Massive Fire Skyscraper Dubai

originally posted by: kayleighkitty
date on article is 2012
nothing to see here

www.thenational.ae...

That's about a 76 story building called Al Sulafa Tower, this is about a 79 story building called the Marina Torch.

looks like foul play from this photo

a reply to: kayleighkitty

Different fire apparently as the linked article is dated today...mentions in the article of several other fires and false alarms so maybe Dubai has a fire bug.

originally posted by: Misterlondon
The marina torch?

Say no more...

Now that is ironic!

Obligatory video..

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Now let's just see if this one "falls into is own foot print" as well as the WTC ones. After all it's a "massive fire".

Well, seeing how this building in Dubai didn't get hit by 115 tons of loaded airplane going at about 400-500 miles an hour, in one hell of a fireball that blew blaming debris for several blocks nearby, I do not think it will collapse like the WTC did. A partial collapse is possible if the fire is really hot and left to burn out of control, and supports are weakened, but a total collapse would require a catastrophic event (you know, like, say, an earthquake, a typhoon, A BIG ASSED COMMERCIAL JET HITTING IT AT AROUND 500 MILES AN HOUR) for total collapse.

That is, providing the building was built to code, properly, with the right materials by competent workmen and architects, with all proper precautions in place. Remember, this is Dubai. It is very rich, and very corrupt.

Glad to hear nobody was hurt.

Living in skyscraper ?

No thanks !

I think I've watched one too many disaster movies.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Now let's just see if this one "falls into is own foot print" as well as the WTC ones. After all it's a "massive fire".

Well, seeing how this building in Dubai didn't get hit by 115 tons of loaded airplane going at about 400-500 miles an hour, in one hell of a fireball that blew blaming debris for several blocks nearby, I do not think it will collapse like the WTC did. A partial collapse is possible if the fire is really hot and left to burn out of control, and supports are weakened, but a total collapse would require a catastrophic event (you know, like, say, an earthquake, a typhoon, A BIG ASSED COMMERCIAL JET HITTING IT AT AROUND 500 MILES AN HOUR) for total collapse.

That is, providing the building was built to code, properly, with the right materials by competent workmen and architects, with all proper precautions in place. Remember, this is Dubai. It is very rich, and very corrupt.

A jet is in essence nothing bot an over-sized beer can with wings at a speed of 500mph. No matter what the mass and speed of this thing is, the material the jet is built of is less dense than the material the WTC was built of. And none of the jets hit the towers right dead center bulls eye! So it is again an irregular damage which then would result in an irregular collapse. And after all the WTC were designed for the very fact that aircraft could impact! After all the Empire State got hit in 45 or 46 with a B-25 bomber! Buildings collapse due to fire and impact damage but they ONLY collapse in their own footprints if "helped" with a bit of a controlled demolition.
Jet fuel burns in "open air" at just a bit over 1,000C which is not enough to "melt" steel. So even with the jets ramming it they should have collapsed irregular or partially. That is what i am saying. Not more and not less. You do not get an almost free-fall in it's own foot print collapse just because of a plane hit. So no matter what you throw at any building it will NOT collapse free-fall into its own footprint.

a reply to: Guenter

That is what i am saying. Not more and not less. You do not get an almost free-fall in it's own foot print collapse just because of a plane hit. So no matter what you throw at any building it will NOT collapse free-fall into its own footprint.

Modern day architects and designers, with all their knowledge and know how must surely be bowing in awe of your most awesome technological expertise.

You are a qualified high storey building architect aren't you?

Fire out and no reported injuries is good to hear.

Blaze at Dubai Skyscraper The Torch Extinguished

A fire that engulfed the higher floors of a 79-story apartment tower in Dubai, raining down burning debris, has been extinguished, a witness for Reuters said.

There were no reported injuries but the fire was fueled by windy conditions and had engulfed between 10 and 15 floors of the more than 1,100-foot-tall tower, named The Torch, witnesses said. The building was evacuated.

Source

originally posted by: Guenter
but they ONLY collapse in their own footprints if "helped" with a bit of a controlled demolition.

Well, as none of the WTC buildings collapsed into their own footprint....

Also this building is constructed nothing like the WTC

a reply to: Guenter

To compare a plane to a beer can is not only incorre3ct, but disingenuous. A beer can, once drunk, is empty. It is not filled with high energy jet fuel, tons of hot moving parts, electronics, as well as a wide assortment of other materials. It does not have heavy steel and titanium parts, is much thicker than a beer can.

And the density argument is completely moot. The WTC was not a solid structure. it was steel and glass. And space. A lot of air.

And of course, let us not forget that the plane was going at around 500 mph. That speed, coupled with that mass, produces more than enough catastrophic force needed to mortally damage the building, even it's foundations.

Did you also forget the first plane did hit the WTC pretty square and center, and only the second one went in at an angle and sheared the corner.

originally posted by: Guenter
Jet fuel burns in "open air" at just a bit over 1,000C which is not enough to "melt" steel.

You don't need to melt the steel to cause major problems. All you have to do is heat it up enough to weaken it. Fireproofing insulation on the steel is supposed to delay weakening of steel in a fire but if fireproofing is knocked off by an impact then the steel may fail even sooner, but it can fail eventually anyway if the fire keeps burning. The fireproofing is intended to ensure that there is at least enough time to evacuate the building.

Hopefully this fire doesn't have tons of jet fuel feeding it, nor impacts to knock off the fireproofing insulation, so a collapse is less likely for those reasons.

Wonder what the occupancy was?

Wonder what kind of insurance exists ...and if it was paid up?

Hope no one gets hurt...

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: Guenter

To compare a plane to a beer can is not only incorre3ct, but disingenuous. A beer can, once drunk, is empty. It is not filled with high energy jet fuel, tons of hot moving parts, electronics, as well as a wide assortment of other materials. It does not have heavy steel and titanium parts, is much thicker than a beer can.

And the density argument is completely moot. The WTC was not a solid structure. it was steel and glass. And space. A lot of air.

And of course, let us not forget that the plane was going at around 500 mph. That speed, coupled with that mass, produces more than enough catastrophic force needed to mortally damage the building, even it's foundations.

Did you also forget the first plane did hit the WTC pretty square and center, and only the second one went in at an angle and sheared the corner.

Even a full beercan is pretty much harmless. There are plenty of tests done with these things accelerated to incredible speeds. The WTC was specifically designed to withstand a plane impact. NYC had not forgotten the Empire State incident in 45. It was designed around the specs of the B-707, then the largest commercial plane in service.
There is no doubt that some parts of the buildings should have collapsed. Because of speed and mass plus the leverage of the height of the building! But as higher you go up the same leverage also applies to the wind force. so the damn thing should have fallen SIDEWAYS! Or just the top fallen away and a few floors below the damage the rest should have just remained standing!
Even in footages of WW2 from bombed out cities in Germany you hardly ever see a fully "flat" collapsed building. There is always "something" left standing, some side still pretty much intact and so while the other end is rubble.

The only thing that could account for such a free-fall flat down collapse is something I "heard' does exist but is rarely ever published or admitted. - Namely already set explosives to bring the structure down so it does not collapse in fashion that it brings more structures down. I do know for a fact that some powerdams have "emergency flood gates" that are "blown out" if a flood cannot be controlled. I am aware of a few such installations in power damns in Europe. I never however heard that such emergency charges are situated in high rise buildings. Logically it would make sense to collapse a damaged high rise before it goes sideways and crushes on other buildings. "Practically" would you "rent" space in a High rise that you "know" is "loaded" just in case? Not to side track from the original thread, but this would be the only way the people who stick to the 9-11 was a "terror plot" (Official version) - if they admit that these things were already "loaded" for such a remotely possible scenario.