Dubai Address hotel fire

[ozeco41]

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.

Thanks for the update.

 

[JSanderO]

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.

I am sorry to disappoint you... my "theory" is only speculation because no one actually knows any details of what went down in the sub station or on the mech floors where there was HVAC equipment and refrigerant, day tanks, diesel piping, pumps, building sub station transformers and switch gear.

We do know that the massive transfer structures were field assembled and the members, including the diagonal panels were bolted together with splice plates. I am pretty sure these were much more vulnerable to failure than the very robust members themselves. If there was a failure in the transfers it probably occurred at the connections. If some of... or even one of the connections failed a member could drop fairly easily rendering the truss non performing and what it supported.... 40 story concentrated load would drop down. There would be no other outcome.

I don't know how the tanks were replenished. But the power to do so had to be from both battery and then the generator themselves... powering the pumps which replenish the generators.

I don't know the energy available... bit hundreds of gallons or thousands of gallons contain an awful lot of destructive BTUs. I do know that the building's engineer Cantor opined that the diesel could have destroyed the a (the) truss(es). The fuel tanks were not part of the original scope to be considered in the design... they were a retro fit project . I seriously doubt that such an installation would be permitted today.

Why was this not explored in more detail by NIST? One can only speculate. One way to not explore it is to dismiss out of hand (as you have) that there wasn't enough diesel available. Ergo nothing to look at... move on.

However if one assumes there was enough diesel and it could have undermined the structure... it opens up the cause of the collapse to questionable placement and approval of the diesel fired back up generator systems in close proximity to key structures which if failed would lead to a rapid collapse of the entire building. And one considers that suppressing a fire down there was dependent on a non redundant fire suppression system (which may have been inadequate to begin with) it begins to look like some very unwise decisions were made to permit this installation.

However, data about what happened down there is conveniently non existent. We have no reports that everything was hunky dory or that there was some fire. No reports tells us nothing. There was very thick black filmed coming from these floors... What was the origin of this smoke? We do know that diesel smoke can be very black... And perhaps other cooling oils from the Con Ed equipment of the 7WTC sub station.

Since a collapse of the transfers would very likely produce the visuals we saw of the actual collapse... in my mind I think this deserves more study and I find it as or more compelling that the failure of column 79 above those transfers.

Please, if you have details about the fuel recovery provide them.

 

[ozeco41]

I find it hard to accept that fuel in day tanks at WTC7 in 2001 has any causal relationship to the fire which damaged the façade at Dubai Address hotel in 2015-6.

 

[JSanderO]

I find it hard to accept that fuel in day tanks at WTC7 in 2001 has any causal relationship to the fire which damaged the façade at Dubai Address hotel in 2015-6.

You don't see it? Get a new prescription for your reading glasses!

 

[1stClassAlan]

We do know that the massive transfer structures were field assembled and the members, including the diagonal panels were bolted together with splice plates. I am pretty sure these were much more vulnerable to failure than the very robust members themselves. If there was a failure in the transfers it probably occurred at the connections. If some of... or even one of the connections failed a member could drop fairly easily rendering the truss non performing and what it supported.... 40 story concentrated load would drop down. There would be no other outcome. .

It's a funny thing but the more I look at a post that reads like I could have written it - the more I like it!

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by beachnut
Who planted the silent explosives?

I don't know, but it appears you have the same question I do. If you want to know the answer, stop posting your nonsense, and support a new, independent investigation.

Not much at detecting sarcasm, are you? Silent explosives? Your "new, independent investigation" might as well investigate who cast the voodoo spell on the Twin Towers, as silent explosives.

 

[Seymour Butz]

I don't know how the tanks were replenished.

I know you don't.

Cuz if you did, you'd realize just how silly you're being.

But the power to do so had to be from both battery

Nope. Remember, you said you don't know. I'm telling you that you're wrong.

I don't know the energy available...

Obviously.

I seriously doubt that such an installation would be permitted today.

You're still in NY? Why don't you actually find out, rather than speculate?

Why was this not explored in more detail by NIST?

It was. It's in the NIST report.

However if one assumes there was enough diesel

And right here is where you veer into troofiness. You have a pet "speculation" about what happened, and realize that for it to be true, then there must of been enough diesel to do the job. Therefore, you don't read the NIST report cuz it'll shoot it down.

Face it. You're a troofer.


Not because you believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

But because you have the same rejection of logic and inability to do any real, honest investigation about whether or not your "speculation" even belongs to see the sight of day....

 

[JSanderO]

I know you don't.

Cuz if you did, you'd realize just how silly you're being.





Nope. Remember, you said you don't know. I'm telling you that you're wrong.




Obviously.




You're still in NY? Why don't you actually find out, rather than speculate?





It was. It's in the NIST report.




And right here is where you veer into troofiness. You have a pet "speculation" about what happened, and realize that for it to be true, then there must of been enough diesel to do the job. Therefore, you don't read the NIST report cuz it'll shoot it down.

Face it. You're a troofer.


Not because you believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

But because you have the same rejection of logic and inability to do any real, honest investigation about whether or not your "speculation" even belongs to see the sight of day....

Butz... I am not going to be dragged down into a stupid fight which is what you are trying to do. I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job. You don't know much about it either... just what you read which you believe. And that's your right.

NIST offered up reasonable models. What they presented was not fact and it may be incorrect... in details or more for all three collapses. I am interested in what actually happened... and as I have said for years not satisfied with the details. If you have them provide them if not refrain from the insults, ad homs etc.
Thank you

 

[tsig]

Butz... I am not going to be dragged down into a stupid fight which is what you are trying to do. I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job. You don't know much about it either... just what you read which you believe. And that's your right.

NIST offered up reasonable models. What they presented was not fact and it may be incorrect... in details or more for all three collapses. I am interested in what actually happened... and as I have said for years not satisfied with the details. If you have them provide them if not refrain from the insults, ad homs etc.
Thank you

Demanding an impossible level of detail is one mark of a truther.

Nice shoe, fits well.

 

[JSanderO]

Demanding an impossible level of detail is one mark of a truther.

Nice shoe, fits well.

I am not demanding anything. I am interested in a sensible scenario including how the initiation event likely evolved into the progressive failure and how that progressed.

I don't care what label you want to apply to my posts... I do not support CD... and have written this for years... I see not a shred of evidence to suggest anything but fires and some mechanical damage initiated the collapse.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Butz... I am not going to be dragged down into a stupid fight which is what you are trying to do.

Nope. I'm trying to get you to think a little bit, and do some research into your "speculation".

I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job.

I know this. But your thinking is identical to a troofer's. it's embarrassing to see another guy in the trades do what you do.

You don't know much about it either...

I know how the day tanks were refilled. You admit that you don't. So that's one.

just what you read which you believe.

Regarding the diesel issue, yes I do cuz I see no reason to doubt it.

NIST offered up reasonable models. What they presented was not fact and it may be incorrect

The models may admittedly not be correct. But at least some of the data is indeed facts.

From NIST 1-9, page 432 and 433/797 - "These figures show that Column 79 was located in the same space as the four generators in the northeast quadrant. Column 80, Truss 1, and Truss 2 were located in the
Ventilation and AC Equipment space, which was enclosed with masonry walls. Column 81 was located
within the transfer corridor. Thus, of these critical structural components, only Column 79 could have
been exposed to heating from a diesel fuel fire on Floor 5."........


That means that the trusses were protected from fire and wouldn't have failed the way you "speculate".

 

[Spanx]

I am not demanding anything. I am interested in a sensible scenario including how the initiation event likely evolved into the progressive failure and how that progressed.

I don't care what label you want to apply to my posts... I do not support CD... and have written this for years... I see not a shred of evidence to suggest anything but fires and some mechanical damage initiated the collapse.

I see your point with the diesel fires, the bit I find a bit "truther-ish" is why there would be a need to "investigate" diesel fires when we know the diesel would ignite.

From another thread I think we both agree a pipe could have ruptured but have no way of knowing if it did.

Anyway none of this is relevant to the Address Hotel fire, there must be another thread for diesel fire discussion.

 

[benthamitemetric]

I don't think you can say that the diesel fuel did or did not contribute to or cause the column failure. Just as a matter of logic, if we accept the premise that the regular fires alone could have, under reasonable assumptions and in plausible scenarios, been sufficient enough to cause the failure, then surely there are reasonable assumptions and plausible scenarios in which the diesel fuel also could have contributed to the failure of that column. There would probably also be some reasonable scenarios in which the building would have remained standing if not for the marginal destruction/heat attributable to the diesel.

That's not saying that any of those scenarios are the scenario that actually played out, but I don't think they can be dismissed just because NIST concluded they were not the most likely scenario in its estimation.

Given the uncertainty as to the actual chain of events within the building--whatever happened will never be known--I don't think it's right to take completely absolute stance, whether that stance be based on an FEA, intuition, or pure woo. To me that's always been the funny disconnect with demolition theories. If you believe that fire induced collapses were reasonably likely, then you really can't disprove CD simply by stating CD would be impossible because of the amount of demolition devices necessary. In a world in which fire alone could failure the key structures, the amount of CD necessary to induce collapse approaches zero. That's why I think it's better to focus on what theories are corroborated by actual evidence (hint: not CD), rather than what categorically ruling out scenarios based on a narrow interpretation of FEA data. It sounds like JSO has identified some interesting potential evidence in the smoke he has identified (though I'm guessing even he would cede that there is no way to no for sure whether it is actually "smoking gun" evidence for his theory or not).

 

[GlennB]

If you believe that fire induced collapses were reasonably likely, then you really can't disprove CD simply by stating CD would be impossible because of the amount of demolition devices necessary. In a world in which fire alone could failure the key structures, the amount of CD necessary to induce collapse approaches zero.

Hi and welcome

Why do you say that bolded bit? It makes no sense to me. Persistent fire can weaken a massive structure in a way that a few charges here and there won't.

Are you suggesting fires plus a little CD would have the observed effect? If so, then you'd need to explain how those few CD devices survived the persistent fires.

 

[Whip]

then you really can't disprove CD simply by stating CD would be impossible because of the amount of demolition devices necessary

one can't disprove a negative.
how many people would be needed to place all these devices, remain completely undetected, say absolutely nothing ever, how long did this whole conspiracy take place, and how does any of it explain what happened in Washington or a PA field on the same day? (hint: there is no answer. that's why conspiracy nuts obsess on one little thing and beat it to death as if it proves anythng)

 

[Seymour Butz]

I don't think you can say that the diesel fuel did or did not contribute to or cause the column failure.

It's pretty clear that fuel fires could NOT have affected the 2 trusses as JSO "speculates" cuz there's no diesel in that area. Col 80,81, and the 2 trusses were far removed and separated by masonry walls from any fire that could of developed near the generators on floor 5. Only 79 could of been affected cuz it was indeed in the same "room" as the generators.

However, there were no day tanks AT ALL supplying those generators. Theoretically, fire could of started there. But any fuel would have to be supplied by transfer pumps which were in turn powered by those generators. But after a couple of hours, the temps inside the generator room would of been too high - how does a liquid cooled genset run when the air going through the radiator is hotter than it needs to cool itself? - for the generators to run. Also, in the case of a fire, the electrical cables running from the generators would of also failed.

There's just no scenario where fuel fails col 79 that I have seen. I'm open to discussing logical scenarios though.

Speculation is little more than a fancy appeal to magic....

It sounds like JSO has identified some interesting potential evidence in the smoke he has identified (though I'm guessing even he would cede that there is no way to no for sure whether it is actually "smoking gun" evidence for his theory or not).

Not really. The smoke comes from the wrong place. The generators were housed in containment "rooms" that had their own dedicated air inlets and outlets.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Hi and welcome

Why do you say that bolded bit? It makes no sense to me. Persistent fire can weaken a massive structure in a way that a few charges here and there won't.

Are you suggesting fires plus a little CD would have the observed effect? If so, then you'd need to explain how those few CD devices survived the persistent fires.

It also means that whoever placed these CD charges knew that 7 would be hit, and where, and how the fires were going to spread, and.... etc.

That scenario is wild speculation.

 

[benthamitemetric]

Hi and welcome

Why do you say that bolded bit? It makes no sense to me. Persistent fire can weaken a massive structure in a way that a few charges here and there won't.

Are you suggesting fires plus a little CD would have the observed effect? If so, then you'd need to explain how those few CD devices survived the persistent fires.

To be clear--I don't think the CD is a plausible scenario for which there is any independent corroborating evidence. The clear consensus of experts who have studied the collapse in depth is that, given reasonably assumptions, fires alone could have led to the observed collapse of the building. Putting on my best truther hat, however, I would say that you couldn't theoretically disprove that there was thermite or some similar material that somehow heated key structural elements. I think any explosive that could do meaningful damage to a structural element of the building would likely be ruled out by the auditory/seismic/visual evidence we do have, however.

EDIT: I should also add that, stepping outside the world of the theoretical, the absence of any observable damage to structural members by thermite (and the failure of any of the almost countless air quality tests in lower manhattan to find any traces of the same) pretty much rules that out too.

 

[benthamitemetric]

It's pretty clear that fuel fires could NOT have affected the 2 trusses as JSO "speculates" cuz there's no diesel in that area. Col 80,81, and the 2 trusses were far removed and separated by masonry walls from any fire that could of developed near the generators on floor 5. Only 79 could of been affected cuz it was indeed in the same "room" as the generators.

However, there were no day tanks AT ALL supplying those generators. Theoretically, fire could of started there. But any fuel would have to be supplied by transfer pumps which were in turned by those generators. But after a couple of hours, the temps inside the generator room would of been too high - how does a liquid cooled genset run when the air going through the radiator is hotter than it needs to cool itself? - for the generators to run. Also, in the case of a fire, the electrical cables running from the generators would of also failed.

There's just no scenario where fuel fails col 79 that I have seen. I'm open to discussing logical scenarios though.

Speculation is little more than a fancy appeal to magic....

Not really. The smoke comes from the wrong place. The generators were housed in containment "rooms" that had their own dedicated air inlets and outlets.

Fair enough. I suppose I'm not familiar enough with his claims to evaluate them as you have. Without knowing that background, it just seemed you were simply being dismissive.

 

[Seymour Butz]

one can't disprove a negative.
how many people would be needed to place all these devices, remain completely undetected, )

IMHO, this is perhaps the weakest argument against the CD theories.


Just read and learn about a former Navy SEAL by the name of Richard Marcinko. He founded the SEALs.

He became the leader of an elite group that tested Navy security. He and his group boarded nuclear subs, Air Force One, and was able to get the launch codes for nuclear weapons. Granted, they were badasses to the extreme, but they showed that it's possible to bypass just about any security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Marcinko