Massive Skyscraper Blaze in Hong Kong: At Least 44 Dead

[Moses]

5 hours ago, PeterRS said:

has still not responded to my question last Monday about all the Russian fires.

Why do you think I would answer your questions? It's not worth my time: I prefer to answer questions related to the discussion of facts, but you usually start discussing me personally because you don't have any arguments to discuss the topic.

London, British fire safety standards, 2017, 72 died:

[thaiophilus]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

 I prefer to answer questions related to the discussion of facts, but you usually start discussing me personally because you don't have any arguments to discuss the topic.

London, British fire safety standards, 2017, 72 died:

 

Whataboutism is not "answer[ing] questions related to the discussion of facts." It's the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation.

[PeterRS]

8 hours ago, Moses said:

I prefer to answer questions related to the discussion of facts

Oh really? That has never been the caase in the past. In this and several other threads I have asked your views on a whole series of facts. In the one above it related to the facts about fires in Russia. But then to you inconvenient facts are simply not facts. They are statements to be glossed over, obfuscated and called downright lies. No one actually believes you!

[Moses]

11 hours ago, thaiophilus said:

Whataboutism is not "answer[ing] questions related to the discussion of facts." It's the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation.

Now I know why in this thread appears list of fires in Russia. Thank you.

[Moses]

Global list of devastating fires in 21 century

[Moses]

11 hours ago, thaiophilus said:

strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation

You cannot argue the facts what both cases Grenfell and Hong Kong has similar base: buildings were constructed by British fire safety standards, both fires occur during renovation, in both cases fire was in tall buildings. And London case even more worst: 72 died in one building, while in HK 155 in 6.

So it is trend, not "whataboutism".  

[thaiophilus]

12 hours ago, Moses said:

You cannot argue the facts what both cases Grenfell and Hong Kong has similar base: buildings were constructed by British fire safety standards, both fires occur during renovation, in both cases fire was in tall buildings. And London case even more worst: 72 died in one building, while in HK 155 in 6.

So it is trend, not "whataboutism".  

You seem to be obsessed with "British fire safety standards".  Since in the Grenfell disaster they were not followed, as the public inquiry discovered (see link below), if there's a trend then the common factor is not "British standards" but systematic incompetence, dishonesty and greed. Yes, it happens in Britain too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgedv58e7ygo

Among the key findings of the report were:

• "Systematic dishonesty" by the manufacturers of cladding and insulation

• US firm Arconic, manufacturer of the Reynobond 55 cladding which experts at the inquiry said was "by far the largest contributor" to the fire, deliberately concealed the true extent of the danger of using its product

• Manufacturers made "false and misleading claims" over the safety and suitability of insulation to the company which installed it on Grenfell

• Failures in London Fire Brigade's training and a lack of a strategy to evacuate the building

• Successive governments missed opportunities to act

• The local council and the Tenant Management Organisation had a "persistent indifference to fire safety, particularly the safety of vulnerable people"

• How building safety is managed in England and Wales is “seriously defective”

[PeterRS]

On 12/1/2025 at 3:47 PM, Moses said:

So, how all that bla-bla-bla changes fact, what all these dangerous buildings were constructed in accordance with British standards and under supervising of British governor appointed by British crown?

Why do you keep spouting such obvious lies? Hong Kong building construction codes are different to such codes in the UK.

1.  Do you seriously think any poster believes that UK building codes take into account massive typhoon winds which occur regularly in Hong Kong with wind speeds regularly of up to 200kph? Of course they do not. Construction codes in the South of England allow for wind speeds of around 100 kph.

2. Do you seriously think any poster believes that UK building codes take into account the massive amounts of monsoon rainfall annually in Hong Kong (well over double the average in the UK) resulting in the need for different codes for buildings on hillsides which are prone to subsidence? Of course not.

3. Do you seriously think any poster believes that UK building codes take into account the massive density of skyscrapers in Hong Kong, their effect on wind movements, daylight and other secondary issues. Of course not.

4. Besides, when the Hong Kong tower blocks were conceived, how many in the UK were of a similar height? Answer - TWO!

5. And what is the tallest building in the UK now? The Shard in London competed in 2012 with a height of 309 meters.

6. And what is the tallest building in Hong Kong now. The Intrnational Commerce Centre copleted in 2010 with a height of 424 meters.

Quit lying and deviation!

[Moses]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Hong Kong building construction codes are different to such codes in the UK.

Current? Yes. 

Would you like to deny what Hong Kong standards 80s were accepted and introduced to industry at time of British control?

[PeterRS]

29 minutes ago, Moses said:

Current? Yes. 

Would you like to deny what Hong Kong standards 80s were accepted and introduced to industry at time of British control?

Yes, I deny that ridiculous assumption. I actually answer questions. You avoid them and never answer.

[Moses]

18 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

Yes, I deny that ridiculous assumption. I actually answer questions. You avoid them and never answer.

So, Hong Kong in 80s wasn't under British control, and there were no British administration and governor? 26th governor by the way... 26!

 

Lets see. Thisу buildings were constructed under Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123).