empire watch, latest, UK
Comments 60

Warnings of protests at Grenfell Tower Inquiry as anger and frustration mount

Theo Russell

Updated with latest developments 2/10/18

Warnings of protests at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry were heard this week as anger and frustration mount over the direction of the inquiry, at a meeting between the Fire Brigades Union and the local community close to the site of the fire.

The community is increasingly concerned at the direction of the inquiry into the UK’s worst fire since the Blitz in WW2, where the presiding judge initially refused to take any questions from community members and survivors.

Moyra Samuels of the Justice 4 Grenfell campaign received loud applause from the meeting on Monday night when she said “there should be protests outside the inquiry to show the judge that people are not happy with it”.

Her call was backed up by Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union general secretary, who said “if a total ban on the use of external flammable cladding is not announced, maybe we should start protesting against the inquiry.”

Samuels told the meeting “We are a tough community, but unfortunately we discovered that through the fire at Grenfell. We need truth, accountability, change and justice”.

She dubbed Kensington and Chelsea council, the richest in Britain, “the Royal Borough of Murder and Profit”, and said that “trust between the North Kensington community and the council had broken down long before the fire”.

“We were told by fire experts that the refurbishment of the Grenfell Tower was safe, yet now a QC has told the Inquiry that it was actually a death trap. We have discovered that profit is more important than people”.

Matt Wrack said that a parliamentary committee was warned as far back as 1999 that faulty cladding posed serious fire hazards.

Now the inquiry has heard from Angelo Lucchini, an Italian architectural engineer, that the cladding used at Grenfell was equivalent to dousing the building with 32,000 litres of petrol, “enough to fill approximately 600 cars”.

The FBU is calling for a total ban on flammable cladding, which is used for weather and sound proofing, yet incredibly so far the inquiry has shown no signs of backing a ban.

Initially the British government launched a consultation in which companies making the cladding would take part, despite an official admission that the cladding used at Grenfell was unlawful.

This was viewed by campaigners as an attempt to kick the issue into the long grass and completely unacceptable.

However, under growing pressure from the Labour Party on its policies and in opinion polls, Housing Secretary James Brokenshire is due to announce a ban on combustible cladding is to be banned for all new schools, hospitals, care homes, student accommodation and residential buildings in England above 18m at the Conservative Party conference.

Matt Wrack told the meeting that “very powerful forces are lobbying against a ban, and they have the ear of the government”. These companies are part of a multi-billion pound building, construction and property industry.

It now seems those companies will be losing out in a clear victory for the FBU and the Justice4Grenfell campaign.

Wrack said that before Grenfell no tests were conducted on combustible cladding, which has also been used on hundreds of blocks across Britain, but since the fire dozens of tests have all failed fire safety requirements.

He said the FBU is also calling for a thorough review of fire and building regulations, which have been decimated in the past 20 years, and cuts to fire brigade services.

Ten fire stations and 600 firefighter posts were cut in the capital during Boris Johnson’s term as London Mayor, and 2015-2016 saw a 15% rise in fire deaths in London.

On the day of the tragedy, firefighters had to call for assistance from neighbouring brigades, yet even then had to work in the tower for 12 hours or more with no chance of being relieved.

The FBU has complained to the inquiry about its choice of expert witnesses, who include the same Chief Fire Officers who supported service cuts and de-regulation.

Fifteen months on from the fire many survivors are still in temporary accommodation. The day after the fire a survivor said the tower was an “accident waiting to happen”, adding: “For years they’ve abused our community.”

Concerns about the tower’s emerged years before the fire. In 2013 the council threatened Grenfell resident Edward Daffarn with legal action after he blogged about fire safety, including power surges which caused computers and stereos to blow up filling rooms with smoke.

In November 2016 Daffam warned: “It is a truly terrifying thought but the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord.”

Over 100 Grenfell residents claimed ay an emergency Town Hall meeting in 2015 on the block’s refurbishment that the council’s Tenant Management Organisation and the contractors were “using cheap materials and cutting corners”.

The day after the tragedy one of the messages on the tribute wall nearby read “Justice for Grenfell. Jail those responsible”. That is still what the community is demanding, and they want the cladding contractors and the senior politicians responsible to be included.


60 Comments

  1. I can’t remember who said it but I think it’s a very important warning to heed: “What will happen is that whether the event is real or staged they will give us the same kind of information about it so we will not be able to distinguish truth from lie.”

    What I’ve noticed is that it is not just large-scale “terror” events that seem to be staged, It seems to be smaller events as well that seem to have an agenda.

    I try not to avoid the news because I simply do not want to be constantly trying to work out whether something is real or fake, however, this morning I was sitting in a cafe and idly started leafing through today’s SMH. A story caught my attention – it was about a woman, Kristie Powell, who’d been battered to death by a stalker. Powell lived in Bellambi, a suburb of Wollongong about 80km south of Sydney.

    I noticed that it seemed to be missing information you’d normally get and didn’t seem to quite add up.

    We’re told she was found inside her house at 1.10am by the police, however, we are not told what alerted the police to go to her house at that time. Normally, they’d say neighbours heard screaming and reported it to the police or somesuch but we are not told.

    On returning home I checked the internet and these are other versions of the story I found.

    The online SMH article which has yesterday’s date said, “Neighbours contacted by the Mercury [the local newspaper] said they slept through the ordeal.” So they’re telling us neighbours slept through the ordeal. How on earth were the police alerted?
    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-s-body-found-in-house-with-baby-boy-police-20181005-p507uu.html

    In the ABC report which is linked to on the SMH website, a report of disturbance is mentioned. Why only in the ABC story? And why the very vague “report of disturbance”?

    In the Channel 9 story we’re told she was found by a concerned friend but given no clue as to what alerted the friend to go to her house at 1am. Presumably, she must have been able to get through to her friend while the stalker was either attacking her or just before, in which case, why not mention it?
    https://www.9news.com.au/2018/10/05/06/29/body-found-woman-home-bellambi-near-baby-boy

    A concerned friend finding her contradicts the ABC and SMH stories. They imply that the police were the first to arrive on the scene.

    Hallmark of staged events: different and contradictory versions of the story.

    It is said that she told her friends she didn’t answer calls from private numbers any more because it could be the stalker. However, we were also told that she received up to 100 calls and messages a day from him, including one saying, “Die, Kristie, die”. You only get messages from a mobile phone so while it may have been more difficult to block the private calls surely she could have blocked any relevant mobile numbers. And even with private numbers couldn’t she block a certain number of these? Was the guy running around to every public phone box?

    Photo that seems odd to me
    We see a man in a suit and tie helping to carry the body from the house. Suit and tie? Wouldn’t it be paramedics?
    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-s-body-found-in-house-with-baby-boy-police-20181005-p507uu.html

    The seeming agenda: it is said she had told friends that she’d told the police but they said they couldn’t do anything about it. Does this mean new phone-related laws that somehow restrict our freedoms?

    She says on her FB page:
    “He is mentally unwell and I have contacted police about him on a few occasions, but there is nothing they can really do as he is considered non-threatening.”

    However, “Police say they never received any formal complaint from Ms Powell about the alleged stalking.”

    “Never received” is not the kind of colloquial grammar you’d expect to see in a news report. Another hallmark: the language is often inappropriately colloquial.

    Another interesting point is that no one’s name is mentioned except Kristie’s and the police’s. No neighbour’s name, no friend’s name. I’ve seen other events where even the person the event is about is only referred to as “John”. Can you believe that? We are told quite a significant story about someone reported as “John” with not a single other name mentioned. Not the name of his carers referred to, nor any name of police referred to (and the police were also very significant in the story), nor the name of the suburb he lived in, just the “northern suburbs of Melbourne”.

    I hate to think that this may be a horrible tragedy and I simply question it. I hate that feeling. That’s why I don’t read the news. For goodness sake, can I not just pick up a paper once in awhile and simply read it without being confronted by a story where I smell a rat?

  2. Frankly Speaking says

    This was meant to be a reply to the Flaxgirl Disinfo Agent, not sure how it ended up at the top level.

  3. Frankly Speaking says

    You had your opportunity to show us that you’re not a disinfo troll and spoiler; now there’s no doubt. Get lost.

    • Do you believe in the phenomenon of staged events, Frankly Speaking? Do you feel certain about any events being staged or do you just think they’re a possibility? You really need to get clarity on at least one event. If you don’t study them, if you don’t know their hallmarks, if you can’t see how they’re similar to each other, then how can you judge? So many people say, “Well, maybe but I don’t think so” or they just dismiss the idea as preposterous. The power elite SHOVE these events in our faces. There is no room to be on the fence about them if you study them properly. You cannot legitimately say, “I’m open to the idea of a staged event but I’m not sure they really happen.” They are in our faces. They don’t conduct them as realistically as possible deliberately so that, in their minds, we cannot accuse them of completely duping us. But even though they give us a massive head start on determining what they’re doing to us, I’m vilified for calling out the completely obvious. If you don’t want to see what’s in front of your face, so be it, FS, if you want to sit in the facile argument of how plausible the event is that is your choice but you have no right to vilify me for not doing that.

      • Admin says

        You litter your comments with such a litany of naive confessions of ignorance, incompetence, logical fallacies and non sequitur it almost appears you’re trying to discredit yourself. If you’re not you really need to pause and consider your methodology.

        But look – of course fake events can occur. We have discussed the possibility on OffG. The alleged attack on the school in Syria in 2013, allegedly filmed by the BBC Panorama team was probably faked, as Robert Stuart has established by his terrific research.

        But look at the difference between what Stuart has done and what you do.

        Stuart has amassed a huge amount of photographic, circumstantial and expert witness evidence that combines to suggest some degree of fakery as the most obvious explanation.

        You, on the other hand, haven’t bothered to amass any evidence at all beyond your own gut feelings and above-mentioned non sequiturs. You tell us YOU don’t believe people would behave in this or that way, or YOU think this or that family photo looks dodge. That’s not evidence. It’s uninformed subjective opinion.

        When you clutter each and every thread here with this stuff you a) start to look like a deliberately self-discrediting troll and b) also discredit by association those doing real work on genuine examples of state-sponsored fakery.

        I suggest you go away and put a rational case together if you can for just one of these alleged fake events, and then come back when/if you have some real data.

        • Oh dear, Admin, you’re very good at dishing out the false accusations of me but not so good at answering my questions … which I think is rather unfair, don’t you? I will try again.

          Can you point me to anything on the visual record for either 9/11 or Grenfell tower that clearly indicates death or injury?

          Assuming no, can you supply me with a reason that I should believe either of them was not a staged event.

          Love it, though. Fake events “can” occur, we discussed the “possibility” – there was this one in Syria back in 2013 that was “probably” faked. I truly wonder what your criteria are for judging an event to be staged … or for judging it to be real. What can they possibly be?

        • What I don’t understand, Admin, is your acceptance of the MSM story as the default. You started OffG because of MSM lies and yet when it comes to terror events you seem to swallow them wholesale. Why is that? Why is it that the only event you mention as a “probable” staged event is one in Syria in 2013 where you depend on someone else’s research. As a journalist shouldn’t you be researching the ones that others claim to be staged events? It seems you’ve never analysed another event to determine whether it was or wasn’t a staged event.

          As I keep saying, the evidence is right in front of our noses and yet you seem to persist in blindness to it.

          I assert that when a claim is made that a bomb has killed 22 people and injured 250 the evidence should be clear. Instead we are shown a single, blurry image (across all media at different levels of crop and zoom) of the Manchester bomb scene that in no way indicates the death of 22 people and injury to 250.

          Please tell me how this does not constitute evidence that a bomb did not go off at the Manchester Arena. Please tell me, as a sceptical journalist, why you accept this single, blurry image as evidence? – Not to mention, of course, all the other bizarre and incredible things about Manchester including the chirpy parents of Martyn Hett, and the smiling children in Manchester hospital being visited by the queen and showing no signs of injury, despite claims by an orthopaedic surgeon that he saw “wounds from a battlefield”. As I also keep saying, the power elite make their events obvious, they don’t show us parents even attempting to show real grieving and they give us verbal information that contradicts the visual (wounds from a battlefield just mentioned) yet as a sceptical journalist you still swallow this. I really question your non-MSM journalistic credentials.

          • Frankly Speaking says

            Victims of atrocities deserve respect, not have their blasted guts and limbs plastered across the media. You are beyond help and hope.

            Anyway, you copmletely blew your chances to redeem yourself and I won’t feed your deliberate trolling any more, you cease to exist for me. Say hi to the rest of your team in Cheltenham from us.

            • Frankly Speaking what you need to apply is some perspective. There is a difference between not showing convincing evidence and being sensitive in what you show. A very, very big difference. If you think that the media can not show us anything convincing at all because of sensitivity that puts you in a very dangerous situation. That allows the media to tell whopping lies under the guise of “we don’t show sensitive information.”

              If you think that it’s perfectly fine for the media and government to tell us that 3,000 people died and 6,000 people were injured on 9/11 but not show a single image that convincingly supports that claim then so be it. To me that is an extremely foolish and dangerous acceptance and I think it outrageous for you to expect me or any thinking person to subscribe to it.

              Similarly, for all the other events that they don’t show us convincing imagery for.

              But as I keep saying Frankly Speaking they do the hard work for us. They tell us with their ludicrous contradictions and witness testimony, etc, etc. When a surgeon says that he saw wounds from a battlefield and we see children showing not the least sign of injury in hospital (and certainly nothing else to support his claim) then I say that is too great a discrepancy between tell and show.

              I think the power elite must have such a great laugh at how people, even when the ludicrousness is pointed out, will valiantly persist in believing their outrageous lies. I’m sorry you’re one of those people Frankly Speaking, I really am.

        • On reflection, I have another response to you, Admin.

          The fact that you refer to only one event as a probable staged event indicates that you simply haven’t looked with any kind of seriousness at a very significant number of events that have been called out by others as being staged. This is very remiss for a journalist who has set up a journal in opposition to MSM lies as a significant feature of their lies is, in fact, staged events.

          You refer to “terrific research” which implies that you think detailed research needs to be done before it can be claimed that an event is staged. In fact, the best you can come up even in this case is “probably faked”.
          What you display is a, frankly, difficult-to-comprehend, wilful ignorance of how the power elite stage their events and also of the bucketload of evidence for these events. You constantly try to say that something presented as evidence does not constitute to evidence when it clearly does.

          A very, very key feature of staged events is that the power elite inform us of what they’re up to with their signals. I’ve said this over and over and over again. One commenter has described me as tiring. It seems I have to be because even though I’ve said it ad nauseam this information about a handy tool facilitating analysis of these events is simply ignored. I don’t know what I have to do for it to be picked up. I’ll try capitalising (just this once).

          THE POWER ELITE INFORM US THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR STAGED EVENTS BY SIGNALLING THEM THROUGH THINGS THAT DON’T ADD UP, CONTRADICTIONS, RIDICULOUSNESS, SMILING GRIEVERS, SLOPPY EXECUTION, STRANGE WITNESS TESTIMONY, STRANGE CHANGES IN THE STORY, GREAT DISCREPANCY BETWEEN SHOW AND TELL AND VARIOUS OTHER THINGS.

          Essentially, staged events are drills pushed out as real and they are GLOBAL MEDIA EVENTS. You don’t have to do special research (although it can help) – it’s all there in the “tell and show” show. All right there in front of your face. You don’t have to go to the location, go to a library, interview anyone. All you have to do is analyse the media show and note all the hallmarks and how there is nothing that clearly supports the event being real.

          You strawman me by saying that my presentation of a photo that “looks dodge [to me]” is not evidence. Those, of course, were not my words. I described the photo carefully stating that Bobby McIlvaine’s arm looked too short and extended from his body strangely. I asked you your opinion and also asked if you thought it needed validation by a professional anatomist. You did not reply to these questions.

          Of course, the reason you did not reply to these questions is that it would sound so very stupid to say both , “Oh no, I don’t think his arm looks too short and I think it doesn’t extend from his body strangely” (because it so very, very obviously does show those characteristics) and “It can’t be judged by the likes of you – it needs a professional anatomist”.

          How can you be so shamefully intellectually dishonest?

          But that is only one point in any case. I have a significant number of others to build my case for the death and injury being a fabrication on 9/11. And, of course, Admin, you cannot come up with a single point to support death and injury being real. Not a single point. It seems you think the onus is only on the challenger, not YOU to defend your belief that death and injury did happen on 9/11, as if claims by the media are something we must accept as the “default”. Don’t you question why you cannot come up with a single point to defend it being real? Doesn’t that make you wonder? How can it be that you cannot produce a single piece of evidence supporting the “real” hypothesis if death and injury on 9/11 really were real? How can that be when that is certainly what was made so very, very much of on 9/11 and ever since.

          I truly wonder why it is you have such a resistance to accepting events as being staged … especially when they’re simply going wild with them. They’re everywhere you turn and they’re so obvious.

          In future I request that you do not strawman me, especially when I’ve asked you a question on the issue at hand that you failed to answer. That really is beyond the pale.

          I have issued my $5,000 Occam’s Razor challenge on 4 events now and no one has responded to any of them. Two truthers I know are working on the 9/11 injury and death challenge at the moment (the first people to work on a challenge that I know of) but I’m confident the challenge will defeat them because I know my grasp of logic and reason is solid regardless of your opinion on it. http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

  4. Frankly Speaking says

    “ I feel terrible about that and in so many ways I feel helpless to do anything. I feel at a loss to understand how geopolitics really works but the one thing I can understand and is so very black and white is all the false flag hoaxes happening. These things are so very obvious and can be identified very easily if only you open your mind and have a look.“

    Perhaps you are being genuine. If so, your comment illustrates where you are going completely off track.

    You don’t understand something very complex by your own admission, nothing wrong with that, most of us to struggle along the road of enlightenment. However, you then apply a massively simplistic and massively flawed thought process to try and explain what you are trying to comprehend.

    Yes, there are conspiracies to cover up appalling crimes committed by the Controllers such as 911, however, you see a conspiracy in every major event where a far more rational explanation is available based on the facts.

    The facts are that not only the Grenfell residents but others living in council accommodation across the country have since 1979 when Thatcher became PM complained about Tory policy. Numerous residences are affected by Tory exploitation and corruption and mismanagement.

    Grenfell residents complained for years to their local Tory council. What happened in Grenfell was foreseeable and avoidable and due to greed and mismanagement. Those responsible took numerous decisions which were all challenged yet implemented.

    A refrigerator caught fire and due to all the mismanagement and greed and implementation of Tory policy the inevitable consequences then followed.

    Those responsible for Grenfell need to be put in prison. By you and others propagating Grenfell conspiracy theories you are in fact lobbying to help those truly responsible for this appalling event, rather than campaigning for justice and see them rot in prison.

    If you are a disinfo troll you’ll carry on regardless. If you’re genuine you’ll stop and reflect and then cease your nonsense on Grenfell. The ball is completely in your court Flaxgirl.

    • Frankly Speaking, as I indicate, I believe they exploit plausibility as part of their propaganda, so it doesn’t mean anything to me. These people don’t necessarily operate how you might expect – they’re a weird cult who treat us like fools and scum. They have no problem at all with how we perceive them as long as it involves feeling intimidated by their power. How evil we think they are isn’t a problem for them and they’re completely shameless.

      I couldn’t agree with your description of the situation more – they simply exploit it, that’s all. I make no great claims to understand them myself but I felt it was incredibly illuminating when I learnt from an an insider via false-flag analyst, Ole Dammegard, that they believe that by pushing their crimes in our faces with things that don’t add up, ridiculousness, etc, the onus is on us to call them out and if we don’t it’s our fault not theirs and they suffer no karmic repercussions for their evil deeds. I’m always plugging away with this aspect of them but others don’t seem to pick it up. It’s very, very important and gives an insight into how they operate. It frustrates we when I call out the complete lack of credibility shown by someone’s behaviour and people simply refuse to see how it’s not credible. This is an example of the power elite pushing their hoaxery in our face and people still refuse to see it. They think someone’s behaviour is credible when it’s utterly ludicrous.

      I judge events not by plausibility and not by implausibility but by the EVIDENCE. There is no evidence of injury or death at this event just as there was none at 9/11 and at many other events … where it is very much expected. There are also lots of things wrong with the witness testimonies, their inappropriate smiling, the footage we are shown of people in the buildings and a number of other things.

      Millions of people believe astronauts didn’t go to the moon because we haven’t been since 1972 and it’s so very far away and technology has improved so much since then. These are not good reasons. We need to judge the evidence shown to us and it stands up. The evidence shown to us for the claims made about Grenfell do not stand up regardless of people complaining about problems for years or other plausible circumstances tending to suggest it was a real event.

    • From a link provided here on these pages about the Tavistock school of psychology, it seems that as long as the ‘evidence’ is in an accepted documentary format any number of people believe it to be true. Alex Jones and his ilk take advantage of this phenomenon.

  5. This video is all about the Masonic coding of the event, however, if you go to 5 minutes in you’ll see a guy who seems to play two witnesses. As the second witness, especially, what he says seems very odd.
    https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=BO71RKR7BSYM

    3 1/2 months ago I was watching them coming with the insulation and I said to one of the workers, “What are you doing with this insulation? Why are you putting it in the building?” He says, “Oh it’s to keep you cool in the summer and warm in the winter,” and I said, “Is it?” And I said, “Watch this,” and I tore off, I broke off a little piece of it, yeah, I put it on the back of my phone and after I put it on the back of my phone, I lit it with my lighter and watched that little piece of foam go pfsss, and I said, “You’re putting that in this building, yeah?”

    How credible do you find this?

    The power elite hoax us and then they push their hoaxery in our faces.

      • I’m at a loss, Admin, I truly am.

        Why would this alleged tenant have a clue about the cladding’s flammability? He gives no indication that he is familiar with the material.

        If you were going to demonstrate a material’s flammability would you consider tearing a bit off (and I wonder how it was possible for him to do this) and sticking it on your phone and lighting it?

        Did you notice how in the first interview he’s wearing glasses and in the second he’s not. Also in the second his jaw is not shown clearly which one might suspect is done so as not to display the shaving pattern of his beard we see in the first interview.

      • rilme says

        Try it sometime, Admin, approach a tough-looking construction worker and ask him what he’s doing. Break off a piece of the material he’s carrying. Duck!

        Try it sometime, Admin. Put something on the back of your phone and burn it: the thing, I mean. What could possibly go wrong?

      • Another thing to notice is that he doesn’t say “on” the building he says “in” which is not quite right for cladding. They do that. They have people use words that don’t quite fit. I know it happens in normal life, of course, too, I do it myself, but it’s just something they do and sometimes it’s much more obvious.

        • BigB says

          Flax: you are way off on the insulation issue, therefore linking the insulation with a laughing power elite is not so much a quantum leap, as a leap into a virtual parallel universe, then into another parallel universe, and then…

          That’s how far out you are, but because you want to concretise and validate your pre-assumptive belief system …you will not listen to me, or anyone else. But even as I am wasting my time, I’m going to write this anyway. Take it or leave it, but I’m motivated by concern, not criticism.

          First, I work in the building industry, so I have personal knowledge that is relevant, that you may not have. Second, because of where I live, it is perhaps understandable that it was a local firm involved as main contractors. Also, members of the local Fire Brigade were involved. Perhaps it is coincidental, but I happen to have a long association with the firm, having worked on their projects in the past. In as much a knowledge can be certain, I’m telling you definitively that you are wrong to believe what you believe. Grenfell was a real event.

          I can’t prove it though, because a word or a smile out of place, or a slightly disproportionate arm in the University of GooTube, PROVES beyond doubt that the power elite are laughing at us, and this trumps any other form of knowledge. Can’t you see that as just a little batshit crazy, because I can.

          From personal knowledge, all the issues about the installation of exterior cladding are KNOWN. Even by the builders (and possibly even the residents, if they had even a minimum of construction experience). When you cut Celotex (the insulation) there is a strong smell of urine. That is because it is an iso-cyanate. When it burns, it does so with an acrid black smoke that offgasses cyanide. Trapped in a building you would not stand a chance, you would be dead long before the flames got anywhere near you.

          Expressing it like this, then the entire building trade must be insane to even use the product? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as your comments demonstrate. If you know an issue, you can counter that issue with good design. Installed correctly, with best practice, it’s perfectly safe. All the issues such as toxicity, flammability, firestopping, chimney effects, etc can be countered by design and spec. So much so, that there will be a standardised installation specification that a specifier can pull from a database, couple with the relevant spec details and product tech info (all pre-tested, pre-warrantied, pre-guaranteed) and submit to Building Control. Here is one of the pitfalls of a techno-bureaucratic system, much of this information is provided by the manufacturer, who specify their own materials and own installation procedures.

          [As for installation, I do not know for certain, but commercial installations such as this are done under an insurance backed warranty system. In other words, the contractors inspect their own work and keep a photo record. Chances are, the quality of work was not overseen …another flaw in the system].

          Having said all that, the issue was not the insulation, it was the cladding. The fire spread over the exterior of the building, and the cladding itself provided its own combustible substrate and wick effect (from the melting petroleum based interleave). Basically, the building was covered in napalm, which is the best way I can describe it. There was nothing to stop the spread of fire. The insulation had nothing to do with it. Your comments are nullified.

          [You can confirm this by eye on the videos. Burning cladding was falling everywhere. You can even see the ‘napalm’ falling and continuing to burn on the ground].

          You cannot stop a building from burning. What you can do is follow Fire Regs and design a building that has a half hour or one hour fire rating, in order to clear the building. And technically, the insulation WAS ‘in’ the building, behind the cladding. A minor slip in diction hardly implies that the power elite dunnit, though.

          My understanding is that Grenfell was compromised for fire both interiorly and exteriorly. It was a death trap, and the residents said so. Somewhere, someone changed the spec from the non-combustible to the combustible cladding, to save a few quid no doubt (about £5K I think?). A fact that I am sure the inquiry will leverage to find it a tragic chain of circumstance, for whom no one, especially not the Royal Borough of Murder and Profit, was ultimately responsible. There are your criminals, a techno-bureaucratic system of buck passing and self-specification, and installation as per manufactures instructions. Somewhere between the client, the main contractors, the auto-specification, the Council (who apart from being the client, had a duty of care and inspection through Building Control – a care possibly discharged to the installers themselves?); the subcontractors, the Fire Dept (responsible for Fire regs) …the system broke down, people died, in a tragic and avoidable way. Or perhaps unavoidable way, given how rife the system is to abuse.

          How you get from that, via a few GooTube videos made by four year olds, to a hoax created by a laughing power elite, I’m really not sure. I dare say a lot confectionary thinking replaced the last semblance of logic, a long time ago. Please get help.

          [For no other reason than I am busy, I won’t be replying to this.]

          • BigB,

            I make no claims about what the cladding was, how flammable it was or its role in the fire. I just say the event was staged, that is all – everyone was evacuated beforehand. There is no evidence of death and injury (or evidence of people at windows surrounded by flames even though much is made of it) and we see people who are obviously crisis actors.

            It seems that many people are very happy to believe stories from the media where what they claim does not match what they show. I am not one of those people. If you are happy to be one of those people, BigB, fair enough.

  6. George Cornell says

    Too busy staging false flag operations? Of course no one will hang for dousing Grenfell “with 32,000 litres of petrol”. There will be the usual attempts to frame ‘surplus to requirements’ underlings . There could be a slap on the wrist if the protests wake a 1%er or two in Kensington. All it takes for the dousers to get off Scot free is to make sure they douse the dispossessed, the migrants, the disenfranchised, and to have membership in or even just connections to an ancient fraternal order. This is Third World stuff and anyone considering a partnership with England should know that is how things work in London and have for a long time. If a man is tired of London he is not tired of life, he has finally figured this out.

    6
    1
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Just yet more evidence of how deeply Rightwing psychopaths hate other people.

    • kevin morris says

      I note that the article questions why, although fires raged throughout Grenfell, the building didn’t collapse into its own footprint like the WTC buildings. Surely, that is straining credibility slightly!

  7. Like so many others, evidence shows that Grenfell was a staged event. If you’re interested go to 153news.net. They censored all the videos showing the evidence on YouTube. It’s all about fomenting disharmony. That’s what the power elite love doing: fomenting disharmony: privileged and unprivileged, longterm inhabitants and migrants/refugees, Muslims and non-Muslims. Please wake up to it.

    2
    11
      • It’s true, manfromatlan, the evidence shows many events are. But I only judge by the evidence. If you go to 153news.net, search for Grenfell, you will see a number of videos on the subject. Don’t you think that the story we’re told seems a little unlikely, too, though?

        There is one quite popular conspiracy theory I don’t subscribe to, however, and that is landing on the moon. I think that astronauts went to the moon and it was an amazing achievement. The reason I believe they went is simply that I see nothing in the evidence presented that looks unconvincing – in fact, the opposite. It also seems to me that there are a number of people who speak with authority about going to the moon whereas all the people who say we didn’t go don’t seem to have any knowledge about what going to the moon involved.

        On the other hand, I think the Challenger disaster was faked and faked in an amazing way. We see all the people alive today with, in several cases, exactly the same name. Astounding!
        youtube.com/watch?v=ZcS79WyiuJo

    • kevin morris says

      I took the trouble of going to 153news.net and looking at the posts on Grenfell trickery.
      They seemed to consist of one guy- an American- stating ‘I believe this event didn’t happen’ then citing eyewitness reports which he claimed were made by actors.

      Frankly, if this really counts as ‘evidence’ then I feel very concerned. There were fakers at Grenfell. A number of people have been prosecuted for making false compensation claims, but all their ‘evidence’ proves is that some people will stoop to anything and it isn’t just the authorities who are corrupt.

      The spectacle of individuals who have been nowhere near disasters making pronouncements based upon a few videoed news reports often says far more about those individuals than it does about the events in question.

      12
      • BigB says

        The only conspiracy about Grenfell was that the death toll was only 71. The “Royal Borough of Murder and Profit” should, perhaps, suffer the same fate, trapped in the eternal fires of Hell?

        10
      • Kevin, there was more stuff on youtube which clearly showed it. Also, it is a hallmark of these events that they double-hoax us with people who are “revealed” to be hoaxers (and, in some cases, allegedly sent to jail) – it blows your mind what they do. A classic case is Paula Robinson at the Manchester Bombing who a great fuss was made of by the media. She said that she took children from the arena to the Holiday Inn and put on FB that she was doing so, so that their parents could come and fetch them. Her story was utterly ludicrous but the media lapped it all up. A few days later they came out saying she’d lied, however, they in no way vilified her or admitted to an inappropriate lack of stringency in vetting her story in the first place.
        This is a great video by UK Critical Thinker on her that has somehow remained on YT (for the moment).
        youtube.com/watch?v=PDSPvxMBqzk

        1
        2
      • Generally, propaganda works like magic regardless of how close to an event you are, Kevin. An event can happen right under your nose virtually and you’ll believe the propaganda about it rather than be able to tell what really happened. I’m sure many people at the Ariana Grande concert believed a bomb went off right next door while people half-way across the world will detect all the false-flag hoax hallmarks within minutes of looking at the media stories. Their hallmarks are very, very distinctive.

        What people completely underestimate is how powerful propaganda is and how easily it works. I understimated it myself, even when I’d been researching these events for four years – that’s how long it took me to realise that injury and death were staged on 9/11 just as they are at all the other events.

        But in a comment on one of the 153news.net videos (https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=G3UXASG6GK75) this is what someone says who, allegedly, knew someone close to the incident.

        My Italian friend lives next door to Grenfell and informs me that fire engines were there at about 10:30pm dealt with a small fire, then went away. When the ’real’ blaze began before 1:00am he says the fire brigade arrived but couldn’t get water from hydrants on the north side and relocated to the south side of Grenfell. The earlier fire, if there was one, was perfect opportunity to evacuate! Hmnnn…

    • Frankly Speaking says

      You are a disgusting disinfo troll. Trying to bring this site into disrepute. Now feck off back to Cheltenham.

      4
      1
      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        You have it precisely, Frankly. I’d use ‘revolting’ as well as disgusting, too.

        1
        1
      • I can understand that you don’t agree with me, Frankly Speaking and Mulga (below), but I do not understand your antagonism. Don’t I seem genuine in my belief? I have set up my own website with everything explained in a perfectly logical and reasonable manner. Why would I be spreading this as disinformation? Who for and what would be the purpose? http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/

          • If my beliefs are so false, why has no one submitted a response to my challenge when I offer them the choice of judge, even though they have engaged in lengthy exchanges in email and YouTube comments? Do you believe the Manchester bombing real or that there was a shooting at Sandy Hook – I mean, come on – thousands upon thousands recognise that as fake. If so, please tell me why. I have listed 10 perfectly compelling points to illustrate that neither event was real and no one has come up with a single point for either event to show that they were.

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          Yes, indeed. ‘Genuinely’ morally insane or ‘genuinely’ a disinformation troll designed to muddy the waters with odious and paranoid confabulation.

          • I’m afraid, Mulga, you remind me of Germans who, while their fellow Germans were being gassed in ovens, didn’t bother to turn their head one bit to do any investigation and denounced those informing them in exactly the same way you are denouncing me. You obviously haven’t looked one little bit and simply dismiss any claim at all as being preposterous.

            We live in a Hitlerian Lie/Emperor’s New Clothes world, Mulga. It’s right in your face and yet you don’t won’t turn your head the tiniest bit to look.

            • rilme says

              “Germans were being gassed in ovens”?
              Do you have the tiniest piece of evidence to support that claim?

              1
              1
      • Do you think I don’t care about people dying, Frankly Speaking? Do you think I think no one dies anywhere and everything is a hoax? I don’t. Not at all. I feel very sad for people whose countries are wracked by death and destruction whether it’s natural disaster such as what’s just happened in Sulawesi or whether it’s due to invasion by the other nations such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. I feel terrible about that and in so many ways I feel helpless to do anything. I feel at a loss to understand how geopolitics really works but the one thing I can understand and is so very black and white is all the false flag hoaxes happening. These things are so very obvious and can be identified very easily if only you open your mind and have a look.

        What’s happening now makes me think of a reverse-Holocaust situation. During the Holocaust I can just imagine a small number of people saying, “They’re killing people in the gas ovens” and others responding, “Preposterous”. Now when you say, “People are not dying in these events, they’re just drills pushed out as real,” you get the same response, “Preposterous.” Please just open your mind and have a proper look.

        • Haltonbrat says

          But it is a criminal offence to question the holocaust, so should you not also be thinking that is suspicious?
          Amazon are avoiding supplying a recent book by experts questioning 9/11.

          1
          1
          • Yes, it’s very, very bad that they make it a criminal offence and I find it hard to believe that the history books tell the real story simply because it seems they never do, however, I do not doubt that a very great number of people were killed during the Holocaust including a very significant number of Jewish people regardless of whether the number is the number stated or not. There is simply too much testimony in my opinion, however, I cannot say I’ve looked at the material of those who question or debunk.

            2
            1
      • Haltonbrat says

        Surely such events should at least be questioned. I suppose that you believe that 9/11 happened as stated?
        I wonder how enough heat was generated on the outside of Grenfell from whatever caused an internal fire.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      The sheer, vicious, inhumanity of this repetitive swill is becoming utterly nauseating.

      1
      2
    • bevin says

      “. That’s what the power elite love doing: fomenting disharmony: privileged and unprivileged,..”
      Why does the power elite, with its privileges, want to foment disharmony between itself and the unprivileged?
      Does it need the exercise?
      The reality is that disharmony between the privileged and unprivileged needs no fomenting: it is one of the few drawbacks to privilege that it excites the resentment of the rest of us.

    • Dear Flaxgirl,

      For people to take your claim seriously, you need to present other evidence (or links to other evidence) that support your claim and which was arrived at independently from the people who run 153news.net. This other evidence must come from sources that have no connection to 153news,net or the people who run it, and the sources must be people or groups who can be contacted by all commenters here and who are prepared to state their names and take responsibility for what they claim.

      It is very easy for someone or some people to make videos about apartment buildings on fire and then use these videos to “prove” that the Grenfell tower building fire must not have happened the way it was reported to have happened. Apartment buildings are built of different materials and to different standards in different countries, and these differences can affect how fires erupt and develop. The Grenfell tower building was known to have had cheap inferior-quality aluminium cladding, highly flammable as well, installed on the outside of the structure during a refurbishment that took place over 2014 – 2016. There are buildings in Australia that also have this cheap cladding and one of these buildings, Lacrosse tower in Melbourne, also caught fire; the fire spread over 13 floors in 10 minutes.
      https://www.afr.com/business/construction/melbourne-apartment-fire-exposes-noncompliant-building-materials-20150427-1mu0ow

      Relying on news about people trying to claim compensation and being found out is not enough. Plenty of people pretend to be victims and make false claims for compensation in all sorts of incidents but that fact alone does not mean that these incidents never occurred. A single witness who says that a fire was put out at 11 pm and a second fire developed about 1 am later is not good enough either; there need to be other independent witnesses who back up this witness’s opinion.

      • Hi Jen,

        When I look at these events I’m not necessarily interested in their unique aspects such as, in the case of Grenfell, the cladding. Also, I pay no attention whatsoever to how plausible an event may be. The power elite use plausibility as a way to fool people. So many people think that Muslims would have every reason to pilot planes into US iconic buildings but that means nothing in terms of who was actually responsible.

        What I look for are things that do not add up generally, contradictions, strange changes in the story, impossibilities, lack of evidence of injury and death (where it’s claimed), witnesses not behaving as one might expect, signs of agency staff behaving as if they’re in a drill and a few other things.

        As a number of the 153news.net videos show media footage I’m not sure why you’d require that you need other sources. You don’t dispute the media footage do you? Of course, there’s the actual media itself to consult but that requires more work.

        In this event we see (and I have to speak from memory for some of these things):
        — no evidence of injury, smoke inhalation, etc (which would be expected) and the only evidence we see of death is body bags (easily fakable)
        — while much is made of people at the windows any footage that you see of people at windows is taken with vertical mobile phone camera so you cannot see whether they’re really surrounded by flames or not – vertical mobile phone footage is often used in these events to block out what the surrounding situation really is. You have to ask the question, if you really want to show the dire situation someone is in why would you not show them in proper context? The media was there, weren’t they, they don’t use mobile phones for their footage.
        — witnesses saying strange things, eg, the one in my comment further up
        — one witness (I think he’s a Somali) who says he lived in the apartment building but evidence showed he lived around the corner

        In the case of Grenfell I’m distant from any research I did now and, as so many videos have been pulled down, it’s a pretty big effort to go to the actual media and try to find stuff. That being the case, I don’t expect people to take what I say seriously, but at least they know that it is claimed by a number of people that this event was staged and you can always do your own research.

        • In the case of the Grenfell tower fire, you do need to consider the unique aspect of the cladding that contributed to the spread of the fire. It was placed over the entire exterior of the building. The cladding also happened to be highly combustible and in fact that type of cladding is banned in the construction or refurbishment of buildings in many countries.

          As I mentioned previously, the Lacrosse tower in Melbourne that caught fire in November 2014 also had this external cladding. The fire began on the 8th floor (it was caused by someone leaving a lit cigarette on a balcony) and in 10 – 15 minutes shot up to the 21st floor.

          The fact that the fire started at about 1 am and the speed of its spread may account for the anomalies you picked up in the visual recordings of the blaze.

          Grenfell tower is an old apartment block built back in the 1960s and 1970s and housed mostly poor families, many of whom are migrants from Africa and Asia. Poor fire safety regulations, poor or blocked emergency escape routes and irregular evacuation procedures may have contributed to the death toll. The fact that the fire spread so quickly combined with these other possibilities, along with toxic fumes released from burning material, could have led to people being trapped in intense fires and dying from other causes than smoke inhalation.

          It is not difficult in the age of the Internet and mobile phones, and in a culture dependent on property speculation (and the obsessive focus on interior design and renovation), for people to know a fair bit about building insulation materials and their properties, especially if their lives depend on that knowledge.
          🙂

          • I don’t think the witness seemed in any obvious way the type of person who would have an interest in cladding material. In any case, he doesn’t mention any knowledge of it, he simply says that he asked the question “What are you doing with this insulation?”, then tore off a bit which he stuck on his phone and lit to demonstrate its flammability. I simply do not find this credible. And then it seems pretty clear they’ve made lame attempts (the glasses, the different camera angle) to make out he’s two witnesses.

            I wouldn’t be in the least surprised, Jen, if Lacrosse was staged as a convenient precursor to Grenfell. Not saying it was at all as I know nothing about it but these things tend to have a global flavour and you’ll see echoes of one event on one side of the world in another on the other side.

            It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the cladding went up 3 1/2 months before the event. I’m sure there are multiple agendas behind the cladding issue. The cladding is both a pretext and a distractor. It so easily produces the kneejerk reaction, “The rich screwing over the poor with their substandard materials” and aids fomenting disharmony. Of course, the rich screw over the poor bigtime, we don’t need the cladding issue to tell us, but when they control the narrative it’s a bit different. It allows them somehow to screw us over even more.

            The most important element of this event is whether or not people were killed and injured. The evidence does not support the claim. Just as it doesn’t support the claim for 9/11 (and many other events). In both cases, people could easily have been evacuated beforehand and we simply see no convincing evidence of death and injury.

            To accept an event as being staged it really does help to look at a few of them (and there’s a heap) because then you get a feel for them, their hallmarks and how they work. You really need to accept the paradigm of “staged event”. If you never really come to grips with that paradigm and you’re always explaining this or that oddity away you’ll never really “get” them.

            • It would probably make no difference to you then if more and similar building fires involving the type of cladding used on the Lacrosse tower or the Grenfell tower were to occur, because to you these will all be “staged events”. It seems that no matter how simple and logical the explanation is, you look for conspiracy theories instead. I’ll leave you to your own gabbling circular ruminations – you are little more than a disinformation troll as Frankly Speaking says. I’m not surprised at FS’s disgust with your commenting.

              • But this event can be judged without any reference to the cladding. I have no opinion on the cladding – it may well be horribly flammable. But we don’t need to consider the cladding. What I look for is discrepancy between show and tell. We are told about injury and death and we are given no evidence of it. Why don’t we see any people suffering smoke inhalation or some kind of other injury? We are told that there are people at the windows surrounded by flames but all we are shown is vertical mobile phone footage that excludes any possible flames. We have witnesses saying things that simply aren’t credible.

                There is absolutely zero evidence provided that does not fit “staged event”. To my mind, if everything can fit “staged event” and there is nothing that can only fit real event then the event must be staged. If you think that everything shown can fit “staged event” and still be a real event so be it. I don’t judge events in that way. Unless there is something in the evidence that strongly supports real over staged I will believe it is a staged event.

                I don’t know what is so difficult to understand about the power elite targeting people concerned with social justice with their propaganda. Do you think the propaganda is just for “the masses”, Jen? Do you think people like us are not a target? Do you think that the power elite don’t have streams of propaganda aimed at all the different groups including those concerned with social justice?

  8. harry stotle says

    Hillsborough, David Kelly, and now Grenfell – each time the authorities have tried to brass it out presumably in the hope that drawn out and ineffective legl proceedings will ultimately lead to the clamour for real justice fading?

  9. Fair dinkum. says

    ‘Never hold an inquiry unless you are sure of the outcome’
    (It’s in the Psychopaths rule book).

    16
  10. George Cornell says

    Inquiries in the UK are a joke. They are routinely planned organized and executed by paid lackeys of the 1% .
    When the Newspaper toady Brooks was up against it, Blair told her to have an inquiry and even named who should conduct it. That is someone who will exonerate even the most vile criminal.
    Any inquiry chairman has been selected for being an obsequious fartcatcher, who then is rewarded with a peerage, knighthood or some other taxpayer funded sop.Hutton is a prime example, now “Lord” Hutton.
    If you want a scumbag to illustrate the “vermin” entry in Wiki, just pull up the last inquiry chairman. The code for scumbag among the 1% is a “safe pair of hands”.
    Nothing in the UK of any significance is on the level. And anyone unhappy with the state of affairs is better off taking their concerns to the nearest Masonic Lodge. What a disgusting shadow of its former self! The EU will be much better off without England at least.

    36

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole