Thousands of pages of expert reports and a comprehensive opening statement from the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s top lawyer have shed fresh light on the fire last June.
Here, the Press Association looks at the major details which emerged about the tragedy on Monday.
Cause of the fire
Two experts agree that the origins of the fire were undetermined. It was previously suggested by the Metropolitan Police that a fridge-freezer in the fourth floor flat was to blame, but Professor Luke Bisby said there was “insufficient evidence” to support this.
The first 999 calll
On Monday, the inquiry was played audio from the initial emergency call made on the night of the fire.
Behailu Kebede, in whose flat the blaze had begun, rang 999 at 12.54am.
He told the operator: “Quick, quick, quick. It’s burning.”
The spread of the fire
It is believed that absence of fire-proof stops around the frame of Mr Kebede’s window allowed the flames to eat through and reach the flammable material behind.
Once there, it shot up the side of the building in a matter of minutes. It is believed that the Reynobond cladding panels were the main fuelant of the blaze, rather than the insulation.
The fire stops between each floor had not been correctly installed, meaning there was nothing preventing the fire jumping between levels.
Fire testing
Dr Barbara Lane said she found “no evidence” that major bodies involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower knew how the rainscreen cladding materials would perform in a fire.
This included a risk assessment of the building carried out by the London Fire Brigade and Tenant Management Organisation, which did not mention the behaviour of the cladding in a fire.
Safety measures
Fire safety measures within the building were largely non-compliant with regulations, one report said.
This included faulty fire doors, ineffective fire lifts and a inadequate ventilation system. This had terrible consequences, as the only escape route in the building – the stairwell – became clogged with smoke and was then ravaged by fire.
Dr Lane said a “culture of non-compliance” appeared to exist in the maintenance of the tower.
The unforgiving conditions on the night meant that firefighters could not reach the upper levels of the building, as they could not create a bridge above floor four. It is believed none made it above floor 20 until late afternoon.
“The ultimate consequence was a disproportionately high loss of life,” due to firefighters not being to breathe for long enough to carry out prolonged rescue efforts, the report said.
Stairwells
It is believed that one reason the stairwell became so impassable was due to doors being left open by firefighters’ hoses and, in one case, a dead body.
This allowed smoke to shroud the escape route and ultimately let the flames in.
Stay put advice
The advice that the residents stay put in the event of a fire was futile within half an hour of it starting, at 1.26am, Dr Lane claimed.
There was concern expressed in her report that it took so long between the point at which smoke entered the stairwell – 1.40am – and the plan eventually being abandoned at 2.47am.
This was particularly the case after a major incident was declared just after 2am, she said.
Victims
The reports mapped out where bodies were recovered from the tower.
Three people jumped from windows and were found outside. Most of the other casualties were discovered in their own flats, but 29 had travelled to other parts of the tower.
Nineteen victims were able to reach the exit stair, but proceeded upwards rather than downwards, Jose Torero’s report said.
Three victims were found either in the stairs or in the adjacent lobby, “suggesting they attempted to travel down the egress stair”.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here