
The True Story Behind the 'Grenfell: Uncovered'
The tragedy is revisited in the documentary Grenfell: Uncovered, which premieres on Netflix on June 20. The film gives voice to victims, reveals behind-the-scenes details of the investigation, and exposes how corporate interests and government failures contributed to the disaster. But what exactly happened that night—and what followed?
How did the Grenfell Tower fire start?
The fire originated in Flat 16, on the fourth floor. The resident, Behailu Kebede, was awakened by the smoke alarm and saw flames near the fridge and freezer, which had caught on fire. He immediately called the fire brigade at 12:54 a.m., and the first crews arrived at the building five minutes later.
The first firefighters entered the flat at around 1:07 a.m. They conducted a quick sweep but didn't reach the kitchen until seven minutes later. According to a firefighter's account, there was a 'curtain of fire' rising to the ceiling. Thermal images captured by the team suggest that gases and flames were already escaping through the kitchen window, which was located by the fridge. From 1:09 a.m. onwards, the fire began to break through to the outside of the building—marking the start of a devastating spread.
Within 30 minutes of the firefighters' arrival, the fire had climbed up the east side of the tower and reached the top floor. By 4:30 a.m., the entire building was ablaze, and more than 100 flats had been affected.
Why did the fire spread so quickly?
Several structural and design flaws contributed to the rapid and catastrophic spread of the flames. The most critical factor was the exterior cladding installed during a 2016 refurbishment. Grenfell Tower had been covered with aluminum composite panels (ACMs) that contained a polyethylene core—a highly flammable plastic that releases enormous amounts of heat when burned, essentially acting as fuel for the fire.
Additionally, the thermal insulation installed beneath the cladding — made of polyurethane foam — was also combustible and helped the fire spread, as did other construction materials. Renovations to the windows included the use of flammable materials, which allowed the fire to pass from one floor to another through gaps in the structures.
Experts featured in Grenfell: Uncovered highlight that the ACM cladding—made of aluminum composite material with a polyethylene core—had already been flagged in previous fire tests as dangerous, with rapid burn, intense heat, and heavy smoke release. These test results were kept secret by companies like Arconic, the manufacturer of the material used in Grenfell Tower.
The failure of the emergency plan
Like many residential buildings in the UK, Grenfell Tower followed a fire safety policy known as 'stay put'—the idea that in the event of a fire, residents should remain in their flats, trusting that the building's design would prevent the flames from spreading.
But this plan failed catastrophically that night. By 1:26 a.m., less than 30 minutes after the fire brigade arrived, it was clear the situation was out of control. In desperation, some people climbed to neighbors' flats on higher floors, others jumped from the building, and many ignored the official advice and fled down the stairs in search of safety.
Even so, an evacuation order was only issued at 2:47 a.m. Richard Millett QC, the lead counsel to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, stated in a hearing on June 4, 2018, that 144 people had evacuated the building before 1:38 a.m. After that point—when the 'stay put' advice was finally abandoned—only 36 more people managed to escape.
The role of the government in the tragedy
While corporate negligence was a key factor in the fire, government oversight—or lack thereof—also played a central role. The cladding material used in Grenfell Tower had already been banned in countries like the United States due to its flammability. Yet, in the UK, it remained legal, largely due to years of deregulating the construction industry.
Policies implemented encouraged the loosening of safety standards in favor of cost-cutting and efficiency measures, creating a regulatory vacuum in which unsafe materials could be approved and used.
Furthermore, internal documents later revealed that the local authorities responsible for Grenfell—the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) and the Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO)—were aware of the potential risks. Cost-cutting decisions during the tower's refurbishment led them to choose the cheaper, more dangerous cladding, instead of safer alternatives like zinc.
Residents had long raised safety concerns. Six months before the fire, a local tenant group had warned about fire risks in an open letter. Their pleas were ignored. The fire at Lakanal House in 2009, which killed six people and also involved flammable cladding, should have served as a wake-up call. But once again, authorities failed to act.
The investigation and the pursuit of justice
After the fire, an extensive public investigation was launched. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry, established to determine causes, was divided into two phases. The first began in September 2017 and concluded in October 2019, focusing on the events of the night itself through witness testimony. The second phase, which began in January 2020, examined broader structural issues—including decisions made during the building's refurbishment and the involvement of companies that supplied flammable materials.
Following years of extensive hearings, the final report was published on September 4, 2024. It attributed the disaster to failures by the government, the construction industry, and especially the companies responsible for installing flammable cladding on the building's exterior. The report found that the cladding did not meet fire safety regulations and was the primary reason for the rapid spread of the fire. It also criticized the London Fire Brigade's delayed shift from 'stay put' advice to a full evacuation order, which significantly compromised rescue efforts. A total of 58 recommendations were made, including updates to building regulations.
With the official inquiry concluded, it is now up to the police to identify potential criminal cases and refer them to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which will decide whether to bring formal charges. Due to the complexity of the material gathered, authorities have stated that any criminal charges are unlikely to be filed before the end of 2026.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Brother of woman featured in Netflix doc 'Amy Bradley is Missing' reveals critical third witness
The brother of the missing woman featured on the hit Netflix docuseries "Amy Bradley is Missing" spoke with Fox News Digital to disclose further information in the case that was not discussed on the show.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jussie Smollett's 2019 Alleged Attack Gets Investigated in Upcoming Netflix Documentary: Watch the Trailer
Netflix has released a trailer for the streaming giant's The Truth About Jussie Smollett? documentary, which is set to uncover all angles of the alleged January 2019 attack against the Empire actor in Chicago. Jussie Smollett has maintained his innocence in the case, as the debate of whether or not the incident was a hoax or a hate crime has continued in the more than six years since the incident. More from Billboard Beats Wireless Earbuds Are Just $59 Right Now - An All-Time Low Price A Series on Flow La Movie's Life Is in the Works: Here's Everything We Know Taylor Swift Says Bad Bunny's 'Happy Gilmore 2' Performance 'Delighted' Her: 'His Comedic Timing Is So Good' 'The villains are the two people who assaulted me, the Chicago Police Department and, if I may be so brave, the mayor,' Smollett told Variety on Wednesday (Aug. 13). 'We're living in a world where the higher-ups, their main mission, in order to do all of the underhanded things that they're doing, is to distract us with the shiny object.' The doc invites various members of law enforcement, journalists, lawyers and investigators to uncover every angle of the case with one goal in mind: to find the truth about what happened on Jan. 29, 2019. Smollett claimed he was the victim of a hate crime executed by two men who tied a noose around his neck and poured bleach on him while screaming things like 'MAGA' and hurling racial and homophobic slurs at him. 'Some things kind of struck me as a little odd,' said former Chicago Police Department superintendent Eddie Johnson in the trailer. 'We were going through the polar vortex at the time. Who is out in the street with it being cold out there?' Smollett is then shown sitting down for an interview, but the clip ends without revealing what he has to say. The actor was found guilty by a jury in 2021 on five felony counts of disorderly conduct for a false police report. He was sentenced to 150 days in jail but served only six days before being released on bail. Smollett also reached a settlement with the city of Chicago to pay $50,000 to the Building Brighter Futures Center for the Arts in May. His conviction was ultimately overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court in November. Watch The Truth About Jussie Smollett? trailer below. Best of Billboard Kelly Clarkson, Michael Buble, Pentatonix & Train Will Bring Their Holiday Hits to iHeart Christmas Concert Fox Plans NFT Debut With $20 'Masked Singer' Collectibles 14 Things That Changed (or Didn't) at Farm Aid 2021


USA Today
6 hours ago
- USA Today
Divided opinions on Michigan sign-stealing scandal just part of college football tribalism
From the moment the Michigan sign-stealing scandal spilled into public consciousness roughly 21 months ago, it has served as the ultimate Rorschach test for college sports tribalism, for the pettiness of longstanding rivalries, of our voracity for social media conspiracy theories and how quickly controversy can turn into celebrity. Just imagine if you had told anyone with a working knowledge of Michigan's football program August of 2023 that they'd win a national championship and the person who got a Netflix special out of it would be … Connor Stalions? I rest my case. And now, as Michigan braces for the findings and penalties stemming from its NCAA infractions case on Friday, we will hear all of it again regardless of the outcome: Complaints from Ann Arbor over selective enforcement, complaints from Columbus (and perhaps points beyond) that the NCAA didn't hit hard enough, half-baked justifications for Stalions' behavior and eye rolls from the sports nihilists who think all of this is silly because rules were never meant to be followed in the first place. We undeniably live in a more permissive culture than at any time in NCAA history. The Overton Window on what we consider a college sports scandal changed forever on Nov. 5, 2011 when Jerry Sandusky was arrested are charged with 52 accounts of sexual abuse. Things that used to shock people, like agent involvement in a recruitment or payments to college athletes, no longer registered the same way - and that true even before the NCAA made that stuff legal. So the impulse now is to shrug our shoulders at all of it. If you don't like Michigan, you probably want them punished. If you root for Michigan, you probably think this was all a ridiculous witch hunt. And if you have no skin in the game, you probably are just laughing at the NCAA for trying to punish anyone for anything at this point. But I'll propose a radical thought here: Maybe, just maybe, the way all of us experience sports would be better if we simply pushed back a little harder on the idea that cheating – even in the ridiculous world of college sports -- isn't a big deal. A couple months before I ever heard the name Conor Stallions, I was having a phone conversation with Shawn Klein, an Arizona State philosophy professor who has extensively written about and studied ethics in sports. At the time, I was working on a project that became an award-winning 10-part series about the history of cheating in sports, which human beings have grappled with dating back to chariot races in Greek and Roman antiquity. When I asked Klein why people tended to view cheating in sports differently than, say, cheating on their taxes or cheating on their significant other, his explanation forever changed how I thought about this stuff. The gist is that while we live in a world of rules that have been put in place to help us make our lives better and organize society, we'd still a society in some form even if there were no rules or laws. Sports don't work that way. If there were no rules, the game itself wouldn't exist. 'The point isn't to get the white ball in the hole with a stick,' Klein said. 'It's doing it given the constraints you've all agreed to, which is what creates the game. By going outside that, you're not playing the game anymore in some way. So the process is maybe more important in sports than in other parts of our lives. What we actually care about is the doing of the thing, not just that we get there first.' Let's apply that to Michigan. If Stalions' in-person scouting allowed the Wolverines to obtain higher quality information about their opponents than they would otherwise have been able to obtain by following the rules, this wasn't a gray-area issue. It was cheating, and we should be honest about that and treat it with a level of seriousness that discourages others from similarly tainting a sport they profess to care about. The hard part, though, is what that means in a practical sense. Would it feel right to strip away Michigan's title when we all saw that, sign stealing or not, the Wolverines were by far the best college football team in 2023? Would it be fair to tell Michigan's current players who had nothing to do with the actions of a low-level analyst that they aren't eligible for postseason games? Does suspending current head coach and then-offensive coordinator Sherrone Moore for a few games look like a just punishment or symbolic fluff? There are no great answers, and it's symbolic of why the NCAA's enforcement model ultimately failed. As much as schools knew that cheating was culturally corrosive and wildly prevalent in college sports, they never truly trusted themselves with the instruments to manage it. Michigan will most likely be hit with a potpourri of penalties that won't hurt much, and perhaps that's the right outcome. Stalions is back in obscurity and Jim Harbaugh is in the NFL, the latter being a far bigger penalty than anything the NCAA could come up with. But whether Michigan cheated on its way to a national title shouldn't be up for debate. Thanks to an enterprising staffer who was so desperate to impress his bosses that he crossed every line imaginable, the Wolverines were playing a different game than their opponents. And if you can't acknowledge that, they played you too.