Dubai Address hotel fire

funk de fino said:
Back to Dubai fire.

More reporting on the exterior panels. This will likely get some serious attention now by the Sheikh as it was during a massive event for the city and was shown worldwide. I suspect some addition laws (decrees to come around this shortly). My building was completed in 2011 (I think) so will likely have the crappy panels!!

http://www.thenational.ae/business/property/most-dubai-towers-built-before-2012-have-non-fire-rated-exterior-panels
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: Thanks for the update.
 
Obviously, making exterior trim panels out of sol-gel nanothermite was a poor architectural decision.
 
Myriad said:
Obviously, making exterior trim panels out of sol-gel nanothermite was a poor architectural decision.
Click to expand...

I am quite convinced that these panels are more energetic than sol-gel nanothermite.
 
Myriad said:
Obviously, making exterior trim panels out of sol-gel nanothermite was a poor architectural decision.
Click to expand...

We'll have to wait for the completion of the investigation to know for sure and if there are any minor errors in the report well..... INSIDE JOBBY JOB ELEVENTY!?!?!
 
Originally Posted by GlennB
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.
Click to expand...

Seymour Butz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No problem. "They" employed stealth ninja arsonists to set fires in WTC 7, and on the streets to the north. There was no chance that they'd be caught and spill the beans, as NYPD, FDNY, and PANYNJ were "in on it". The stealth arsonists may even have been members of the aforementioned agencies. :rolleyes:
 
Redwood said:
No problem. "They" employed stealth ninja arsonists to set fires in WTC 7, and on the streets to the north. There was no chance that they'd be caught and spill the beans, as NYPD, FDNY, and PANYNJ were "in on it". The stealth arsonists may even have been members of the aforementioned agencies. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Arsonists....

That's Tony's belief.

And it goes beyond wild speculation, and treads into bizarre world territory.

Well, at least Tony's always good for a hearty belly laugh
 
Multiple reports of there being no fire alarms sounding during the fire. This is being denied by the developers EMAAR.
 
funk de fino said:
Multiple reports of there being no fire alarms sounding during the fire. This is being denied by the developers EMAAR.
Click to expand...

Reminiscent of what I remember from, I think, both the Tamweel Tower an Marina Torch fires. As almost every other aspect.
 
I don't know about Tamweel but Torch definitely had alarms go off because my friend was on 76th floor and was awakened by them and had to go down the stairs!! My other friend had the sprinklers go off inside her apartment

The Tamweel has now started being repaired. Only around 4 years since it had the fire.

I think one of the main problems here is the fires are generally going up the outside and the alarms are mainly triggered by sensors inside the apartments.
 
Seymour Butz said:
"Since the New York City regulations had a limit of one day tank up to 1.25 m3 (275 gal) per floor, and
since the base generators located on the 5th floor already made use of a 1.25 m3 (275 gal) day tank, the
Salomon Brothers system used a pressurized fuel distribution system, in which the pumps continuously
circulated fuel whenever the generators were running. There was enough fuel (160 L, 35 gal) stored at
pressure in the valve rig and piping located on the ceiling near the northeast corner of the 5th floor (Figure
3-1) to start the diesel engines, which, in turn, would supply power to operate the circulating pump. The
maximum fuel flow was 5.3 L/s (70 gal/min) at 340 kPa (50 psi)."


No day tank around 79. supplied directly from the first floor tanks.
Click to expand...

Again I ask for confirmation - do you know this to be fact or are you merely quoting City Ordinances?
Do you personally deal with "as built" details? Let me tell you here if you don't already know - a building can be vastly different than what was originally planned yet it is hardly ever documented!
 
1stClassAlan said:
Again I ask for confirmation - do you know this to be fact or are you merely quoting City Ordinances?
Do you personally deal with "as built" details? Let me tell you here if you don't already know - a building can be vastly different than what was originally planned yet it is hardly ever documented!
Click to expand...

Yes, fuel systems inside a building aren't verified or regulated or inspected at all
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Because no one ever ignored or broke the rules.
Click to expand...

Yep. For 20 years, inspectors most likely looked the other way.

That or I'm sure that with rampant nepotism being the rule, that nobody was knowledgeable enough to realize that generator rooms should be partitioned off.

Yeah, that's the ticket....
 
Seymour Butz said:
Yes, fuel systems inside a building aren't verified or regulated or inspected at all
Click to expand...

He is talking about change orders that general contractors sometimes carry out either during costruction or after the fact at some point which can make the building different from what was documented as well. While nothing you say here is necessarily wrong im just pointing this out to avert confusion
 
Address Hotel fire confirmed as an electrical fault in a spotlamp. The panels have been confirmed as being the old style with the flammable (PVC or plastic based) material sandwiched between the panels.

This is far more high profile than other similar fire here and there seems to be some moves to do some retroactive work to towers shown to not comply. Possibly even as far as replacing the panels on building. If not all, then at least some rings at certain levels to try and stop the rapid spread.

Hopefully these costs wouldn't be passed onto the owners of the apartments or the tenants.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
He is talking about change orders that general contractors sometimes carry out either during costruction or after the fact at some point which can make the building different from what was documented as well. While nothing you say here is necessarily wrong im just pointing this out to avert confusion
Click to expand...


I'm a GC. And while it's true that things get changed, not to the extent that you're imagining. The fuel systems are tightly regulated and they are inspected by layers of different guv agencies. I couldn't imagine making a substantial change to a fuel system that would endanger the building. There's actually no point or reason to even think about it.

We get paid for doing a job according to plans. IF.... I see an easier and cheaper way to get it done, there's actually zero incentive for doing it on a large project like this. Do you know why? Cuz a change order costs me down time and money cuz I make a percentage on the project, and if the project suddenly costs less, then I make less.

And the thought of just doing it to save ME money is absurd. There's too many risks to losing my license in doing that. There's no point.


And like was pointed out to JSO, col 79 was the only one that could of had any fire on it. And the transfer trusses were behind masonry walls in a 2 story, partitioned off part that I believed took care of the cooling.

THAT'S the context - that JSO's "speculation" about the transfer trusses being the collapse initiator after collapsing due to fire, yadda yadda, is wildly off the mark due to both zero research and an apparent distrust of anything "gubmint".
 
Seymour Butz said:
I'm a GC. And while it's true that things get changed, not to the extent that you're imagining. The fuel systems are tightly regulated and they are inspected by layers of different guv agencies. I couldn't imagine making a substantial change to a fuel system that would endanger the building. There's actually no point or reason to even think about it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, GC - (don't forget I'm a higgorant Brit!) Licensed General Contractor? I didn't necessarily mean that changes (we call them Variation Orders over here )would have been the direct cause of an inferior job being done - I rather feel that the whole WTC site was treated as a special zone - was this not the case?

Seymour Butz said:
We get paid for doing a job according to plans.
Click to expand...

Well, it might surprise you to learn how things are done here! I have personally sat in a 14 handed hand-over meeting where every professional around the table looked at one another after the Quantity Surveyors suggested that "The Bill" be taken "as read"- this despite it containing vast errors and overstatements (at least 200tons of steel alone) - we all nodded. I often wonder whether there was a similar meeting after the construction of the Buncefield Fuel Depot!!!

Seymour Butz said:
And like was pointed out to JSO, col 79 was the only one that could of had any fire on it. And the transfer trusses were behind masonry walls in a 2 story, partitioned off part that I believed took care of the cooling.
Click to expand...

So what do you think brought it down?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom