The claim states that a public inquiry heard that the fire services declined to activate an alert due to fears of confusion. While the web search results confirm that the event was a major fire in Hong Kong and that there is public discussion surrounding the disaster, none of the provided evidence sources (web search, Wikipedia) explicitly state that a public inquiry heard this specific reason for the non-activation of an alert.

The claim asserts that an independent committee found the mobile phone alarm system would be ineffective because it takes up to an hour to activate. This specific finding is not corroborated by multiple independent sources. The evidence mentions an independent committee investigating the disaster, but the specific detail about the one-hour activation time for the mobile alarm system is not confirmed by multiple sources.

The claim details that a property management employee disabled fire alarms by switching off fire hosepipes during renovations at Wang Fuk Court. This specific sequence of events and the associated monetary figures are only present in the context of the claim itself and are not independently corroborated by the provided web search or Wikipedia results. However, the general theme of renovation-related failures is corroborated.

The claim attributes the observation that five of seven affected towers caught fire late enough to allow evacuation to Victor Dawes, the committee's leading counsel. While the evidence mentions committee proceedings and expert testimony, this specific quote and attribution are not corroborated by multiple independent sources.