www.khmer440.com
  • Quick links
    • Unanswered topics
    • Active topics
    • Search
  • FAQ
  • Login
  • Register
  • Khmer440 Board index 'Not' Cambodia
  • Advanced search
  • Search
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.

Fire in Dubai

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:thumbsup: :thumbsdown: :help: :stupid: :off: :spam: :axe: :D :? :eyes: :-D :pissed: :-) :!: :prey: :( :o :toilet: :wink: :grin: :smile: ;) :-( :-o :shock: :-? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek: :bravo: :bonez: :catfight: :barf: :banghead: :cheers2: :rimshot: :felger: :google: :jesus: :facepalm: :popcorn:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   
  • Options

Expand view Topic review: Fire in Dubai

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote ken svay

by ken svay » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:23 pm

It all gets a bit tiresome but from what i remember the other building was damaged by debris from the twin towers. It doesnt take much to damage columns and bring a building down. I remember seeing the Central building in Bangkok after the fires and the concrete columns on the facade were demolished and being rebuilt due to the the heat of the fires. I would never have believed that fire could damage concrete like that and it just shows the temperatures generated in a building fire. A department store or an office building has so much flammable material in it.
I think there were 20,000 computers in the twin towers and they burnt very well.
It all gets a bit tiresome but from what i remember the other building was damaged by debris from the twin towers. It doesnt take much to damage columns and bring a building down. I remember seeing the Central building in Bangkok after the fires and the concrete columns on the facade were demolished and being rebuilt due to the the heat of the fires. I would never have believed that fire could damage concrete like that and it just shows the temperatures generated in a building fire. A department store or an office building has so much flammable material in it.
I think there were 20,000 computers in the twin towers and they burnt very well.

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote Petrol Head

by Petrol Head » Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:29 pm

FEMA is part of the Illuminati, as anyone who has played Deus Ex knows.
FEMA is part of the Illuminati, as anyone who has played Deus Ex knows.

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote starkmonster

by starkmonster » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:18 pm

Pol Pothead wrote:So you are seriously questioning if such buildings as World Trade 7 are "deathtraps" that, by design, apparently have the tendency to implode for reasons not whatsover related to the catastrophic collapse of two massive 110 story buildings just 100 meters away?
So what part of the collapse of the twin towers should cause WT7 to collapse? Are you suggesting seismic activity? The official government report says that the collapse caused no serious structural damage to WT7 and that the building came down as the result of fire - http://phys.org/news/2008-08-nist-wtc-collapse.html

FEMA's own report shows they found evidence of molten steel in the material recovered from building seven:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Office fires can't melt steel. So if the fires didn't melt the steel, what did? I'm not with the conspiracy theorists on this, the reptilians already told me they weren't involved, but I do think there are questions that haven't been adequately answered.
[quote="Pol Pothead"]So you are seriously questioning if such buildings as World Trade 7 are "deathtraps" that, by design, apparently have the tendency to implode for reasons not whatsover related to the catastrophic collapse of two massive 110 story buildings just 100 meters away?[/quote]

So what part of the collapse of the twin towers should cause WT7 to collapse? Are you suggesting seismic activity? The official government report says that the collapse caused no serious structural damage to WT7 and that the building came down as the result of fire - [url]http://phys.org/news/2008-08-nist-wtc-collapse.html[/url]

FEMA's own report shows they found evidence of molten steel in the material recovered from building seven:

[quote]Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.[/quote]

[url]https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf[/url]

Office fires can't melt steel. So if the fires didn't melt the steel, what did? I'm not with the conspiracy theorists on this, the reptilians already told me they weren't involved, but I do think there are questions that haven't been adequately answered.

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote Pol Pothead

by Pol Pothead » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:02 am

starkmonster wrote:We're (at least I am) talking about World Trade 7, it wasn't hit by a plane.

I give up.
So you are seriously questioning if such buildings as World Trade 7 are "deathtraps" that, by design, apparently have the tendency to implode for reasons not whatsover related to the catastrophic collapse of two massive 110 story buildings just 100 meters away?

Now I get to post multiple stupid emoticons to show my superiority over you and therefore feel accomplished. See how that works? Here they are... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
[quote="starkmonster"]We're (at least I am) talking about World Trade 7, it wasn't hit by a plane.

I give up.[/quote]
So you are seriously questioning if such buildings as World Trade 7 are "deathtraps" that, by design, apparently have the tendency to implode for reasons not whatsover related to the catastrophic collapse of two massive 110 story buildings just 100 meters away?

Now I get to post multiple stupid emoticons to show my superiority over you and therefore feel accomplished. See how that works? Here they are... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote starkmonster

by starkmonster » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:42 am

Pol Pothead wrote:I'll go out on a limb and propose that ANY manmade structure that gets a massive, fully fuelled airliner slamming into it at full throttle would be a deathtrap for those inside.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
starkmonster wrote:We're (at least I am) talking about World Trade 7, it wasn't hit by a plane.
I give up.
[quote="Pol Pothead"]I'll go out on a limb and propose that ANY manmade structure that gets a massive, fully fuelled airliner slamming into it at full throttle would be a deathtrap for those inside.[/quote]

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

[quote="starkmonster"]We're (at least I am) talking about World Trade 7, it wasn't hit by a plane.[/quote]

I give up.

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote Pol Pothead

by Pol Pothead » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:54 am

starkmonster wrote: asking whether buildings of this type are death traps? If isolated fires can bring down a 52 story building in a mater of hours, shouldn't we be asking questions?
I'll go out on a limb and propose that ANY manmade structure that gets a massive, fully fuelled airliner slamming into it at full throttle would be a deathtrap for those inside.

The buildings were perfectly safe for decades and fuctioned just fine within the parameters they were designed for. If you insist your high rise condo must be designed to withstand that sort of carnage without catastophic failure, don't hold your breath waiting.
[quote="starkmonster"] asking whether buildings of this type are death traps? If isolated fires can bring down a 52 story building in a mater of hours, shouldn't we be asking questions?[/quote]
I'll go out on a limb and propose that ANY manmade structure that gets a massive, fully fuelled airliner slamming into it at full throttle would be a deathtrap for those inside.

The buildings were perfectly safe for decades and fuctioned just fine within the parameters they were designed for. If you insist your high rise condo must be designed to withstand that sort of carnage without catastophic failure, don't hold your breath waiting.

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote ricecakes

by ricecakes » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:22 am

starkmonster wrote: asking whether buildings of this type are death traps? If isolated fires can bring down a 52 story building in a mater of hours, shouldn't we be asking questions?
Ok fuck it. I am cancelling my purchase of the Vattanac Tower penthouse.
[quote="starkmonster"] asking whether buildings of this type are death traps? If isolated fires can bring down a 52 story building in a mater of hours, shouldn't we be asking questions?

[/quote]

Ok fuck it. I am cancelling my purchase of the Vattanac Tower penthouse.

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote starkmonster

by starkmonster » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:02 am

ken svay wrote:And as for the claim that the only steel frame buildings to collapse in a fire then one must consider that they are also the only buildings in the world to be hit by 250 ton jetliners travelling at 500MPH!!!
We're (at least I am) talking about World Trade 7, it wasn't hit by a plane. It caught on fire after the collapse of the twin towers, the building was over 100m away from the twin towers and had the shorter World Trade 6 directly between it an the twin towers. Like I said I've never gone into this stuff in detail, but there seems to be enough there that should at least have us all asking whether buildings of this type are death traps? If isolated fires can bring down a 52 story building in a mater of hours, shouldn't we be asking questions?

The collapse of the building apparently wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 commission report and a report about it's collapse didn't get released for seven years. Imagine if this fire and subsequent collapse was isolated and didn't occur as part of the wider events of 9/11, it would be the subject of half a dozen Discovery and NatGeo documentaries and easily one of the biggest news stories of the year, the cause would have been meticulously investigated and initial finding released within months. Also just read that a 2007 Zogby poll showed that 43% of Americans didn't even know about WT7.

Image

Magic is the art of misdirection ;-)
[quote="ken svay"]And as for the claim that the only steel frame buildings to collapse in a fire then one must consider that they are also the only buildings in the world to be hit by 250 ton jetliners travelling at 500MPH!!![/quote]

We're (at least I am) talking about World Trade 7, it [b][i]wasn't[/i][/b] hit by a plane. It caught on fire after the collapse of the twin towers, the building was over 100m away from the twin towers and had the shorter World Trade 6 directly between it an the twin towers. Like I said I've never gone into this stuff in detail, but there seems to be enough there that should at least have us all asking whether buildings of this type are death traps? If isolated fires can bring down a 52 story building in a mater of hours, shouldn't we be asking questions?

The collapse of the building apparently wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 commission report and a report about it's collapse didn't get released for seven years. Imagine if this fire and subsequent collapse was isolated and didn't occur as part of the wider events of 9/11, it would be the subject of half a dozen Discovery and NatGeo documentaries and easily one of the biggest news stories of the year, the cause would have been meticulously investigated and initial finding released within months. Also just read that a 2007 Zogby poll showed that 43% of Americans didn't even know about WT7.

[img]http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/04/tinfoil_hat_antenna.jpg[/img]

Magic is the art of misdirection ;-)

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote ken svay

by ken svay » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:30 am

Spot on doggie. The floor slabs ended up neatly stacked on top of each other, a pile two meters high could be ten floors.If anyone has been in Paddy Rice they will see the cracks in the central column, I believe caused by the pond above on on level one. I dont think it had water in it for long, it could have been the classsic building collapse.
Spot on doggie. The floor slabs ended up neatly stacked on top of each other, a pile two meters high could be ten floors.If anyone has been in Paddy Rice they will see the cracks in the central column, I believe caused by the pond above on on level one. I dont think it had water in it for long, it could have been the classsic building collapse.

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote spitthedog

by spitthedog » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:46 pm

Seems pretty clear why the world trade centers collapsed. If you weaken one floor in a '' lightweight “perimeter tube” design building then the weight of the above floors will eventually pancake the floors below accelerating until it's just rubble on the ground.


''In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high''

''Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t''
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/01 ... -0112.html
Seems pretty clear why the world trade centers collapsed. If you weaken one floor in a '' lightweight “perimeter tube” design building then the weight of the above floors will eventually pancake the floors below accelerating until it's just rubble on the ground.


''In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high''

''Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t''
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote Jacked Camry

by Jacked Camry » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:19 pm

ken svay wrote:This fire looks very similar to a fire in a high rise in Melbourne last year. I suspect that this building was also clad on the outside with Chinese aluminium composite panels. They are a copy of the excellent alucabond but unlike alucabond they are highly flammable. The Melbourne fire was caused by a cigarette butt and spread up eleven floors in about five minutes.
Unfortunately for the owners no one is responsible and they will share a repair bill of about 3 million. An aluminium panel fire on the outside of a concrete building does not compare with an airliner full of fuel crashing into the interior of a poorly built steel building at 400 MPH.
Sorry Starkmonster, your conspiracy theory is just that. But the latest explanation of the explosions in the twin towers was the molten aluminium from the planes reacting with water from the sprinkler systems. Alcoa has experimented in a lab with 30kgs of aluminium reacting with 20 liters of water. The resulting explosion left a hole 30 meters in diameter and nothing left of the lab!
The planes that crashed there had 30 tons of aluminium in them so it would gave been a big bang.
If builders continue to use crap Chinese building materials then it might be time to put sprinklers and smoke detectors on the outside of buildings. Anyone buying an apartment in a high rise should pay attention to the buildings cladding. The Melbourne product was called Alucabest. Great name!
I actually know someone who works in building materials and who consulted in Dubai and this is EXACTLY what he's saying is the cause of this fire and the reason for the relatively small damage resulting. Good post.

And yes, we may have to replace the tinfoil in Starkie's hat, seems to no longer be blocking out the signals.
[quote="ken svay"]This fire looks very similar to a fire in a high rise in Melbourne last year. I suspect that this building was also clad on the outside with Chinese aluminium composite panels. They are a copy of the excellent alucabond but unlike alucabond they are highly flammable. The Melbourne fire was caused by a cigarette butt and spread up eleven floors in about five minutes.
Unfortunately for the owners no one is responsible and they will share a repair bill of about 3 million. An aluminium panel fire on the outside of a concrete building does not compare with an airliner full of fuel crashing into the interior of a poorly built steel building at 400 MPH.
Sorry Starkmonster, your conspiracy theory is just that. But the latest explanation of the explosions in the twin towers was the molten aluminium from the planes reacting with water from the sprinkler systems. Alcoa has experimented in a lab with 30kgs of aluminium reacting with 20 liters of water. The resulting explosion left a hole 30 meters in diameter and nothing left of the lab!
The planes that crashed there had 30 tons of aluminium in them so it would gave been a big bang.
If builders continue to use crap Chinese building materials then it might be time to put sprinklers and smoke detectors on the outside of buildings. Anyone buying an apartment in a high rise should pay attention to the buildings cladding. The Melbourne product was called Alucabest. Great name![/quote]

I actually know someone who works in building materials and who consulted in Dubai and this is EXACTLY what he's saying is the cause of this fire and the reason for the relatively small damage resulting. Good post.

And yes, we may have to replace the tinfoil in Starkie's hat, seems to no longer be blocking out the signals.

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote YaTingPom

by YaTingPom » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:59 pm

As soon as a cretin starts to talk about the 911 conspiracy (or any conspiracy) I want to go all Chuck Norris on their arse.

Image
As soon as a cretin starts to talk about the 911 conspiracy (or any conspiracy) I want to go all Chuck Norris on their arse.

[img]https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chuckpunch1.gif?w=780[/img]

  • Quote Gin&Tonic

by Gin&Tonic » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:58 pm

Muslamic ray guns.
Muslamic ray guns.
https://youtu.be/aYd9qbRz2fc

Re: Fire in Dubai

  • Quote alanclarke72

by alanclarke72 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:33 pm

starkmonster wrote:
I've got no theory about what happened, my only question is what melted the steel?
Alien space guns? Israeli laser sabres? Illuminati death rays?
[quote="starkmonster"]

I've got no theory about what happened, my only question is what melted the steel?[/quote]

Alien space guns? Israeli laser sabres? Illuminati death rays?

Top


 

 



  • Khmer440 Board index
  • Delete cookies

Copyright ©2021 khmer440.com. All rights reserved.

Privacy | Terms