Cladding

[johnroe]

My thoughts exactly. I read through the entire thread and the only reason it doesn't surprise me is I have a much lower opinion of the human race than I did a few years ago.

Now this is interesting! Forget 'cladding', this is a forum cliche unique to this site. I saw it on another thread. The expert won't deign to have an opinion on the subject, but uses it instead to insult someone. Fascinating, now that one goes in my book of cliches.

[Disturbedguy]

Now this is interesting! Forget 'cladding', this is a forum cliche unique to this site. I saw it on another thread. The expert won't deign to have an opinion on the subject, but uses it instead to insult someone. Fascinating, now that one goes in my book of cliches.

At the same time, it's fascinating how you choose to ignore the FACTS that someone who clearly has more knowledge and real world experience on the subject than you have and then insinuate that they are being patronising...at this point, I think it's fairly obvious you are looking for confrontation then when things don't go your way, you cry wolf and allude to some form of "cliche"

You're argumentative and arrogant and simply don't like being proven wrong.

[johnroe]

At the same time, it's fascinating how you choose to ignore the FACTS that someone who clearly has more knowledge and real world experience on the subject than you have and then insinuate that they are being patronising...at this point, I think it's fairly obvious you are looking for confrontation then when things don't go your way, you cry wolf and allude to some form of "cliche"

You're argumentative and arrogant and simply don't like being proven wrong.

By 'argumentative' I see 'thinks for myself'. I found out what I needed about the construction from the architects description. Look I see you all clinging together because someone has an opinion that isn't just another cliche.

The construction of the building is irrelevant, unless you count the inadequate fire escape, that may well be criminal. It must have been a horror for those trapped. I know what the Facts are; shoddy buildings, shoddy workmanship, shoddy refurbishment, cutting costs because people are a lower concern. A major lack of housing in this country for immigrant families and young people here starting families. A denial of the situation by the narrow minded for all the wrong reasons.

[Corky34]

I'm basing what I know of the Grenfell building structural design on what the architect says. I'm basing what I know of concrete pre fabricated beams, slabs, and walls; on government inspector's reports. I'm basing what I know of living in the building on what the tenants say, and the long list of serious problems recorded. I'm basing what I know about the cladding on freely available information.

Only your not are you, you're using contextomy with regards to the architect in support of your preconceived concepts, you're using false equivalence with regards to comparing an LPS tower block in Portsmouth with a tower block in Kensington and Chelsea that used concrete core, floors, and ten exterior columns all cast in-situ, the only parts of Grenfell that used pre-fabricated concrete was the infill panels.

Where is this government inspector's reports you speak of?

When they removed the cladding in Portsmouth, recently, they found the concrete had failed in two blocks, same in Rugby(and eight other boroughs are reporting similar problems).

No they didn't, Portsmouth council said they took the decision after structural reports revealed concrete used in Leamington House and Horatia House is not strong enough [to resist] a severe explosion within a flat, the sort of event associated with pressurised gas, It added: "This is very unlikely as there is no mains gas supply within either building and items such as gas heaters are not allowed in the blocks.".

They've not said "the concrete had failed", they've basically said the construction of the blocks is not strong enough to resist a severe explosion of the type that turns brick built houses into a piles of rubble on a frighteningly regular basis.

And as structural engineers have said the only way to find out if these buildings where constructed correctly and using the correct materials, is when they dismantle them. I'm sure ik9000 wasn't at that site in the 1970's, nor did he supervise the pouring of the concrete both on site or in the factory. But the forensic examination of the building will tell us a lot about how structures from that period have survived. (But I note the limitations of others to interpret the information, that old pre 1945 mindset and the petty point scoring mentality)

You do know you're contradicting yourself, right?

You say "When they removed the cladding in Portsmouth, recently, they found the concrete had failed in two blocks" and then a few sentences later your saying "the only way to find out if these buildings where constructed correctly and using the correct materials, is when they dismantle them"

Which is it? Either they have to dismantle them to discover if they were constructed correctly or they discover 'concrete had failed' by removing cladding.

It's not the limitations of others to interpret the information, it's that others know that not information is equal, that there are standards of evidence.

[johnroe]

Corky34>calm down, what with you and ik9000's rants. We are just talking about a subject in the news. We all absorb info and interpret it.

Look you obviously don't have anything to say about; cladding, the state of social housing, and the possible solutions; or do you? All you seem to be doing just like T and ik9000 is trying deflect from the real issues and dismiss my opinions.

But carry on, sometimes I can't understand what you mean(like in RBS thread), and sometimes you are just spinning what I say and not actually adding anything of any significance to the thread. But hey that's the game you three are playing eh.

[Disturbedguy]

By 'argumentative' I see 'thinks for myself'. I found out what I needed about the construction from the architects description. Look I see you all clinging together because someone has an opinion that isn't just another cliche.

The construction of the building is irrelevant, unless you count the inadequate fire escape, that may well be criminal. It must have been a horror for those trapped. I know what the Facts are; shoddy buildings, shoddy workmanship, shoddy refurbishment, cutting costs because people are a lower concern. A major lack of housing in this country for immigrant families and young people here starting families. A denial of the situation by the narrow minded for all the wrong reasons.

Are you deluded?
What you have been given is FACTS by someone who clearly has experience in the field, where as you don't. You have read something and either misunderstood it or are purposely twisting it to try and suit your weird agenda.

You see "thinks for myself" everyone else is seeing "someone who chooses to ignore facts, repeatedly, to either pick an argument and then essentially try and claim he is being ganged up to make ridiculous claims people a clinging together"

As a side note, I've not spoken to or met any of the people responding to you, outside of Hexus, I couldn't tell you the colour of their hair, or whether they have freckles..

[Disturbedguy]

Corky34>calm down, what with you and ik9000's rants. We are just talking about a subject in the news. We all absorb info and interpret it.

Look you obviously don't have anything to say about; cladding, the state of social housing, and the possible solutions; or do you? All you seem to be doing just like T and ik9000 is trying deflect from the real issues and dismiss my opinions.

But carry on, sometimes I can't understand what you mean(like in RBS thread), and sometimes you are just spinning what I say and not actually adding anything of any significance to the thread. But hey that's the game you three are playing eh.

This coming from the same guy that is purposely either ignoring or choosing not to understand IK9000's FACTUAL information (just so you're clear, they aren't rants, they're facts and based on what he's said, backed up by years and years of experience. Compared to you who read something and "interpreted it"). You are dismissing what IK is saying as "rants" because it doesn't suit your narrative and labelling all those that are calling you out on your ridiculousness as essentially ganging up against you.

What more can be said about the cladding, other than as has been proven, it wasn't fit for purpose and should never have been on those or any other buildings.

I'm beginning to think a forum on the Internet (any forum, not just Hexus) isn't the best place for you to have have a discussion as you clearly don't like it when people disagree with you...

[johnroe]

Disturbedguy>Look how people like you and your buddies use the internet forums, is not how others use internet forums. I find some topics interesting, or because like this it has much wider implications. So I research it, listen to what people say online, their experiences, and try to find some consensus. I now feel able to understand what the inquiry is looking into.

I asked ik9000 for a link to the construction of the building, but in between found the architect's notes, so took that. Don't you get it; he rants at me saying I don't know about blocks, because I hadn't experienced it. Wrong. He rants at me because I think that new housing is the solution, particularly for families. Wrong. If you want to believe him be my guest, but don't tell me what to do. Like you said you don't know him personally, you don't know what he knows about the concrete quality used in Grenfell tower, because he doesn't. But we all soon will. And I don't know if it was constructed properly, but based on similar buildings of the time, and what the government inspector said. His reports were silenced, so as not to stop 'progress'.

Like I say that is personal, I know families who are desperate for a house and living in blocks. My son and his girlfriend are in the same situation, high rent can't afford house prices in their area.

He rants about the structure being sound. That's exactly what led to this situation. People, human beings being stacked one on top of the other in concrete boxes, why, because they take up less land. When the decision was made not to carry out a full regeneration, but a refurbishment. It was people like ik9000 who said just clad it, just cover the gas mains in the foundation. I actually think an electricity surge caused the fire, maybe causing his fridge to overheat. That had been a common problem, faulty wiring and the mains switching. The tenants are clear what they thought of the building.

[Corky34]

Corky34>calm down, what with you and ik9000's rants. We are just talking about a subject in the news. We all absorb info and interpret it.

What did i say that gave you the impression that i wasn't calm?

Look you obviously don't have anything to say about; cladding, the state of social housing, and the possible solutions; or do you? All you seem to be doing just like T and ik9000 is trying deflect from the real issues and dismiss my opinions.

I'm not trying to deflect from the 'real' issues, whatever you mean by 'real', I'm simply pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and your lack of logical thinking.

It's fine having an opinion, everyone has one, but if they seek to make that opinion public then they should expect others to question them on the reasoning they used in reaching that opinion, what's the logical basis for it, and whether that opinion is grounded on sound evidence or just beliefs.

That's what's happening hear, it's not some sort of witch hunt as you seem to imply, people are simply questioning the reasoning and logic behind your opinion and they're finding it lacking, there are flaws in it.

But carry on, sometimes I can't understand what you mean(like in RBS thread), and sometimes you are just spinning what I say and not actually adding anything of any significance to the thread. But hey that's the game you three are playing eh.

From reading that it seem you're the one who needs to calm down and is ranting, there's no game being played, it's simply people questioning the basis of your opinion and you taking umbrage while trying to deflect when your reason and logic is found wanting.

[Disturbedguy]

Disturbedguy>Look how people like you and your buddies use the internet forums, is not how others use internet forums. I find some topics interesting, or because like this it has much wider implications. So I research it, listen to what people say online, their experiences, and try to find some consensus. I now feel able to understand what the inquiry is looking into.

I asked ik9000 for a link to the construction of the building, but in between found the architect's notes, so took that. Don't you get it; he rants at me saying I don't know about blocks, because I hadn't experienced it. Wrong. He rants at me because I think that new housing is the solution, particularly for families. Wrong. If you want to believe him be my guest, but don't tell me what to do. Like you said you don't know him personally, you don't know what he knows about the concrete quality used in Grenfell tower, because he doesn't. But we all soon will. And I don't know if it was constructed properly, but based on similar buildings of the time, and what the government inspector said. His reports were silenced, so as not to stop 'progress'.

Like I say that is personal, I know families who are desperate for a house and living in blocks. My son and his girlfriend are in the same situation, high rent can't afford house prices in their area.

He rants about the structure being sound. That's exactly what led to this situation. People, human beings being stacked one on top of the other in concrete boxes, why, because they take up less land. When the decision was made not to carry out a full regeneration, but a refurbishment. It was people like ik9000 who said just clad it, just cover the gas mains in the foundation. I actually think an electricity surge caused the fire, maybe causing his fridge to overheat. That had been a common problem, faulty wiring and the mains switching. The tenants are clear what they thought of the building.

I'm done and will be blocking you.

Sick to the back teeth of reading your utter tripe and dismissing other people's factual information as opinions because it doesn't align with your twisted agenda, then when other people don't agree with your none fact based opinion. you claim people are being "buddies".

Again, you keep claiming that his is ranting, he ISN'T he is responding to false information you have said, with FACTS which you don't seem to like for some reason. Rants are what you do when you dont get the reply you want and try and dismiss / deflect away from it.

[ik9000]

Now this is interesting! Forget 'cladding', this is a forum cliche unique to this site. I saw it on another thread. The expert won't deign to have an opinion on the subject, but uses it instead to insult someone. Fascinating, now that one goes in my book of cliches.

Err, do you know what a cliche is? Also are you aware of the irony in that statement?

I'm basing what I know of concrete pre fabricated beams, slabs, and walls; on government inspector's reports.

Sources please. Come on, provide them. It's time to put-up or shut-up. I don't think you know much here, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise by some proper evidence. Show me the government inspector's report about the Grenfell Tower. I've already posted you a link to the BRE report. Which government reports do you have access to? (or are you going to duck that question like the way you still haven't responded on "changes to the crystalline structure of concrete"?)

By 'argumentative' I see 'thinks for myself'. I found out what I needed... I know what the Facts are... A denial of the situation by the narrow minded for all the wrong reasons.

Again, ironic.

To have the stance that you are the sole arbiter of understanding, and what you think is automatically the right answer is of the utmost arrogance and it is utterly non-sensical in the modern world where you cannot get by without having to trust other people to have skills and expertise in areas you do not. It is just proud folly to mock people who clearly demonstrate - not just claim but actually demonstrate - a better understanding and knowledge of a subject by throwing around terms like "self-professed expertise". Implied to begin with perhaps, more clearly stated later, but always backed-up by evidence.

You're so keen to figure out everything yourself, but are stubbornly rejecting clear explanation from those with more knowledge and experience than you. Do you do this with your doctor? What about your solicitor or accountant? Do you ring up HR telling them they got your tax code wrong, and demanding they explain to you in minute detail how it is derived? Your approach is rather non-sensical. One of the most liberating things I had was accepting I wasn't expected to know everything about everything, and didn't need to know everything about everything either. There simply isn't enough time in the world for that. It's about knowing enough to be able to decide who is worth listening to, and who to ignore.

So when I want to install a home network I post in here and listen to folk like Peterb et al with clear and demonstrable knowledge in their field. When my car is up the creek I listen to Bagnaj et al who know more about cars than I'll ever do. When my PC is limping along and I need some new tech Cat5th is the go-to man with his hand on the pulse. Saracen has a fine legal brain for spotting the small print I might not consider. Bobf64 is the man for lenses and camera talk. g8ina makes IR cameras and turntables - and if you needed to can help you build a synth from scratch. Gallant is a go-to sound board when life is getting rocky, and he has some good ability to gently direct you to consider the bigger picture. He is also rather hot on sharks as it happens. The whole point of online forum communities is that when they work we each bring different experiences and know-how to the threads and no-one on hear is the grand master of everything and anything. It is just pointless in the extreme to turn round to any of those folk in a field I don't understand and say "but my reasoning is the only thing I trust." Guff. Folk don't get very far in life with that attitude. Ah, but you say you want to understand more. Fair enough, that's healthy. But then you demonstrate you're unwiling to listen to the explanation if you don't like the answer. So actually what we take from that is "explain to me more but only if it justifies my initial assumptions." Was your degree in politics by any chance?

And as structural engineers have said the only way to find out if these buildings where constructed correctly and using the correct materials, is when they dismantle them. I'm sure ik9000 wasn't at that site in the 1970's, nor did he supervise the pouring of the concrete both on site or in the factory. But the forensic examination of the building will tell us a lot about how structures from that period have survived. (But I note the limitations of others to interpret the information, that old pre 1945 mindset and the petty point scoring mentality)

Seeing as you keep bringing it up. Testing built concrete on existing RC buildings:

1) visual inspection
2) surface hardness - schmidt hammer tests, manual, insitu. Calibrated impact and recoil of steel ball bearing against weighted spring. Can give an indication of bulk strength with correct application and sufficient reference samples
3) extraction of cylindrical core samples via diamond coring, but this is removing material from the structural elements, so great care must be taken in selecting appropriate positions and ensuring primary steel reinforcement is preserved where possible. the core can then be tested i) petrographically ii) chemically iii) crush strength and rupture strength to determine the cylinder strength and modulus of rupture for design to EC2 and cube strength for design to BS8110.
4) ferro-scanning and GPR mapping of steel reinforcement
5) invasive drilling to expose reinforcement, calibrate scanning equipment and visually appraise steel condition.
6) use phenolphthaline to appraise any depth of carbonation in the cover layers

All of that can be done relatively swiftly with access to the concrete on site. You might have to remove finishes to get to it, which can be messy. But it does not require demolition of a building. Now, if you wanted to check whether tie loops in a precast panel system like the one in Portsmouth had been properly threaded for the required tying resistance against disporportionate collapse, then sure, you might need to remove a panel like they did. But again, it does not need the building to be demolished entirely. Like anything complicated you do batch sampling. If that throws up causes for concern you do more sampling. If it gets bad, you go further. But to simply tear everything down because one building miles away had a partial issue - that is the senseless folly we have already spoken about several times in this thread, and I refer you to those posts and encourage you to actually read them properly.

Which structural engineers are claiming that it is only possible to test concrete by demolishing a building? Can you give me their names and membership numbers? It sounds like we might need to send them on more training as that would tend to contradict all the industry guidance. But don't take my word for it, try reading the following industry documents and design standards. After all, I wouldn't want to simply "self-profess expertise". (Nor would I expect you to trust me just because I've worked on the restoration of a variety of structures built from 1750 through to the present day, including some very early concrete works from late Victorian and Edwardian times, and concrete in pretty much every decade since. I wasn't there to see those getting poured either, but we were able to assess and adapt those right enough. Btw do you realise how stupid your arguments sound? You are at risk of coming across as obnoxious in your obstinacy.) Anyway those documents:

Concrete Society TR54 Diagnosis of deterioration in concrete structures- identification of defects, evaluation etc
Concrete Society TR60 Electrochemical tests for reinforcement corrosion
Concrete society Guide to testing and monitoring the durability of concrete structures
IStructE (1996) Appraisal of existing structures. 2nd edition.
Ciria R111 (1994) Structural renovation of traditional buildings
BRE Digest 366 (1991) Structural appraisal of existing buildings for change of use
CP110 CoP for the structural use of concrete
BS8110 Structural use of concrete. CoP for design and construction
BS1881 testing concrete
BS EN 1992 (EC2) Design of concrete structures
BS EN 12390 testing hardened concrete
BS EN 12504 testing concrete in structures
CIRIA Publication C519 (1999) Action in the case of non-conformity of concrete structures

Next, cladding.

If you go back through the posts you will see several where I do discuss the cladding - it was the point of this thread after all. I've spoken about deficiencies, and the possibilities (probabilities?) of negligent workmanship.

hot gases. provided they don't come into contact with combustible materials the fire would not have spread how it did. However the flue effect should not have happened if the fire closers had been installed to the correct size and performance. also the inadequate gaps left around window frames due to the windows not being the right size so the fire could jump inside. Those are IMO the more avoidable and potentially negligent aspects.

But this post in particular stands out:

No, the cladding (and how it was installed) really is the issue here. That and changing the windows to pvc melting crap, and wadges of inadequate firestopping around the windows because they (presumably) opted not to order bespoke windows of the right size for cost reasons. The building as it was originally would have survived just fine, even with its stair and lift configuration. (In fact one interesting thing to come out of the reports was that the stair lobbies and refuse chute areas survived the fire intact. It's not known whether the conditions in them during the fire would have sustained life, but anyone who'd got in those certainly wouldn't have been burned.)...


...for bigger buildings where the energy save could be justifiably large, a pragmatic half-way house is to seek to improve the aspects that can be readily changed (like overcladding with new insulation), providing it can be done so at a economically justifiable cost such that the predicted savings will outweigh the costs and energy penalties of doing the works. That is called a practical solution. And what they tried to do at Grenfell, albeit they cocked it up and then some.

In finding that quote, I might remind you it was in response to your comment:

I think everything discussed in the press, like cladding, is just the superficial problem, and maybe at some point the Grenfell tower enquiry will reach the same conclusions.

So not only have you been repeatedly saying that the concrete structure was not fit for purpose, but also that the cladding wasn't really the issue either. I'm, and from recent posts several others in this thread are, having trouble understanding your reasoning in this thread. You keep changing your mind and contradicting yourself. It's not people ganging up on you; you're undermining your own credibility by your inability to maintain a consistent argument.

By 'argumentative' I see 'thinks for myself'.

FYI we see needlessly argumentative.

I found out what I needed about the construction from the architects description.

You found some information, and interpreted it incorrectly.

The construction of the building is irrelevant

Not what you were saying in earlier posts - again that inconsistency coming through.

unless you count the inadequate fire escape, that may well be criminal.

The stair being narrower than modern standards is hardly criminal if it complies with the standards at the time it was built. Old buildings are full of things that don't meet current standards. (see post 3966668). Note also, that according to the BBC articles I read this week, the lifts in the building were meant to operate even in fire situations, both for evacuation of residents and fire fighter access. There's a lot more to consider than simply the width of the stair. The smoke vents didn't perform properly. Dry risers did not function adequately, and may not have conformed to the standards, now or at the time of construction!. There's lots to consider, and some of it might be negligent, but none of that is to do with the building structure.

It was people like ik9000 who said just clad it, just cover the gas mains in the foundation. I actually think an electricity surge caused the fire, maybe causing his fridge to overheat. That had been a common problem, faulty wiring and the mains switching. The tenants are clear what they thought of the building.

Three things on that i) don't malign me please, nowhere have I said anything about concealing gas mains. I suggest you retract that smear. ii) I don't care what you think caused the fire. I care what the experts think caused it. Your opinion is already shown to be lacking in rigour or consideration. iii) the tenants liked the building. Not all of it, not every aspect, but they didn't want it to be knocked down. Quotes demonstrating that have already been provided.

I mentioned before about one of the arts of debating being accepting you will not be able to persuade everyone to agree with you. Mindful of that I shall sign off responding to you any further with one more of the arts of debating: A debate is won when the majority of people partaking/listening are convinced of one argument over another. The motion can then be taken to a vote with confidence of a majority decision. What matters is not whether the proponent and opponent of the motion have agreed, but whether one side has sufficiently convinced the voters. I think it's safe to say we've reached that point in this thread. It's interesting to see people supporting and thanking my posts who often in other threads have been on opposing sides of the debates. That's not grouping up, that's intelligent people applying sound reasoning. You might want to try it. Best wishes to you, keep reading and trying to understand more. I hope you actually do.

(btw that last bit there, ^ now that was patronising.)

[ik9000]

Interesting to hear that. It makes you wonder what would have happened if the fireproofing had been restored to the original level,and the proper cladding had been used!

It should have contained the fire in the unit long enough for the fire brigade to put it out. That's what should have happened. That's what the building regulations require. That's what is so messed-up about this situation and why there is a full-on inquiry looking at all aspects of this. For failures like this to happen more than one thing has to have gone wrong. It's important to identify all of them.

[Disturbedguy]

*snip*

Careful now, don't want to be accused of going on a "rant" now, do we?

[ik9000]

Careful now, don't want to be accused of going on a "rant" now, do we?

ranting? moi?



^that's ranting.

[johnroe]

ik9000> with the 'rant' bit, I was just playing with your(general sense) type of forum cliches. Will you calm down(another fc), we are just some dudes chatting about cladding(of course one of us is a layman just trying to understand the breadth of the inquiry, and of course our resident expert). Also talking about what it means when you cover up the building, rather than address the real problems.

Don't you realise when you've been sussed; what you call debate relies on you thinking that if you can dismiss one part of what someone else says, then they are by that logic a liar(Disturbedguy calling me deluded, this site is so funny). You tried it in several forms; the having lived in blocks, claiming I was quoting wiki, and now you are doing it with the structure of the building. When this so called method of debate doesn't work, you and your buddies resort to passive aggressive insults(even more hilarious!).

Part of the way I collect information is I take the subject, and then try to view it from all perspectives. So obviously that may look like some contradiction, but it's just trying to get a better understanding from many perspectives and trying to reach a balance (between what the tenants say and what the council say for example). I do think very logically, but I also reference laterally.


In the documentary I watched(link above somewhere); they interviewed everyone involved in the construction of these buildings. Council officials, contractors, builders, council inspectors and a government inspector. The council inspector said he hadn't a clue about the new building methods, he wasn't trained for that. The government inspector said that he visited pre fab component factories and reported at how badly the process was monitored and many of the components were sub standard, he also if I remember visited sites. But he said he gave his reports to contractors and they were ignored, his reports are archived.

Builders said that only 20% of the components were uniform, so they would put a couple of bolts in, then shutter the connection and fill it with concrete. It wasn't until they demolished building that they could see for example that floor slabs hadn't been connected to the walls. I'm not sure what Corky was talking about, they've been well aware that any accident or explosion could wreck these blocks. Hence they removed gas appliances and banned gas cylinders, but that was years ago.

When it comes to the concrete, I'm relying on what tenants tell me. I did go and look at one crumbling hole, with the main metal frame visible(an end column), but the council quickly fill in the holes. . I know that the painters(sub contractors) refused to paint over the obvious cracks in one of the blocks, refused to paint that block. I think this event could have far reaching consequences. Look I know that the Romans built a concrete dome, but from what I've seen there are problems with the concrete. It strange the reason I thought they'd use a pump for the concrete was based on what I know of American skyscrapers.

When I asked the council official what are people in the block supposed to do if there is a fire across their front door and your contractors have blocked off the escapes, he said 'tell them to stand in their windows and shout for the Fire brigade'. You can see why people are becoming sceptical of so called experts.

[Corky34]

Just a FYI I'm not 'buddies' with anyone on these forums (in fact I've probably annoyed more people than i care to admit), there's no bandwagoning going on and besides even if there was it has no bearing on the validity of your claims.

The issue, from what i can tell, is that you seem to give all 'evidence' the same weight regardless of the validity, that's not how public discourse works and it's not logical or reasoned.

And yes they removed gas appliances and banned gas cylinders (actually they banned pressurised gas from being used in such building but whatever) however you're using that fact as validation for your opinion that the concrete itself is sub standard, you're perceiving a relation between the two when there isn't any, it's a logical fallacy to believe that post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).