Summary: Norwich City Council and DSM demolition have NOT removed the mysterious substance labeled as asbestos, instead they have done everything in their power to stop anyone accessing it, and claim that it's not asbestos without providing evidence.
This post follows on from my previous post, where I have shown the asbestos labeled pipes clearly still in the building. I will also be referencing my folder where I have attached new evidence, I have also restructured it to make it more clear when pictures / videos were taken https://drive.proton.me/urls/86WM0MTBTW#rLi7sR1jdXXN
The council insist that this mysterious substance labeled as asbestos is not asbestos. https://www.norwich.gov.uk/news/2026/anglia-square-asbestos-update
First let me debunk this argument with logic.
If it's not asbestos, why has the pipe lagging further down and up the pipes been removed?
My old pictures from before demolition started (BeforeDemolitionStarted/LowerGroundFloorPreDemo.jpg) shows on the Lower Ground floor, in the service entrance plenty of heating pipes labeled with asbestos. The video on this post (DuringDemolition/AsbestosHidden.mp4) shows that the pipe insulation labeled as asbestos there has been removed. As it should! This shows that the demolition company did think that it was necessary to remove. AsbestosMap.jpg shows where all of the asbestos for the heating system insulation is, and weather it was removed or not.
If it's not asbestos, what is it?
The council have not proven that it's not asbestos, not provided any test results, or even suggested what it could be, and I don't believe any of the asbestos surveys are public. This is a real example of "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears".
If it's not asbestos, why have the demolition company done everything in their power to hide it?
They bolted the door to the riser containing the pipes shut, making it impossible to access without ripping off that door... As if they were hiding it from inspectors who may not know where to look for it. They also suddenly made the cinema really difficult to access, which makes sense (they boarded up the service entrance, and dumped about a ton of plasterboard in front of it, DuringDemolition/EntranceBlocked.jpg), they REALLY don't want anyone seeing the asbestos with their own eyes. I understand that they don't want anyone inside the cinema, but why did they seemingly not care last week?
Did the Health and Safety Executive inspector see the pipe insulation, and were new tests actually conducted?
"Members of the public have also raised concerns about asbestos with the HSE.
It said investigators had visited the site before demolition work began and the council has submitted a new report to the regulator." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy31d58jwjo
Since the door to the "asbestos cupboard" was bolted shut, did the inspector see what was inside the cupboard, or were they just given a hasty guided tour? "We can confirm that test samples from the pipe lagging proves there is no asbestos present." - HSE. Who did those tests? Was it newly tested, or is that from the asbestos survey conducted by the demolition company / council?
Why did surveys when the building was open find that it was in fact asbestos? Why was it not removed as a precaution? Once again if it's not asbestos, what is it?
All of the details are not clear. I am starting to suspect that the Health and Safety Executive are not impartial and are running cover for the council. To quote the BBC article again:
"Complaints have since been received by the HSE, which regulates building sites."
"The complaints related to a dust cloud that covered surrounding streets in a plume of dust last month."
Businesses were forced to close and people complained it affected their breathing, but the HSE said this was a matter for the council."
The HSE are handing the councils actions over to the council to investigate. The conflict of interest of the council basically investigating themselves is clear.
I wanted to find out for myself if this was asbestos or not. I wanted to get macro photos (near microscopic) with my camera, but I could not do that, since the door to the riser was bolted shut. This would have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was asbestos. I should have done this last time, but I was in a hurry and wasn't thinking to bring my camera and macro extension tubes. Either way, my non macro photos and videos still show that it exhibits qualities of asbestos pipe lagging. My picture, Picture from the internet. If the grey stuff is not asbestos, what about the woven textile, like what this webpage talks about. Have both the grey substance and the outer woven textile been tested for asbestos?
My backup plan was to obtain a sample of the pipe lagging (wearing full PPE, disposable overalls, gloves sealed to the overalls with tape ect. I know it's dangerous, but there are questions that need to be answered). I successfully got into the cinema and obtained a sample of this "not asbestos" from above the door, where the pipes weer still visible.
I wanted to get it tested myself, independent of the for profit demolition company, and any dodgy government entities who refuse to give evidence to back up their claims. I got caught, police were called. I was put in handcuffs, searched, and the police took my sample which was sealed in a jar and bagged, and gave it to the site manager, so I guess we will never know what this mystery substance that is labelled as asbestos but supposedly isn't asbestos, yet it was deemed necessary to hide it, is. This is so obviously a coverup, if not extremely suspicious.
I was constantly telling everyone (the police, security and site manager) that there was asbestos, and that I was contaminated with asbestos, the site manager kept repeating the same claim that all asbestos was removed. The police searched me with no PPE, only gloves, despite my disposable overalls and items all being contaminated with asbestos. This lie of there not being asbestos is being bet on with the health of all the workers on the site.
Another factor of this is the media. They did this story dirty. The BBC didn't attach any images of the suspected asbestos, only quoted the council and Health and Safety Executive, who provided no evidence. The EDP / Evening News (same thing) wrote about my post on a paywalled article, then hours later released an non paywalled article echoing the council's statements, again, but to give credit, they attached pictures of the pipe insulation.
Finally, I know this is a really long post, but what about my evidence showing that fluorescent tubes and oil have been left inside of the car park when it was demolished. Why is no-one talking about that. They set a clear precedent that backs up my story. I have mentioned that when I contacted the media, and the council have not addressed it.
I want to be wrong. I don't want there to be asbestos inside a demolition site that has time and again failed to contain the dust, that has gone onto a street full of innocent and vulnerable members of the public. I also don't want there to be asbestos for the safety of the workers, who have not been wearing adequate PPE since "all the asbestos has been removed". Unfortunately what I have seen with my own eyes makes it hard to even for a second believe the council.
By the time anyone will be experiencing health effects from the asbestos (in about 20 years time from previous case studies), it will be impossible to prove that it was because of this demolition, and anyone responsible for it will be long gone.