’ll tell you about it.

michel
Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
June 19, 2017 1:48 am

You have to get clear. There were two decisions. One was the decision to clad. I think this was probably quite sensible. Those old buildings were very badly constructed and would have been hugely expensive to heat or cool. So insulation and cladding was in itself a good idea and probably cost effective.
Then there was the decision to use flammable cladding. That was not motivated by any green considerations. Fireproof cladding is available at minimal added cost. The question is why it was not picked. Different question, greenery not in any way responsible for it.

Reply to  michel
June 19, 2017 5:31 am

There were two decisions. One was the decision to clad. I think this was probably quite sensible.

Difficult to say in retrospect. 1970’s blockhouses aren’t famous for durability. Cladding is only hiding the fact.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  michel
June 19, 2017 6:12 am

“:jaakkokateenkorva June 19, 2017 at 5:31 am”
Artex covers that!

Reply to  michel
June 19, 2017 6:25 am

Good point Patrick. Perhaps the cladding covered the asbestos in the Artex underneath.

richard verney
Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
June 19, 2017 2:18 am

Those old buildings were very badly constructed and would have been hugely expensive to heat or cool. So insulation and cladding was in itself a good idea and probably cost effective.

Aircon in the UK is almost unheard of. it is hugely expensive to heat a property due to rising costs of energy due to the green agenda. But that said, it was never cost effective to clad the building to save energy costs.
According to Wikipedia, the total cost of the cladding was in the region of £2.6 million, and there were some 120 flats in the block (a mixture of 1 and 2 bed flats). That puts the costs of the cladding at around £21,666 per flat.
Average electricity/gas bill in the UK for a 2 bedroom flat is about £800 pa, so if the cladding reduced the energy bill by say 25%, that would be a saving of only about £200 per year. On that basis (ignoring interest/ROI on the installation of the cladding), it would take about 100 years to pay for the cladding on the basis of lower energy bills/fuel savings.
As you can see it was not cost effective. It was all about environmental issues pertaining to the saving CO2 as per the comments made by Janice above.

richard verney
Reply to  richard verney
June 19, 2017 2:19 am

Whoops, formatting error. Only the first para was intended to be blockquoted.

cirby
Reply to  richard verney
June 19, 2017 3:58 am

…except that they’re comparing what they spent (£21,666 in this estimation) instead of what the cladding actually cost, installed (a small fraction of that amount). The actual cost of the cladding material is about ONE PERCENT of what they spent, and installation would never cost the additional £20,000 or so.
At £2,000 per apartment instead of £21,666, ROI changes drastically, and the payout period becomes 10 years instead of a century.
Someone in the UK has a bunch of forensic accounting in their future, and they won’t enjoy the results.

Reply to  richard verney
June 19, 2017 5:48 am

Richard
Our calcs seem to chime quite well, and I reckoned on £600/year because of the 2:1 ratio of 2-bed to 1-bed. So that’s quite close too. However I reckoned on a 2/3 saving (600 down to 200 to give a £400 saving). Your saving ratio is a lot less, giving £200. I’m only going on what people say when they have their homes well insulated and say they hardly have to put the heating on/ plummeting costs etc. But maybe you’re not guessing it like I am and have more knowledge? I don’t know, but it puts the two calcs out by a factor of two after agreeing up to that point. (But both show no ROI case at all).
(I wish the council would give me £65,000 to do up my flat. It would be palatial.)

Reply to  richard verney
June 19, 2017 6:11 am

…except that they’re comparing what they spent (£21,666 in this estimation) instead of what the cladding actually cost, installed (a small fraction of that amount). The actual cost of the cladding material is about ONE PERCENT of what they spent, and installation would never cost the additional £20,000 or so.

They only need to evade the taxes and print the stuff directly on the wall.

michel
Reply to  richard verney
June 19, 2017 9:25 am

The decision that led to disaster was not the decision to insulate. Whether or not that was financially justified is not the issue. We should not be criticizing the council in connexion with the disaster for having decided to insulate.
The decision that led to disaster was the decision to insulate with flammable materials.
Now, it may be that this was because the flammable materials were thought to be ‘greener’, but I have seen no evidence put forward to support this. This however is what you have to show if you are going to blame green ideas for the disaster.
Where is the evidence that the decision not to use the roughly similarly priced mineral insulation was motivated by green political correctness? Maybe there is some such evidence, but no-one has produced any yet.

Roger Knights
Reply to  richard verney
June 19, 2017 7:17 pm

It may have also been partly or largely that “the mounting system was not designed to compartmentalize each panel”.

Roger Knights
Reply to  richard verney
June 19, 2017 7:20 pm

PS: And as Michel said, it may have been partly or largely due to:
“This cannot have been due to cladding fire. This was because the fire had raced through the interior and spread from apartment to apartment. This cannot have been due either to austerity, the Tory government, green mania or any combination of them. The most likely explanation is that it was due to large scale mains gas escape and transmission down airways between buildings.”

Towering Inferno
Reply to  Roger Knights
June 19, 2017 7:33 pm

Oh right (eye roll). Let’s ignore Jose videos of the fire racing up th exterior cladding !

Roger Knights
Reply to  richard verney
June 19, 2017 8:44 pm

You’re correct; Michel over-stated in dismissing the cladding fire. I should have said so. What I agree with is that his gas mains theory may be the main reason for why the fire spread so quickly and was so deadly.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 19, 2017 2:10 am

We will have to wait to see exactly why the building burnt so rapidly as to prevent escape for so many poor victims. But Commie Bob is right that if there is deliberate negligence somebody has to go to jail. I do recall having dealings with the project manager of the construction of a major factory who was tearing his hair out because although non-flammable Rockwool had been specified for insulating a very large roof cavity, he was constantly having to turn away contractors arriving with rolls of fiber-glass who tried to tell him “it’s the same stuff mate, no difference”. Wisely he stuck to his guns and turned them away.

toorightmate
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 19, 2017 6:19 am

If we put the same brainpower into planning as we do in attempting to allocate blame, we would not have these disasters.
But no. We would rather be a slack as, and then cry foul.

Reply to  toorightmate
June 19, 2017 10:35 am

+100

drednicolson
Reply to  toorightmate
June 20, 2017 9:01 am

But fewer disasters means fewer lucrative lawsuits. 😐

June 19, 2017 2:59 am

Another green angle is that it has been reported that the original source of the fire was an exploding fridge. As far as I know modern fridges use Tetrafluoroethane instead of CFC’s and as far as I know Tetrafluoroethane can be quite flammable under certain pressure conditions. Also I understand that fridges are lined with polyurephane as insulation which can be highly flammable.

lewispbuckingham
Reply to  son of mulder
June 19, 2017 4:07 am

According to this non peer reviewed article
http://www.ehow.com/facts_7662661_happens-freon-explodes.html
‘Extreme Heat
Again, freon is not flammable. However, it is generally stored in cylinders that maintain a constant level of pressure on the freon. If you have a fire in the same space where you are storing freon cylinders, and the temperature gets above 900 degrees Celsius, the freon molecules will move more and more quickly in the cylinder, building up pressure.’
If this be true the kitchen must have been very alight.
The occupant would have had to leave long before the ‘fridge exploded’.
If a fridge motor had shorted to produce high temperatures, one would have expected the circuit to have tripped before it got to 900C.
A blogger above says that all the rooms were burning on the first face alight, meaning there was a gas leak.
Watching the fire I wondered if the central stairwell had become a chimney after the roof collapsed or upper windows burst.
Perhaps a gas leak explosion was what happened, in the first place, on the 4th floor.
Once molten aluminium and dripping flaming polyethylene was running down the walls, the windows would have burst igniting the room contents.
Radiant heat would be enough anyway.
This is a tragedy.
[It was a newer model, non-freon (Green-required replacement) refrigerator that is said to have exploded in flames. .mod]

ralfellis
Reply to  lewispbuckingham
June 19, 2017 12:41 pm

There have been many incidents of exploding fridges, due to new Greeney regulations. This is a report from 2009, but there have been many since.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/6120297/Exploding-fridges-ozone-friendly-gas-theory-for-mystery-blasts.html
If the fridge story is correct, then the key elements that started and propogated this fire are Green fridges and Green insulation. This is the trouble with Green technology, it solves little while creating a host of other problems.
R

lewispbuckingham
Reply to  lewispbuckingham
June 19, 2017 1:58 pm

I did not realise they put butane in fridges.
What madness is this.

Towering Inferno
Reply to  lewispbuckingham
June 19, 2017 7:40 pm

Hmmm.
“The chronicle of a tragedy foretold: Grenfell Tower
Government and councils were warned repeatedly about fire safety experts’ fears over tower blocks as far back as 1999
Grenfell Tower fire – latest updates
Jamie Doward
Saturday 17 June 2017 16.30 EDT Last modified on Monday 19 June 2017 05.51 EDT
The residents of Grenfell Tower were alarmed to discover smoke pouring from their electrical appliances in May 2013. Laptops, televisions, washing machines and fridges were damaged by an unexplained series of power surges that prompted the frightened occupants of the 24-storey tower in west London to descend on their estate office, demanding action and answers.
In an email to Robert Black, CEO of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), which manages the 1970s social housing property on behalf of the local authority, one resident explained “we had numerous power surges in the space of a minute, and in that process my computer and monitor literally exploded, with smoke seeping out from the back”.”

RichardP
Reply to  son of mulder
June 19, 2017 7:28 am

Yes all fridges in Europe use R600 which is flammable and will explode in the right concentration..

Reply to  RichardP
June 19, 2017 10:25 am

Are you sure RichardP R600 is n-Butane which led me to this website https://ecogreenindustries.net/product/24lb-cylinder/
n-Butane is in the series ethane, propane etc if a fridge exploded and released n-Butane that is a highly flammable chemical. Surely extremely dangerous when something goes wrong.

Solomon Green
June 19, 2017 5:16 am

cirby June 19, 2017 at 3:58 am
“…except that they’re comparing what they spent (£21,666 in this estimation) instead of what the cladding actually cost, installed (a small fraction of that amount). The actual cost of the cladding material is about ONE PERCENT of what they spent, and installation would never cost the additional £20,000 or so.”
Methinks that cirby seriously underestimates the costs of installation on a 24 floor skyscraper in Central London. As someone who was involved, for some years, in providing and managing dwellings for several thousand residents I was always amazed at the very small proportion that the materials used bore to final costs.

cirby
Reply to  Solomon Green
June 19, 2017 12:24 pm

People use suspended scaffolding all of the time for such basic things as cleaning high-rise buildings.
It’s more expensive compared to working at ground level, but not a _hundred times_ more expensive.
You’re suggesting, for some odd reason, that it costs £20,000 for two men to drill a few dozen holes in concrete and install ten very lightweight premade panels – a couple of hours of work, tops. That’s just insane.

Solomon Green
Reply to  cirby
June 20, 2017 4:32 am

cirby appears to have no idea as to architectural, planning, health and safety, fire control, feasibility, sustainability, environmental, logistic, insurance and other regulatory costs that have to be incurred before even the tendering process can start. And that process in itself can be time-consuming and expensive.
EU imposed regulation, gold plated by UK civil servants, has multiplied these several several times since I was last involved but it has obviously not improved the safety of the work.
Today in England any workman cleaning the guttering on a two story house is required either to use scaffolding or to have a colleague hold the ladder while he is working. (One of the few regulation more often ignored than followed).
The thought, however, of officials (or employers) permitting just two men hanging from cradles a few hundred feet above the ground to install more than 800 double-glazed new windows and more than 500 cladding panels beggars belief.

Tom Z
June 19, 2017 5:43 am

Wanted to see how many more London buildings are potentially deathtraps. Found this:
“Dozens of tower blocks appear to have been fitted with cladding similar to that used at Grenfell, Kensington”
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/15/how-many-more-buildings-in-london-have-the-same-cladding-as-grenfell-tower-6711394/

Roger Knights
Reply to  Tom Z
June 19, 2017 7:25 pm

“Dozens of tower blocks appear to have been fitted with cladding similar to that used at Grenfell, Kensington”
Hopefully their architects specified barriers to compartmentalize the panels.

June 19, 2017 5:52 am

There is no excuse for using material that is flammable for this type of project. If the product was banned in the USA, Europe and therefore the UK, it should not have been used. Climate change and environment are absolutely hogh priority, but if this was a banned product then there are no excuses. Alternative products are available that would provide safe insulation

davidbennettlaing
June 19, 2017 6:14 am

I guess I should mention it, since no one else did, but isn’t it noteworthy that this high-rise, steel structure didn’t collapse as a result of the fire, as three of the World Trade Center buildings did in New York City on 9/11/2001 (one of which wasn’t even hit by an airplane!), being the first and last steel skyscrapers in history to do that? This fact lends considerable credence to the physical arguments of the over 3,000 Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, who contend that planned controlled implosion demolition must have been central to the collapse of these buildings.
[Dead wrong. No, it is not “noteworthy” of any further attention, the structural damage and structural fires in the two buildings are not comparable, nor will any other posts regarding that topic be printed here. .mod]

Tom Higley
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 19, 2017 6:52 am

David, 100% agreement with your post. Open your eyes people.

tty
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 19, 2017 7:47 am

This is a REINFORCED CONCRETE structure. It is virtually unknown for such to collapse after a fire, no matter how long or intensive.

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 19, 2017 8:01 am

Censorship, HERE?

Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 19, 2017 10:42 am

No, but the site has always maintained a no-conspiracy-theory- stance in comments. That is the heading your upper comment comes under despite what you may believe, no chem trails, no Bigfoot, etc, etc, etc.

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 19, 2017 2:11 pm

My statement re. the relative melting points of structural steel and jet fuel stand unaltered. Let me add, why were structural columns severed at an angle in regular lengths, why were they then carried away from the crime scene and shipped to China to be melted down, why were pools of molten steel found in the foundations that stayed liquid for weeks despite claims of no fires hot enough to melt steel. why did the buildings fall at free-fall speed into their footprints instead of twisting slowly into irregular shapes as they collapsed, why were structural members ejected at high speed in trajectories of several hundred feet, and why was fragmented thermate debris found in the collapse dust? All these observations can be easily explained by controlled implosion demolition. Convincing explanations for all these observations and more would go a long way toward explaining what actually happened at the WTC. Note that this is not “conspiracy theory.” This is basic physics. Once the science is properly settled, the conspiracy theorists can take over, thank you.
[??? .mod]

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 19, 2017 5:15 pm

My original comment is NOT “conspiracy!” It’s a statement that important evidence and scientific constraints have been ignored in the official account of the disaster. If these are taken into consideration, the official account can’t be right. Note that I don’t address the question of “whodunit,” (i.e., conspiracy). I’m concerned purely with the correctness of the science involved. If this is considered, it becomes clear that the official account is wrong.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 19, 2017 8:49 pm

The combination of all the statements you have made are false, your conclusions and statements are wrong. Regardless of what you want to think, what you do think, you are wrong on all matters and conclusions.

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 20, 2017 11:57 am

RACookPE1978: I’ve come to realize after a long series of debates like this that individuals who make categorical statements refuting the comments of others don’t really know what they’re talking about. My information comes from personal observation of several controlled implosion demolitions as a professional geologist, from the well-documented material presented by Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, and from my own knowledge of the principles of physics. The information regarding multiple severed columnar sections from the three collapsed WTC buildings comes from aerial photographs of trucks loading such sections prior to carting them off to the waterfront to be shipped off to China. I highly recommend that you soften your dogmatic, absolutist stance and spend some time familiarizing yourself with the facts of the case as presented by the literature released by AE9/11Truth.org.

Gabro
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 23, 2017 6:45 pm

Gabro
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 23, 2017 6:46 pm

Sorry. Should be downthread, after David’s excursion into the language of climate lies.

markl
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 19, 2017 8:57 am

1000 of pounds of jet fuel as an accelerant?

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 19, 2017 10:24 am

Jet fuel burns at a temperature well below the melting point of steel. If it didn’t, your furnace would melt, because fuel oil is essentially the same as jet fuel

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 19, 2017 10:25 am

Besides, no plane hit Building 7, which also collapsed.

cirby
Reply to  markl
June 19, 2017 12:26 pm

WTC was hit by the South Tower when IT collapsed. And then caught on fire. And collapsed.

ralfellis
Reply to  markl
June 19, 2017 12:51 pm

>>Jet fuel burns at a temperature well below the melting point of steel.
Utter nonsense. Rolls Royce gets jet fuel to burn at 2,300 oc, otherwise you would never get from London to New York for $300. While most steels start to buckle and bend at 500 oc – as was proven in the UK structural steels test, where a test office fire buckled and bent the RSJs in a standard steel-frame tower block.
Are you saying that Rolls Royce knows nothing about burning jet fuel??
https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/careers/journey-poster-eng-tcm92-51769.pdf
R

ralfellis
Reply to  markl
June 19, 2017 12:58 pm

>>1000 of pounds of jet fuel as an accelerant?
Err, a bit more than that. A B767 can carry between 50 and 70 metric tonnes of fuel, depending on the model. It is quite possible that these aircraft were still carrying 20 tonnes of fuel. It depends on the range of the destination, the max landing weight, and whether the aircraft were tanking.
In the old fashioned imperial units, that would be 44,000 lb of accellerant, per aircraft
R

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  ralfellis
June 19, 2017 1:20 pm

The impacting jets in New York were deliberately selected from early morning (fewer passengers) Boston to West Coast flights, hijacked almost immediately after takeoff from Boston and crashed in New York City, only a few minutes flight time from the hijack spot. The two aircraft were nearly max’ed out with tons of jet fuel.
The fires were below the much-ignorantly-claimed “melting point of steel” – but the steel-below-floor joists were reinforced below by 1/2 diameter (12 mm) serpentne (bent) rods below corrugated steel (2 mm) thick steel that forms the lower concrete support structure. The 1/2 inch dia rods soften to 1/2 to 1/5 their maximum strength at orange and yellow “glow” points – far, far below the “hysterical and irrelevant “melting point” of the metal. A softened, sagging bent steel rod assembly suspended between two supports almost 40 feet apart in a fire 2 hours long will have virtually no strength at all against tension, – as soon as the first floor joist yielded, the floor as a whole yielded.
In the US Civil War, entire 2×3 inch thick steel (50 x 75 mm) solid steel rails were easily twisted by hand by soldiers sabotaging southern railroads by heating the 8x thicker rails over plain open wood fires heated for less than 30 minutes!

Nigel S
Reply to  markl
June 19, 2017 1:38 pm

davidbennettlaing: You lost all credibility at ‘melting point of steel’.
ralfellis: Yes, although not much steel in a modern jet engine, plenty of exotic alloys at very close to critical temperatures, my daughter-in-law is a jet engineer at RR.
The critical temperature for steel is when it has lost enough strength to offset the factor of safety, about 1000 deg C, hence the need for fire insulation on steel. The twin towers had long span efficient and hence light floor trusses. They lost insulation in the impacts and quickly got to critical temperature. This failed the connecting bolts to the columns. Buckling depends on the square of the length so when the columns lost restraint they failed. The floors below could not support the cumulative load of the failed floors.
This is all carefully explained in several papers and reports.
I’m just about to retire after 40+ years of structural and civil engineering consultancy.
‘A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.’

catweazle666
Reply to  markl
June 19, 2017 6:05 pm

“Jet fuel burns at a temperature well below the melting point of steel.”
But well above the temperature at which steel acquires the structural rigidity of plasticine.
Try heating a paperclip in a gas flame if you don’t believe me.

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 20, 2017 4:06 am

catweazle666 Perhaps, but a heat-weakened steel structure doesn’t collapse precisely onto its footprint, as the WTC buildings did, their steel supports neatly severed in identical sections. Heat-weakened steel structures collapse in a heap, toppling over to one side.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 20, 2017 4:34 am

davidbennettlaing

Perhaps, but a heat-weakened steel structure doesn’t collapse precisely onto its footprint, as the WTC buildings did, their steel supports neatly severed in identical sections. Heat-weakened steel structures collapse in a heap, toppling over to one side.

I am surprised you have found enough symmetrically damaged, strengthened steel-wall service core with a symetrically-supported external steel-walled girded steel-plate and architectural facade, heat-softened skyrises with a 2-hour fire in the upper floors to make such a comparison.
Indeed, since there are NO other such buildings in the world outside of the two in NY City that were symmetrically damaged and subjected to such a fire for that length of time, I do believe the exact opposite is proven by the only two examples that prove the case: Symmetrically damaged, heat-softened floors in the upper quadrant of hollow-cored with no interior girders and beams inside a smooth external structural steel wall buildings DO fall down vertically under the influence of gravity after structural fires lasting over two hours!
Now, deliberately blown-out, horizontal and vertically ribbed, girder-and-beam buildings between vertical columns DO fall twisting or leaning over when the verticals and horizontals are prepped and blown out in sequence. Please show any indications of the weeks and months of interior destruction needed to expose the not-even-present girders-and beams-and-columns were opened, cut and burned out, and loaded with explosives in the days and weeks before 9/11.

Reply to  markl
June 20, 2017 2:12 pm

The first problem is that there are multiple videos showing airplanes hitting the towers. They all show the same events from various angles. It would be a monumental task to fake all of these videos. The second problem is that the buildings collapsed at the points of impact. Again, there were multiple videos all showing the same events from various angles. Your explosive conspiracy doesn’t pass the smell test. The (pseudo) pilots would have had to hit the exact sites where the explosives were placed. And the usual place for placing explosives is near the base of the building.
We know what caused the towers to collapse. It was a combination of bad design (only dry wall protecting the core), bad construction (new environmentally-friendly spray-on fire retardant that blew off on impact so the structural members lost their fire rating), and bad luck (terrorists flying two 767s into the towers).
Jim

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 20, 2017 6:43 pm

Jim Masterson, since you actually believe all that rubbish, I have some very nice swampland in Florida that I’d be delighted to sell you, real cheap.

Reply to  markl
June 20, 2017 8:25 pm

>>
since you actually believe all that rubbish
<<
Yeah, am I going to believe my lying eyes and actual structural engineering conclusions or your made up nonsense? Hmmm, let me think.
Jim

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 21, 2017 8:23 am

Jim Masterson, take some time and absorb some of the real physics-based discussion at AE911Truth,org. It will help you to see that the propaganda you’ve been fed just doesn’t pass scientific muster. If it did, almost 3.000 professional architects and engineers would never have risked their reputations by signing the petition against the official account.

Yep
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 21, 2017 9:22 am

Roflol.
Try again with another lie. That one doesn’t hint.

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 21, 2017 8:27 am

Jim Masterson, two corrections to my last post: “AE911Truth.org” and “3,000.” (After all, it’s very important to get things right, isn’t it?)

Reply to  markl
June 21, 2017 10:32 am

>>
absorb some of the real physics
<<
I’m an engineer–I’ve far more physics than you’ve demonstrated here.
Two 767s struck the towers–there are many videos and eyewitnesses.
There are videos of the towers burning. You can see the structural members without fire-proofing. I’ve seen many steel buildings with spray-on fire retardant. I wonder why it’s there? For looks?
There are many videos of the buildings collapsing beginning at the points of impact. How did they know where to place the charges? There was no evidence of explosive charges going off.
The steel from the buildings went to a holding area in New Jersey. They examined the steel there. Afterwards, they got rid of it–big deal.
There were four planes hijacked that day. Three of them hit their targets. A lot of brave people died that day–both in the air and on the ground.
And don’t say the Pentagon was destroyed with missiles.
The real question is why people want to believe nonsense when it’s obvious that terrorists made the attacks.
Jim

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 21, 2017 1:45 pm

Jim Masterson: Tell me, Mr. Physics, have you ever seen any steel framed building other than the three WTC buildings collapse as a result of fire? I didn’t think so. Case closed.

Yep
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 21, 2017 2:05 pm

Anyone with event a scintilla of building design and building engineering knowledge knows that you must apply fire-proofing to structural steel to prevent a building collapse.
“Fireproofing is rendering something (structures, materials, etc.) resistant to fire, or incombustible; or material for use in making anything fire-proof.[1] It is a passive fire protection measure. “Fireproof” or “fireproofing” can be used as a noun, verb or adjective; it may be hyphenated (“fire-proof”).
Applying a certification listed fireproofing system to certain structures allows them to have a fire-resistance rating. The term “fireproofing” may be used in conjunction with standards, as reflected in common North American construction specifications. An item classed as fireproof is resistant in specified circumstances, and may burn or be rendered inoperable by fire exceeding the intensity or duration that it is designed to withstand.”

Yep
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 21, 2017 2:07 pm

And everyone knows that there are entire industry built around protecting structural steel elements to prevent building collapses.
“Given steel’s lack of inherent fire resistivity, fireproofing material is often applied to exposed surfaces of structural steel and even reinforced concrete members in order to preserve and protect the structure. STRUCTURAL’s team of experts understands fireproofing requirements, various product performance characteristics, and the proper installation and quality control procedures that can insure performance while minimizing cost.
Industry-Leading Specialty Fireproofing Capabilities
STRUCTURAL has earned recognition as one of the industry’s leading specialty contractors dedicated to the fireproofing of steel and concrete infrastructure. Our reputation for quality and value are the results of product knowledge, experience, and stringent technical guidelines and project-specific quality control processes.
These standards, our experience, a skilled trades training program, and an industry-leading safety program instill confidence in clients looking for durable, economic, and quality solutions for their infrastructure fireproofing needs.
– See more at: https://www.structural.net/service/fireproofing#sthash.Mri2YLjo.dpuf

Yep
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 21, 2017 2:10 pm

And we all know that there are lots of State and Federal building code regulations mandating fire protection of steel to prevent building collapses…
“Clark County Department of Building & Fire Prevention
4701 West Russell Road, Las Vegas, NV 89118 ~ (702) 455-3000
Fireproofing for Steel Construction Building Permit Guide”

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 21, 2017 6:57 pm

Luis Anastasia, thanks, but only a small exterior portion of the Madrid tower in the first reference actually collapsed, the remainder requiring extensive demolition, and the second reference was to a one-story theater in which a broad, unsupported span collapsed. Neither can compare to the high-rise WTC buildings which collapsed completely and into their footprints. Only controlled implosion demolition can accomplish that.

Reply to  markl
June 22, 2017 7:32 am

>>
Neither can compare to the high-rise WTC buildings which collapsed completely and into their footprints. Only controlled implosion demolition can accomplish that.
<<
Some footprint. The collapse of the two 110 story towers destroyed more than their footprints. They rained fire and destruction on everything, including igniting WTC 7. All the tall buildings facing the towers were damaged. I visited the site almost 3 months later, and the ruins were still smoldering. From the top of the Empire State Building, you could see smoke rising from the WTC site. So none of your points are valid.
Jim

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  markl
June 22, 2017 7:44 am

Jim Masterson, I believe I’m making progress here. Davidbennettlaing has gone from “have you ever seen any steel framed building other than the three WTC buildings collapse as a result of fire? I didn’t think so.”
….
To: ” but only a small exterior portion of the Madrid tower..”

Reply to  Luis Anastasia
June 22, 2017 7:56 am

Was not the portion that collapsed the bare steel section. I believe the lower section of the building was steel encased in concrete.

nicholasmjames
Reply to  Luis Anastasia
June 22, 2017 7:59 am

The World Trade center design was fairly unique. A central core with an outer frame design. The planes damaged much of the outer frame supports. The steel apears to have not been adequately protected from fire.

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 22, 2017 9:04 am

Jim Masterson, all of my points are valid. If the WTC towers had collapsed randomly, there would have been a whole lot more damage. The setting was crowded, in the midst of a large city, and the WTC towers were immense. My first impression when I saw the collapses in real time was “That is the most professional example of controlled implosion demolition that I have ever seen.” And I’ve seen a lot of them.

Yep
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 22, 2017 10:11 am

Roflol. Now you are devolving into the ridiculous.
The collapse of the two towers caused a lot of damage to the adjacent buildings.
A lot of damage.
You have an extremely low requirement for the professionalism of ‘controlled demolitions!

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 22, 2017 9:27 am

nicholasmjames, The core column clusters in the WTC buildings were virtually monolithic. Even if the surrounding floors had collapsed as a result of fire, the cores should have been left standing, but we all know they weren’t. Hoe do you explain that?
[??? ??? .mod]

Reply to  markl
June 22, 2017 9:26 pm

>>
My first impression when I saw the collapses in real time was “That is the most professional example of controlled implosion demolition that I have ever seen.” And I’ve seen a lot of them.
<<
Apparently not. Both WTC collapses occurred at the impact sites. I’ve never seen a controlled explosion start in the middle of a building. I would think that neither have you, so that’s a nonsense statement. After the dust settles, I’ve never seen a controlled explosion smolder for an instant afterwards let alone for months. I would think that neither have you, so there’s another problem for you.
>>
Even if the surrounding floors had collapsed as a result of fire, the cores should have been left standing, but we all know they weren’t. Hoe do you explain that?
<<
The south tower fell because the floor arrangement gave way. You can see the radio tower which was attached to the core not initially move and trying to resist collapse. But when floor after floor started to pancake, the core couldn’t resist any longer. Also, the section of the south tower above the impact site begins titling toward the side where the 767 crashed–not exactly the fall-into-the-footprint you’ve been harping about.
You should re-watch the videos–you obviously didn’t see them very well the first time.
>>
The core column clusters in the WTC buildings were virtually monolithic.
<<
No they weren’t. And they were only protected by two layers of drywall. Drywall is gypsum sandwiched between layers of paper. It’s not very monolithic. Some people trapped in an elevator chopped through that drywall monolith with a window squeegee.
The north tower was hit dead-on, and it blew away all the drywall on those floors. No one above the impact site got out in the north tower. The south tower was hit nearer the edge. One stairway remained clear, and a few got out safely.
I still don’t understand why you want to blame this on everything else but a terrorist attack. What’s the point?
Jim

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 7:40 am

Jim Masterson, the “point” is science, i.e., getting it right. The stuff you’re spitting out makes no scientific sense, but still you believe it, so there’s not much point in arguing with you further about it. Belief implies a closed mind, and that’s clearly what you have. AE911Truth.org is a highly credible source of information about the science (physics in particular) concerning the facts pertinent to the events of 9/11/2001 on Manhattan Island. I sincerely hope that in spite of your rigid belief in the scientifically untenable official story, you’ll see fit to read the AE911Truth.org material and decide for yourself whether or not it’s more in line with known physical principles than the official account.

Ridiculous
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 23, 2017 7:56 am

We have read their stuff. They are loons pushing ridiculous conspiracy theories!

Ridiculous
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 23, 2017 8:04 am

Correct Jim.
This is a video of the moment of collapse.
At about 1:40 in the Video, you can see the collapse begin.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TJJPYTVjxug

Ridiculous
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 23, 2017 8:26 am

Here are three still shots for the start of the pancake collapse from the video.
What more do you need to see?
The collapse started at the structurally damaged floor.
It is impossible to initiate a controlled demolition from his point. Impossible.
Look at the damage and the fire.
Any explosives would have cooked off long ago.
Any control wires to the explosives would have been likely cut by the damage or destroyed by the fire.
Apply Occams razor. “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.”
There is no being in the Universe smart enough to be able to set up and initiate a controlled building demolition in the middle of a (redacted) disaster of plane crashes, explosions and massive fires.
The simplest solution is the obvious one.
The building collapse started at the severely structurally damaged floor with the massive fire.
The only argument left is did the original archietects and builders properly design the building.
https://imgur.com/gallery/0Ol4T

Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 8:15 am

>>
Luis Anastasia
June 22, 2017 at 7:44 am
Jim Masterson, I believe I’m making progress here.
<<
I don’t. He accuses us of having closed minds, yet I’ve never seen a more obvious example of someone denying actual, concrete, physical events to believe complete nonsense.
The real tragedy in the WTC tower collapse is where environmentalists have taken perfectly good fire retardant and re-made it into useless foam that doesn’t properly adhere to steel members. Had the “environmentally-friendly” fire retardant not blown off during the impacts, many more people might have been saved–including a lot of first responders.
Jim

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 4:23 pm

Jim and Luis, as with Vietnam, I see no point in prolonging this charade, rather I’ll simply declare victory and leave. You are both quite wrong, but convincing you of that fact will never happen, as your minds are made up, as are those of most people who feel more secure accepting the government’s non-scientific garbage. Have a good day!

Ridiculous
Reply to  davidbennettlaing
June 23, 2017 4:46 pm

How Charlie Sheen of you… ‘Winning’. Roflol
“rather I’ll simply declare victory and leave. “

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 4:33 pm

You can declare anything you want to declare. Doesn’t bother me. It’s a good thing that you are leaving, but please do us all a favor and don’t ever come back. Your garbage is not appreciated here.

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 4:54 pm

Neither is yours, Jack. I own this place as much as you do. Bye!

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 5:00 pm

You own nothing here.

davidbennettlaing
Reply to  Luis Anastasia
June 23, 2017 6:18 pm

Je possède autant que vous le faites.

Gabro
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 6:23 pm

IMO this excellent blog is marred by permitting such errant nonsense as WTC conspiracy lunacy and creationist gibberish lies to be spewed here.
But it’s not my blog, so I don’t get a vote.
[Those entries were debatable, but left in place. .mod]

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 6:24 pm

Thank you for acknowledging that you have nothing.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 6:29 pm

PS, you’ll notice your post is the only one out of over 400 posts not written in English. Just goes to prove you stick out like a sore thumb.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 6:37 pm

Lastly davidbennettlaing
….
Please read this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
…..
Pay close attention to….
Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of barycentrism, astrology, aliens, bigfoot, chemtrails, 911 Truthers, Obama’s Birth Certificate, HAARP, UFO’s, Electric Universe, mysticism, and other topics not directly related to the thread.
….
Your promotion of AE911Truth,org makes your posting violations of site policy.

Ridiculous
Reply to  Luis Anastasia
June 24, 2017 11:29 am

While the cat is away …
So please delete these posts since they violate site policy and promote nonsense!

Gabro
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 6:43 pm

David,
Vous avez moins que rien.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 6:48 pm

Gabro, as much as I like negative numbers (less than nothing) please don’t feed the troll.

Gabro
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 7:18 pm

Luis,
Tiene toda la razón, pero tengo un comentario en moderación.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  markl
June 23, 2017 7:22 pm

I have one there also.

Bruce Cobb
June 19, 2017 6:15 am

“Did UK government climate mania contribute to the Grenfell Tower disaster?”
Of course it did, beginning with the whole anti-fossil- fuel idiocy. That forced energy prices to skyrocket, making the “saving energy” focus more financially palatable since it could indeed save money, or at least appear to. Then there’s the crap refrigerator, built around the idea of “saving energy”, at the expense of other things, like safety, which may have sparked the fire. Add in greenwashing and Greenie virtue signalling, and voila, you have a pretty major contribution. But wait, there’s more. We have seen how Greenies and other envirostalinists have a cavalier attitude towards human life, and particularly poor people, though they try to project the opposite. This is another outcome of the Earth-first, human life second weltanschauung.

TA
June 19, 2017 6:25 am

I noticed several other buildings near the Grenfell building that looked quite similiar. I was wondering if they too had the same cladding treatment that Grenfell was given.
How many other buildings were done this way?

Reply to  TA
June 19, 2017 8:42 am

Good question TA. Elephant and Castle has also some gigantesque buildings constructed during the original manmade crisis of the 70’s. Even in Canary Wharf there are some recycled old towers. They may also be insulated with dangerously flammable material. I guess there are many civil service office still in there. Not a simple matter this one.
And all this while manmade atmospheric carbon dioxide is claimed to behave like a atmospheric thermal blanket. It’s also progressive in the sense of claimed also accumulative, inert, oxydation retardant, fully renewable, available also from fully organic sources and it even greens the Earth. What’s there not to like?

TinyCO2
Reply to  TA
June 19, 2017 9:59 am

They don’t know. THere are at least 6 in the area done by the same contractor. I suspect that high rise buildings up and down the country are being checked as a matter of urgency.

June 19, 2017 7:09 am

I submitted a very similar article to WUWT two days ago.
It never appeared.
Ho hum

Editor
June 19, 2017 7:34 am

Hard to think of any other explanation. Flammable cladding has already caused a number of small fires to turn into building-consuming infernos in Dubai, where use of these materials seems to have been pioneered (perhaps due to the extreme value of insulation in North Africa), forcing new rules there, so how can England have missed the memo? Channeled by green requirements is a possible explanation, where otherwise there would be none.

TomRude
June 19, 2017 9:15 am

Good point… And that would explain why the MSM is walking on eggs when discussing this, cautious of not upsetting Big Green.

climatereason
Editor
June 19, 2017 9:15 am

This article and all the comments are based on pure speculation. We have as yet no idea as to what caused the fire to ignite in the way it did. There will be a thorough enquiry and the results must be implemented urgently whilst the residents are provided with the immediate means to carry on with their lives..
As with very many buildings of this type all over the world the fire services do not have the equipment needed to reach the top floors.
As a sensible and immediate fire prevention measure each high rise apartment needs to be issued with a fire blanket and a fire extinguisher, the residents taught how to use them and the procedures needed to raise an alarm.
very many of the residents in this tower appear to be foreign and whether they know the procedures to follow must be in doubt for a proportion of them
tonyb

Reply to  climatereason
June 19, 2017 10:48 am

That is a great common sense idea that would not cost much to implement.
No one here seems to be picking up on the fact that the manufacturer of that cladding states that it is not supposed to be placed higher then 30 meters up a building. The cladding had been installed all the way to the top of the 24 story building. So whoever made the decision to install that cladding the full height of the building has some serious responsibility for the deaths incurred.

Resourceguy
June 19, 2017 9:15 am

Mad Cow disease in the UK also resulted from total disregard for safety standards established by other countries in order to placate local special interest groups. I guess that’s what “central government” is in the UK.

June 19, 2017 9:16 am

Sadly On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated upon reentering Earth’s atmosphere, killing all seven crew members. A piece of Green insulation damaged the shuttle and killed the crew.

lewispbuckingham
Reply to  stopislaminusa
June 19, 2017 2:04 pm

Actually it was taking off.
But let’s not let a fact get in the way of narrative.

Roger Knights
Reply to  lewispbuckingham
June 19, 2017 7:38 pm

He didn’t say the Green insulation fell of during re-entry. He assumed that was known. The damage it caused occurred later.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Roger Knights
June 19, 2017 9:02 pm

On the second Space Shuttle loss, the “green insulaiton” was actually “green epoxy – two part mixed adhesive – holding the space shuttle tiles on the skin beneath. NASA rejected their previous (very successful, no falls) mix, and went with a environmentally-corrupt (er, correct) mixture. The new mix failed under the vibration loads of launch with ice and condensation (from the cryogenic LOX and LH fuels being loaded and veted causing water condensation and ice blocks building up). These blocks of insulating tiles and ice-masses fell off at launch vibration (instead of remaining in place as before) and several broke the insulating tiles on the wings and structure below. Ice blocks and upper tiles caused the proximate damage that killed. Enviro-manadates over fears of potential future harm over real world actual 100& human danger caused the failure. As usual.
With holes in the leading edges of the wing roots, the astronauts were doomed on re-entry. They just didn’t know it yet.

Roger Knights
Reply to  lewispbuckingham
June 20, 2017 1:50 am

ME: The universal silence of the MSM on this root cause of the shuttle disaster, probably out of a sympathy with overall enviro goals and a desire not to give ammo to enviro-skeptics, justifies our skepticism of MSM reporting on other enviro-issues. It also deflates the green accusation that such skepticism is crazy conspiratorial thinking.