Dubai High Rise Fire - Not like 9/11

Whitebeard

Senior Member
http://gizmodo.com/a-79-foot-residential-tower-in-dubai-is-on-fire-1687110144
Reading up on recent reports and the latest up dates, comparing this fire to the WTC (1,2 or 7) ISN'T a case of comparing apples and oranges, more a case of Apples and the baskets they come in.

It appears the sprinkler system worked fine and interior fire doors held and so limited the internal damage mainly to the area the fire started in and a few other areas where wind blown falling debris started secondary blazes lower down the building.

Most of the other damage seams to be to the buildings external cladding




Showing that the fire got nowhere near anything structurally vital, so there was never any real danger of total collapse. Of course the fact that the cladding burnt so well and got carried away in the wind is going to raise a few questions for the local authorities and building inspectorate that could have implications on very tall buildings worldwide, but that is architectural and engineering matters, nothing to do with the WTC incidents.

Bottom line is, it LOOKED spectacular on the footage of the fire itself, and is going to cost a lot to put right, but the lack of things like aircraft taking out huge internal sections and the fact the sprinklers worked, fire doors held etc means this has no bearing on the 9-11 attacks at all
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kidda

Member
The way I see it Whitebeard is right.
It was not the building that was on fire, but it's coat.
Big difference.
There is a problem with cladding overthere.
Cladding that appeared to be non fire resistant from the inside out.
This is not the first time, the problem is known, and of course, not on all buidings.
Gage has just made a move on this building to compare it with wtc7.
Gage claims to be an architect, but douse not notice the difference, in fact he douse not know anything about cladding in Dubai.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There was a similar situation here:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-wtc7-vs-chechnyas-tallest-building-fire-grozny-city-complex.t1804/
Example comparison to WTC7:
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/chechnya-high-rise-burns-for-29-hours.html
Bunk from external source
On April 3rd Chechnya’s tallest building, a luxury hotel, caught fire and burned for 29 hours before finally being put out. The building is completely destroyed; however, it did not collapse. This raises many questions as to how World Trade Center 7 could have collapsed on 9/11 with only small fires on a couple of floors




But no. Look at the above photo and you will immediately see that, unlike WTC7, what is burning is not the interior of the building, but just the facade. Like the paper burning off a Duraflame log.
 

Kidda

Member
Thanks Mick, you must have a shipload of information, thanks for helping me.
I wish to explain one other major difference between wtc7 and buildings that it has been compared with, an the difference is huge.
Dutch building codes:
Each and every apartment must be a 60min. Fireproof fire compartment.
Within these compartments there are 30min. Fireproof sub compartments (like bedrooms).
Imagine how hard it will be for fire to travel through such a Dutch apartment building, exactly the purpose of the code.
Now, compare this with a tube constructed fully empty office building, and see that not all buildings are alike, and therefore cannot easily be compared.
 

Kidda

Member
Another one, the comparison that Gage makes with failed controlled demolitians.
Now keep in mind that Gage calls himself an expert that speaks out.
I am not impressed by his expertise, and here is an example.
Gage shows a failed controlled demolition, the building even tumbles over and rolls over.
Now, to Gage apparently all buildings are the same, but not to me.
I noticed lots of small balconies on his video, and that makes it an apartment building.
Now, apartments must be 60 min. Fireproof, but also meet the noise reduction between them, en the best way to cope with that one is to use mass. Now, if I tend to use mass anywais, I might as well use it for structural purposes, agree?
What we have then is a building with structural interial walls that act like disks, they make the building that stiff that it can tumble and even roll over. Those discs are not to be found in a tube structure.
Same goes fore floors, when they work like a disk they can redirect the forces of the wind coming from the outer walls, if not, we need to stabilize the structure in another way.
I am NOT impressed by the expertise of Gage, the expert that speaks out.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member
Each and every apartment must be a 60min. Fireproof fire compartment.
Within these compartments there are 30min. Fireproof sub compartments (like bedrooms).
Imagine how hard it will be for fire to travel through such a Dutch apartment building, exactly the purpose of the code.
Now, compare this with a tube constructed fully empty office building, and see that not all buildings are alike, and therefore cannot easily be compared.
They are similar in the UK, I live in this building

Constructed between 1957-58, and I've done a couple of stints as the chair of the blocks tenants association. My last 'period of office' was 5 years ago when the place was having substantial renovation, including work to bring it up to current fire safety standards. Not much work was needed in the end, mainly replacement of some internal doors, as the original 50's spec on fire containment were the same as the current UK / EU one you mentioned. (must add I'm not an engineer or architect, but as chair of the tenants association I got to see the plans and be in on the meetings where this was discussed).

I've lived in the block 15 years and we have two major fires, both gutted a flat (apartment) and the second was burning for three hours (flat of an elderly hoarder whose rooms were stacked with rubbish). In both cases the fire was contained in the flat concerned for longer than the 60 minutes regulation deem the minimum, and damage outside the effected units was limited to some minor smoke damage in some flats above the fire, and water damage to some directly below (as a result of the fire fighting efforts).

Goes to show as you have excellently pointed out that the use of the building effects its fire precautions and how fires spread within them, and comparing the WTC to residential building incidents is a false trail.
 

Kidda

Member
They are similar in the UK, I live in this building

Constructed between 1957-58, and I've done a couple of stints as the chair of the blocks tenants association. My last 'period of office' was 5 years ago when the place was having substantial renovation, including work to bring it up to current fire safety standards. Not much work was needed in the end, mainly replacement of some internal doors, as the original 50's spec on fire containment were the same as the current UK / EU one you mentioned. (must add I'm not an engineer or architect, but as chair of the tenants association I got to see the plans and be in on the meetings where this was discussed).

I've lived in the block 15 years and we have two major fires, both gutted a flat (apartment) and the second was burning for three hours (flat of an elderly hoarder whose rooms were stacked with rubbish). In both cases the fire was contained in the flat concerned for longer than the 60 minutes regulation deem the minimum, and damage outside the effected units was limited to some minor smoke damage in some flats above the fire, and water damage to some directly below (as a result of the fire fighting efforts).

Goes to show as you have excellently pointed out that the use of the building effects its fire precautions and how fires spread within them, and comparing the WTC to residential building incidents is a false trail.
Greybeard,
You showed me a very well succeeded facelift of an old building, my compliments to the Architect.

Regarding firesafety within building codes, chapter of preventing fire from expanding, travelling, I have something to say.
While reading the NIST recomendations regarding WTC7, I was stunned. I sayd what? Don't you have this? This is long common in my profession, what is this?
Not meaning that better codes could have prevented this event, no, just the basics of those recommendations, for other coming buildings. In 2008 they still did not apply our basics in structural engineering, regarding the expansion of fire.
They need to catch up, and it is there problem.
None of their recommendations apply to my profession in my country, except for one: forbid buildings to ever progressively collapse, this one will not be payed by the Dutch.
But no matter what codes, shit happens, and also, the twins were raised in 1964, what date is the design and building permit.
911thruthers telling that nowaday buildings world wide, are unsafe because of 911 are wrong.
 
Top