Dubai Address hotel fire

[Jaytje46]

Yes, I was, just like you. Then I opened my mind and realized the official story is BS. It took two years, but now I'm fortunate to be able to see through the lies that the government, you, and the others on this forum continue to perpetuate.

Here is a tip.

Open your eyes next time, so you can read the actual official report.

 

[1stClassAlan]

........you are unwilling to accept any new evidence to change your position. It's not because I'm wrong; it's because intelligent debate on this forum is impossible.

Then feel free to P.M. me - I'm all for intelligent debate - though I haven't seen much of that from the Conspiracy side - it would make a nice change. I'd like a complete run down on what you think went on before, during and after 911 that convinces you that da Gov'mint dun it! And don't be put off by me being against you from the start - convince me.

 

[Spanx]

I used the wrong word. The correct word should have been "expected" or "anticipated".

Don't tell me, it went how you "expected or anticipated" due to your opening words?

Obviously not planned.

I have no idea where this post should go, so I started a new thread. Regardless of where it should go, this is relevant to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 because they are all steel-framed high-rise buildings.

 

[DGM]

Then feel free to P.M. me - I'm all for intelligent debate - though I haven't seen much of that from the Conspiracy side - it would make a nice change. I'd like a complete run down on what you think went on before, during and after 911 that convinces you that da Gov'mint dun it! And don't be put off by me being against you from the start - convince me.

Unless you're willing to be convinced by them spot lighting errors the NIST may or may not have had or willingness to accept that "truther" physics are really a thing, you are going to be severely disappointed.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I would make a snide comment about the delusionality but i think the fact that the OP auto-assumed a steel structure is well enough to make the point. You made the OP without researching the building first. It says plenty about the comprehension level.

Granted he did correct that later, only to try and salvage the comparison unrealistically.

That said, if stating contrary to the CD belief makes me delusional in the eyes of an uninformed debater, i am content with that label.

 

[beachnut]

...
I know what this forum is. I know it's purpose, and I know not to waste my time trying to change your minds. It's not because I'm wrong; it's because intelligent debate on this forum is impossible.

You bring BS, lies, bigger lies, dumber lie, fantasy, and assorted idiotic claims; you want to debate some fantasy, and you offer no rational scenario, no evidence, no science; nothing but BS. 14 years of failure, and all you can do for evidence is cry you are stuck with a dumbed down fantasy.

CD is the most anti-intellectual claim you could make; and then offer no evidence.

How do you debate a fantasy?

 

[Seymour Butz]

I don't dismiss any of the fire related theories. The problem I have with this one is in order to get the fuel from the storage tanks to the 5th floor the generators need to be running. There's no evidence that shows this was the case after the collapse of the south tower. There was not enough fuel in the day tanks or headers to burn long enough to cause the failure.

.

He has no counter argument to this.

So he'll just ignore it and plow on with his belief about diesel fires, etc.

Just like a troofer....

 

[Seymour Butz]

Hahahhahahaahhaahaha

You weren't there Butz and apparently there are images of thick black smoke pouring from the east side of the tower below flr 8... maybe you can explain this?

My "pet theory" is very similar to what FEMA proposed and what the building's engineer Cantor seemed to think plausible and even the ARUP study considered failures of the 2 east side transfer trusses.

And there was no accounting for all the diesel fuel. If there was...an "accounting" perhaps you could provide a link which has some detail as to when it was recovered... how it was recovered and how much was recovered.

Or maybe you want to explain in some detail how the collapse of a few floor sections east of girder 79-44 led to the progressive collapse westward through the building causing the WPH to collapse and then causing the exterior moment frame to rotate clockwise while falling and develop a vertical kink in it aligned with the E columns of the first floor?

I don't have a problem with discussion and disagreements. But without real hard evidence all the explanations are "pet theories".

BTW... what do you suppose would have happened to the building if the day tanks or the supply pipping ruptured and were spewing diesel which ignited and was burning all day?

What is YOUR favorite pet theory?

Counter the points that I and DGM have made.

1- there wasn't enough fuel in the day tanks to cause failure

2- the generators would need to run to feed power to the pumps that would transfer fuel from the lower tanks to the 5th floor.

3-the generators were on the floor that you claim the failures and fires were and therefore couldn't have supplied power to the transfer pumps, eliminating your theory

 

[Seymour Butz]

You weren't there Butz and apparently there are images of thick black smoke pouring from the east side of the tower below flr 8...?

You don't know?

 

[Seymour Butz]

And there was no accounting for all the diesel fuel.

While this is true, it's also true that the generators couldn't have been supplying power to the transfer pumps.

I haven't seen ANY counter to this from you.

Why?

 

[Seymour Butz]

BTW... what do you suppose would have happened to the building if the day tanks or the supply pipping ruptured and were spewing diesel which ignited and was burning all day?

Nothing.

The day tanks didn't contain enough heat energy to fail any columns.

This point has been made to you now clearly. Several times.

At least "try" to counter it.

 

[Notconvinced]

I said, "Observe everything." How does that support any one side? Everyone has automatically assumed that I started this thread to prove a point. That could not be farther from the truth. We have a steel-framed high-rise that is currently on fire. We are watching it live. Everyone should watch this with an open mind. What we are witnessing could answer lots of questions.

I just caught this thread, thanks for posting!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I said, "Observe everything." How does that support any one side? Everyone has automatically assumed that I started this thread to prove a point. That could not be farther from the truth. We have a steel-framed high-rise that is currently on fire. We are watching it live. Everyone should watch this with an open mind. What we are witnessing could answer lots of questions.

I did a quick Venn diagram of this event and the 9/11 event. The only overlap I have is "a building on fire." Not one other detail aligns. Zero comparison between them. Like comparing apples and salmon.

 

[funk de fino]

My friend was at Souk Al Bahar around 200 metres from the hotel in question. He definitely heard an "explosion" of some kind and they were evacuated from that building but the main fireworks display at the nearby Burj Khalifa went ahead as planned.

These fires look far worse than they actually are because of the external cladding which is cheap and nasty stuff with a foam based layer inside. This is what causes the rapid spread but it mainly confined to the external of the building. Many building here have this cladding(including mine). Some recent fires that have happened near me are the Tamweel Tower in 2011 and the Torch tower in 2015. Two of my colleagues stayed in the Torch building and were evacuated and, although one was directly affected by the fire on her side of the building, the only damage they had was water damage inside the apartment from the sprinklers. They have only just started repairing the Tamweel building even though that fire happened in 2011. The police claim the majority of the fires are caused by clothes being left on the balconies catching fire due to errant cigarette butts therefore there is a law prohibiting the storage of anything on our balconies.


Most of the tall building here are reinforced concrete construction and not purely steel frame.

 

[ozeco41]

These fires look far worse than they actually are because of the external cladding which is cheap and nasty stuff with a foam based layer inside. This is what causes the rapid spread but it mainly confined to the external of the building....

The first media images showed the external fires - my first reaction was "Looks like another one" given the similar experience last year. Details will no doubt become clearer but zero basis of comparison to WTC 9/11 collapses.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I have no idea where this post should go, so I started a new thread. Regardless of where it should go, this is relevant to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 because they are all steel-framed high-rise buildings.

So, right now the building is on fire. It appears the fire is spreading rapidly. It is dark, but the flames are highlighting the structure. Although the pictures are limited, it does not appear that any of the supporting structure is melting, sagging, or weakening. It does not look like there is any deformation of any kind.

Let's just see how long the fire lasts, what it takes to put it out, and what the building looks like after this is over.

Listen to eyewitness reports. Watch closely. Listen for the sounds of explosions. Observe everything.

And truthers wonder why they get laughed at so often.

 

[funk de fino]

Some pictures from the local paper.

http://www.thenational.ae/uae/a-closer-look-at-the-fire-damage-sustained-to-the-address-hotel---in-pictures

There are regurgitated discussions on the cladding issues. There were some laws passed to deal with this but replacing unsafe cladding wasn't made mandatory. Upgrading systems was, but who knows if many even did this. This hotel was a quite recent build so it would have been assumed to have more stringent checks on this.

 

[Spanx]

Some pictures from the local paper.

http://www.thenational.ae/uae/a-closer-look-at-the-fire-damage-sustained-to-the-address-hotel---in-pictures

.

Yep, the pictures clearly show it's a concrete structure and metal parts have been affected by the fire.

 

[1stClassAlan]

Nothing.

The day tanks didn't contain enough heat energy to fail any columns.

This point has been made to you now clearly. Several times.

At least "try" to counter it.

Go back up to my previous post about how I envisage the diesel fed the fires - did you read it and decide to ignore it?

Also, don't be obsessed with columns - the large on-site fabricated beams are where everyone should be looking for failures IMHO!

 

[1stClassAlan]

Counter the points that I and DGM have made.

1- there wasn't enough fuel in the day tanks to cause failure

2- the generators would need to run to feed power to the pumps that would transfer fuel from the lower tanks to the 5th floor.

3-the generators were on the floor that you claim the failures and fires were and therefore couldn't have supplied power to the transfer pumps, eliminating your theory

Do you have a copy of the wiring diagram? Do you know for sure that the generators were not capable of powering the transfer pumps? Explain in exact detail why you think that a fire - even a well developed fire - can't be burning at one end of a long room leaving the other relatively intact? On top of that lot - outline your expectations of failure for a running generator in a fire - I think a dose of reality would surprise you, it did me!