CDM suggests that this may not always be the case.
Dubai Address hotel fire
- Thread starter FalseFlag
- Start date
CDM suggests that this may not always be the case.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
They are currently replacing all the out of spec panels on the Tamweel building.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Is that a decision made after the new year's eve event, or did that start earlier?
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
It seems that the work on the Tamweel building started before New years eve. They were definitely replacing panels on the roof structure. It was only since that we noticed that all exterior panels were now being stripped.
I think more building will have to carry out remedial work but not sure how far it will go. Ironically there are 2 identical Tamweeltowers next to this which will still have the old panels!
I think more building will have to carry out remedial work but not sure how far it will go. Ironically there are 2 identical Tamweeltowers next to this which will still have the old panels!
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Some more information regarding the Address panels and wall systems
http://www.thenational.ae/business/property/exclusive-qa-shaji-ul-mulk-reveals-untold-story-of-the-address-downtown-dubai-fire
http://www.thenational.ae/business/property/exclusive-qa-shaji-ul-mulk-reveals-untold-story-of-the-address-downtown-dubai-fire
ThatOneGuy
New Blood
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 10
We will probably never see another skyscraper collapse completely because we will probably never get another 9/11 again. The circumstances that lead to the collapses were so unique.
First off, we have three towers with an open plan tube-frame design. No interior columns apart from the core, and lightweight floor trusses held everything together. All three were made of steel. Osama (who had a degree in engineering) chose the WTC over the more iconic Empire State Building because he knew the twins' lack of interior columns and concrete was a fire risk.
Second, we have two Boeing 767s with full tanks of fuel hitting the two main towers at full speed, 90 stories up. Until 9/11, there was no easy way to fight such huge fires so high up. The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a slower, smaller 707 running low on fuel and looking to land. Low fuel would mean smaller fires (1960s safety standards were not very good in the first place). Anyway, that meant there was no way to put out the massive infernos that contributed to the collapse even more than the plane impact damage itself.
So we have massive infernos caused by a fully fueled plane crashing at full speed, burning the lightweight floor trusses that hold the exterior walls and core together. They start to sag from the heat and break off from the cores. What would happen if enough of those trusses collapsed? The whole building would collapse too, because the walls and core can't support themselves.
Then we have Tower 7, slashed across all 47 stories by collapsing burning debris, including a 10 story gouge near the base. This had a similar structural layout to the WTC, apart from a strange cantilevered core design. No firefighting for this building either because it was empty and the FDNY was busy searching for survivors across the street. Also, the water mains were destroyed in the twins' collapses. 7 hours of fires later, a key cantilevered column collapse set off a chain reaction collapse of the rest of the core and floor trusses, and the unsupported external walls came down after it.
All highrise buildings that experienced major fires apart from the WTC were either concrete, partially concrete, a stronger grid-design with interior columns, or had smaller fires extinguished in a short time, and no massive external damage. This means they can't be compared to the WTC.
TL;DR, the WTC was steel, tube-framed, externally damaged, and had no firefighting. No other highrise fire is comparable.
First off, we have three towers with an open plan tube-frame design. No interior columns apart from the core, and lightweight floor trusses held everything together. All three were made of steel. Osama (who had a degree in engineering) chose the WTC over the more iconic Empire State Building because he knew the twins' lack of interior columns and concrete was a fire risk.
Second, we have two Boeing 767s with full tanks of fuel hitting the two main towers at full speed, 90 stories up. Until 9/11, there was no easy way to fight such huge fires so high up. The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a slower, smaller 707 running low on fuel and looking to land. Low fuel would mean smaller fires (1960s safety standards were not very good in the first place). Anyway, that meant there was no way to put out the massive infernos that contributed to the collapse even more than the plane impact damage itself.
So we have massive infernos caused by a fully fueled plane crashing at full speed, burning the lightweight floor trusses that hold the exterior walls and core together. They start to sag from the heat and break off from the cores. What would happen if enough of those trusses collapsed? The whole building would collapse too, because the walls and core can't support themselves.
Then we have Tower 7, slashed across all 47 stories by collapsing burning debris, including a 10 story gouge near the base. This had a similar structural layout to the WTC, apart from a strange cantilevered core design. No firefighting for this building either because it was empty and the FDNY was busy searching for survivors across the street. Also, the water mains were destroyed in the twins' collapses. 7 hours of fires later, a key cantilevered column collapse set off a chain reaction collapse of the rest of the core and floor trusses, and the unsupported external walls came down after it.
All highrise buildings that experienced major fires apart from the WTC were either concrete, partially concrete, a stronger grid-design with interior columns, or had smaller fires extinguished in a short time, and no massive external damage. This means they can't be compared to the WTC.
TL;DR, the WTC was steel, tube-framed, externally damaged, and had no firefighting. No other highrise fire is comparable.
It's virtually guaranteed to happen again as long as there is never a real investigation into the first one.
No. You are fully aware as pointed out when you started this thread. It's a concrete structure and it was the exterior cladding that was on fire. The fire was kept under control with sprinkler systems and fire fighters.
I do understand this, which is why I only asked one question in my previous post.
What is the answer to that question?
The question is why are you asking questions about the answers you already know.
Was that fire a false-flag facade fire? Is there a point besides steel fails in fire... did the fire get to the steel frame? oops, is the steel inside concrete? Do you have any information on this fire, or just BS.
If you are asking if a building with a fire that doesn't affect any structural elements has collapsed, in the 9/11 CT subforum, you make it sound like you are trying to pull a fallacy of association.
The answer of your question is irrelevant to this subforum.
Since the fire didn't affect the structural elements of the building, it's impossible that such a fire would cause a collapse, and unsurprisingly it didn't.
How do we know this? Please prove this one statement by providing a link to a credible source.
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
Really?
Only a CT needs proof of the bleeding obvious while not feeling obligated in any way to validate their own case.
Which fire are we talking about? I am talking about the one two days ago.
LOL, the article talked about other fires... did you read the articles you post, or try to support the delusion of CD with small night time fires?
Did a plane hit it? Fire looks bad at night, not so much in daylight.
Did you have a point? Nope.
Last edited: