The ‘Towering Inferno’

I don’t think that I have commented upon the tower block fire in London. The videos and pictures that I have seen reminded me of the film ‘The Towering Inferno’ more than 9/11. I must admit to having been astonished by the blackened exterior, but that was before I heard about the external cladding. It has been said that the cause of the fire was a faulty refrigerator which burst into flames, presumably causing a fire in that particular flat, but that story came out before anyone could possibly know the cause, unless the people in the flat involved survived and told people about it. That could very well be the case, since they would have been the first to escape. But even if a faulty fridge was the cause, how did the fire get to the cladding?

I know little about the physics of heat, except that there is a huge difference between radiated heat and conducted heat. For example, you can put a poker near a coal fire and it will get warm or even hot, but if you put the poker in the fire, it will not take a long time for the poker to become red hot and glow brightly. Another interesting point is that, when you remove the poker from the fire, it does not take a long time for the redness to fade, even though the poker stays hot for some time. We know what happens when we ignite a cig with a cig lighter or match. H heat from the flame is high enough to cause a chemical reaction between oxygen in the air and the leaf of the cig, but what is just as important is that the chemical reaction is self-continuing, once it starts. The temperature of the burning leaf is sufficiently high to ignite the leaves next to it.

So the question is:

How did the heat in the flat with the faulty fridge get to the cladding so as to conduct heat and ignite the cladding?  An interesting point is whether or not the cladding actually caused the temperature of the concrete walls (or bricks) to retain heat to such an extent that the concrete/bricks became hot enough (‘red hot’) to cause the chemical reaction between the cladding and the oxygen in the air. Or could plastic in the window frames have ‘ignited’? But remember the poker. It glows red hot but has not been ignited. Touch anything flammable with the poker and the flammable material will immediately burst into flames. That is because the chemical reactions are very violent, even on a very small scale, such as a cig lighter. In the red hot poker, the metal atoms are moving about violently, but somehow stay in place, unless the metal gets so hot that it melts. The red hot ‘catalyst’ does not itself need to be ‘on fire’.

In a way, I have not commented before because we do not know enough yet. And yet, the Saturday Sun newspaper (I get it for the TV pages) was bursting its seems with inflammatory accusations. But the accusations are not actually about the fire; they are about Theresa May’s actions and such like peripherals. The complaint was that she did not ‘meet and greet’ residents. What the fuck does it matter!! Why should she place herself in danger from some madman when she was not in the slightest possible bit responsible for the conditions which caused the tragedy? To expect her to do so is unutterably stupid.

Be in no doubt that the fire was a human tragedy. The anniversary of Joe Cox’s death has just passed. That was a human tragedy. It is not always about numbers. The 9/11 events caused some 3000 deaths. Each one of those deaths was a human tragedy. Why? Because each life was terminated cruelly and impotently. But what annoys me immensely is the premature attribution of blame.

But that is the way that the MSM works, is it not? And that is the way that politics works, is it not? Is it any wonder that we have a vicious smoking ban and persecution of smokers? IT IS EASY!! All the MSM has to do is quote a Professor and what he/she says becomes gospel truth.

But what also struck me, as the tragedy unfolded, was the number of apparently non-Brits housed in that tower. Who are they and where did they come from? I lack information, but the appearance is something of a ghetto. It looks like the tower block was the cheapest way to house loads and loads of immigrants.

But housing the immigrants is not the real problem, is it? The real problem is that they should not be here. But no one in the MSM, as they chuck the blame on Theresa May by implication (she did not expose herself the the vilification), asked why the block was 90% inhabited by immigrants. I may be wrong about that in detail. I do not know because the MSM (including the BBC) do not address that question. All I know is what I see -very few ‘white’ faces.

It has been reported that a black guy found an unattended body-bag containing a body, opened the bag and took pictures of the body, which he then posted on Facebook or some such. He has been sent to jail for doing so. His ‘crime’ was something to do with ‘hate speech’ in a roundabout sort of way. The judge said that he did something which was not ‘nice’ and sent him to jail for three months or so. It is now a crime to take pictures of a dead body. It will shortly become a crime to take a picture of a dead fly.

Be aware that I have no colour or ethnic prejudice in my make-up at all, apart from ‘Britishness’. I used to know that I could go anywhere in Britain and be well-received. Now, I am no so sure. I do not know for sure where I can go. I used to know that I could go anywhere in France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and be well received. Now, since the EU was established, I am not so sure. For example, I do not know whether or not lighting a cig in ‘an enclosed space’ might finish up with me in Palma, Mallorca, jail. When you drive from Palma to Magalluf, you pass Palma jail. It is not exactly ‘high-rise’, but their are about four stories of ‘cells’. I don’t suppose that the jail needs cladding. In fact, I do not know what the consequences of breaking ANY law in England might be. I have no idea. If a person can be sent to jail for taking a picture of a body left unattended and publishing that picture on the net, distasteful though it might be, can be a crime, then what action is NOT a crime? We are getting to a stage where every action is a crime – unless it is an ‘approved’ action.

I had high hopes for UKIP when Nige was in charge. I thought that UKIP might attract enough politically-minded people to oust the ‘Anointed’, such as Cameron et al. But Nige was an orator and a sage. He was not an ‘apparatchik’ . Cameron, and his fellow Etonians, and their acquaintances, were always acolytes and servants, even if they did not know it. Why else would it be that they could not translate their support of the EU into sensible arguments?

The reason is that they dared not say what their ultimate goal was. For some ephemeral reason, they saw Western Europe as a copy of the USA –  a group of ‘States’ with a Federal ‘Boss’. Why have they not seen that the Federal situation in the Russian Empire has collapsed? Why do they not see that the USA Federal Government is weak? Any State in the USA could break away if it wished to. Would the Federal Government bomb Texas?

The ‘Towering Inferno’ is an example of the consequences of ‘Global Warming’ hysteria. “Clad those tower blocks to save the planet’. ‘Ban smoking to save the Human Race’.

Both lead to catastrophe.

Excuse typos – it is late.



8 Responses to “The ‘Towering Inferno’”

  1. elenamitchell Says:

    First of all, the internal heat could have shattered the window at the seat of the fire, and then set fire to The Cladding around the window. The external heat from burning Cladding could then have shattered more windows, letting the fire in to other flats. This is something that the experts are better able to prove.

    I don’t think I am a Racist, and it doesn’t matter to me anymore anyway. I left Britain a long time ago, which was nothing to do with immigrants, and much more to do with home grown crime and violence.

    Meanwhile, thanks for the opportunity to be politically incorrect, although the large number of ethnic minorities who were living in those flats is very hard to ignore. Are all of the High Rise Blocks like this? And if so, why?
    Ghettos used to encompass whole neighbourhoods, but now it seems that they can be contained in various High Rise Blocks around the country. Something that I would have been completely unaware of without this tragedy.
    This isn’t good for anyone. It offers complete contempt for human life, although perhaps with good intentions.

    God save us all from The Righteous.

    • junican Says:

      The ‘ghettoisation’ is indeed a question which needs to be asked. But it will not be asked. Frankly, I have enough to think about with the ghettoisation of smokers.

  2. Rose Says:

    “But no one in the MSM, as they chuck the blame on Theresa May by implication (she did not expose herself the the vilification), asked why the block was 90% inhabited by immigrants”

    Because the indigenous population have always hated them.
    I once saw a programme on city planning and the now repentant, bright young achitects of the day, asked the ladies who were living in the rows of old houses that they intended to replace, what would be their ideal home and naturally they wanted houses with gardens, but that was not the fashion amongst trendy architects then, so they put them in brutal looking high rises, away from the world they had known all their lives and thought that they would be grateful.

    Like smoking bans are the current fashion and cause misery, young architects and ideologists thought they knew what the people wanted

    The 1970s. The decade when Britain’s housing utopia turned into a nightmare.

    “By 1975 about 10 per cent of all homes in the country (1.5 million homes in streets and squares) had been demolished to permit the brave new world of blocks in parks. The winner of one of the Department of the Environment Design awards in the 1970s was for a building half a kilometre long. By 1979 over 4,500 tower blocks had been built, usually erasing all trace of the streetscape which had preceded them.

    However, it become increasingly obvious during the 1970s that either something was very wrong with the people or something was terribly wrong with the new homes. Because, put simply, the British did not like the utopias into which they were being so unceremoniously decanted.

    Polling evidence was starkly clear. By 1981 one academic could conclude that “very substantial majorities of residents in high flats would prefer to live in houses according to all the studies asking about housing preferences.” It also became clear on the ground. There were numerous instances of local communities campaigning against being put in tower blocks or trying to leave them. Across the country, community groups sprung up to resist “slum clearance” and fight against decantation into tower blocks and estates.”

    Who’s responsible for all the concrete carbuncles?

    “Many would have only the vaguest idea of who he was. He designed no buildings in Britain. But as a new exhibition celebrates the work of Le Corbusier, architect and writer Guy Booth argues that his legacy was monstrous.”

    “In Marseille, Unite d’Habitation was an experiment in communism. Opened in 1952, the leviathan block embodies in concrete the ideals of socialist family life – everything but the freedom to do as you want.

    “With its shops (half way up), its children’s garden on the roof, its modular facades gaily painted in Cubist colours, and location in a park, Unite was the “last word”. People hated it.

    Modular planning – a grid controls everything – made the flats like railway compartments. The idea of a two-level duplex failed because the bedrooms were set on open balconies overlooking living areas.
    Le Corbusier hoped that Unite would promote his 1920 vision of A City of Towers: identical, 60-storey apartment blocks set in a rigid grid within urban parkland.

    Unite spawned plans for every awful working-class housing estate in Europe – the most notorious at Park Hill in Sheffield.”

    • junican Says:

      I suppose that people will put up with whatever they are offered if they have little choice. But we should not ignore the idea that those people should not be here in the first place.

  3. cherie79 Says:

    I noticed the make up of the residents too and that no one in the MSM mentioned it. I just wish people would wait and see what exactly happened before condemning everyone, most of whom would have had no involvement in the decisions about refurbishment.

  4. George Speller Says:

    The system of law you are describing, where everything is illegal unless specifically permitted is the Napoleonic system used in Europe, and the exact antithesis of ours. So it kinda makes sense that it would be worming it’s way in here.

    • junican Says:

      I know a bit about the Napoleonic law. I don’t think that your interpretation is correct. I think that the problems was that the accused was expected to prove his innocence just as much as the prosecution was expected to prove his guilt. In our law, the accused does have to do anything.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: