Fire breaks out in Dubai skyscraper
Source: BBC
A fire has broken out in a building in Dubai close to the world's tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.
Burning debris fell from the building as firefighters arrived at the scene. The cause of the blaze is unclear.
The fire erupted as Dubai prepared to hold a major New Year's Eve fireworks display.
It was not immediately clear whether there are any casualties.
------------------
This twitter user has several videos: https://twitter.com/AtiehS
Huge fire on Address Hotel.. This is truly tragic!! This is killing me!
Atieh S ?@AtiehS 35m35 minutes ago
Oh god please help them! Please no! Terrifying!!!! #dubai
Atieh S ?@AtiehS 33m33 minutes ago
People are running away! This is so horrific!!!!! Falling on people's houses
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35207451
leveymg
(36,418 posts)MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)matt819
(10,749 posts)I read a few weeks ago that Saudi Arabia was in the process of building a cloudscraper that's 1 kilometer high. For the metrically challenged, that's 3,280 feet (thanks Google for converting that for me). Burj al Khalifa is 500 feet shorter.
The fire reported in this post appears to be from the ground level up a bunch of stories (or from the upper level down). Pretty high, but at least they can make an effort to attack the lower stories.
How do you attack a fire that's 1 kilometer up? This link - http://www.rand.org/news/press/2012/07/30.html - observes that helicopters can drop up to 3,000 gallons of water/fire retardant on a forest fire. Can the same be used when fighting a skycraper fire?
My mother worked at the World Trade Center a gazillion years ago. I have to ask her how she felt about that? Not wrt 9/11 but about the more prosaic threat of fire. Frankly, I can't imagine living/working in a building that's over 1,000 feet, much less one that's 2,000 or 3,000 feet.
Response to OKNancy (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
VMA131Marine
(4,145 posts)not in the Burj
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)when the heat melts all the support structures.
greyl
(22,990 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)are you saying it won't collapse?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The potential problems with the WTC buildings were well known and built that way regardless.
Funny that no building codes were changed after 9/11 when a fire supposedly brought down skyscrapers. And don't bother answering about the jet fuel. it burned up quickly and can't get hot enough to melt steel. And no one has ever officially explained how Building 7 fell at free fall after a small office fire.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)And after grandfathering the towers and other buildings out, the codes had significant revisions.
(Too costly to change, they claimed)
Among the issues, a sustained wind at a specific speed and direction might have caused the towers to move harmonically. They fixed that by setting up subtle wind screens.
The real issue was the fire retardant used on the I-beams. Truly poor quality and quantity.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)You are just unwilling to accept facts.
This type of crazy conspiracy theorist should be an autoban from DU.
Only a complete and utter IDIOT believes that the planes didn't bring the towers down.
Mira
(22,380 posts)Complete and Utter Idiot checking in.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Mira
(22,380 posts)speaking in clichés? It is I who has to admit to a problem in order to have it solved, n'est çe pas?
I don't think either one of us has difficulty accepting our own position. All is well.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Fine.
Be nice if you could keep it confined to Creative Speculation where the conspiracy bullshit belongs.
Mira
(22,380 posts)sounds like a worthwhile forum, and I will consider it. Surely I will learn through you and this suggestion.
I don't, by the way, think labels are necessary.
Blus4u
(608 posts)he/she sounds a lot like god.
Peace to you Mira
Atheism can be a type of fundy religion too, as can an extremist belief in "science".
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)too. Can't quite get my mind across all those molten puddles months after the fact
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)to plug for the naysayers to plug with this one. Almost comical, if not sad, to see them try. but it always looks good for the team that portends the the lie that big money backs. where's the monied incentive for us loons, huh...?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)there are rational explanations for most Truther CTs.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Because thermite burns at 4500 degrees F more or less. But not hot enough to melt the steel that was melted under all three buildings!
Do you think #7 was clad with Al. It's already been proven that the molten metal was not Al but you keep carrying that water.
hack89
(39,171 posts)there was no thermite in the rubble pile.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)are you just pulling that bullshit from your ass again? Over 2400 architects and engineers and scientist disagree with you but then they know what they're talking about too unlike you.
hack89
(39,171 posts)But you know that already.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Most don't even know there was a third collapse on 911. What I know is you are making shit up again! I can point to a website where my assertion is proved, you cannot! http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)to burn beyond it's ignition and duration to keep a rubble covered kiln burning to the temps needed to keep steel molten. And yes, plenty of unspent very high grade granules of thermite were found everywhere around the debris.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)to thank when it comes to screaming common sense, really. Still good to know there are others around to peer through adversarial muck. I'm sure there are a whole bunch more out there, but I think resort to a battered victim ambivalence toward the issue seeing how rabid the moneyed voices tend to scream the loudest against the obvious.
hack89
(39,171 posts)When you actually pull that string all you get is third hand ambiguous comments .
And no, there is absolutely no evidence that unburnt termite was found. None at all.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)you just choose to deny it!
hack89
(39,171 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)is a ploy to make up for a lack of factual counter point.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)ploy at dissuasion. Holiday Season with wacky conservative relatives tend to bring this freshly to light. My voicebox is raw not indulged to being the holiday doormat this year.
Stay Strong DG!
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Your ad hominem should get you banned! No plane hit building 7! Jet fuel doesn't melt steel within an hour! Especialy under all three buildings!
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)I thunk you're looking for the Alex Jones Show.
Just so absurd.
Demonaut
(8,924 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)questionseverything
(9,657 posts)teach1st
(5,935 posts)Dubai High Rise Fire - Not like 9/11
Oops. Different fire. My apologies.
johnp3907
(3,732 posts)I put all "troofers" on "Fool Ignore." So I'm adding you and the 2 idiots below who agree with you.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Why are you calling people names who simply don't fall for nonsense? But then I do have 2400 plus architects and engineers and scientists that agree with me so fucking believe what ever bulshit you want to believe but I won't be such an authoritarian gullible pawn!
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)The "2,400" just signed a petition that demands an independent investigation.
Investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have concluded that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impacts of the planes and of the fires that resulted from them. In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was the result of progressive collapse initiated by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of the third tallest building located at the World Trade Center site, the 7 WTC. Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility. The NIST explanation of collapse is universally accepted by the structural engineering, and structural mechanics research communities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth
And you'd have to be a grade A moron to think you could secretly wire a 100+ story building for demolition without anybody noticing the miles of wire and exposed beams with 1,000's of pounds of explosives wired to them necessary for the task.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)I know plenty that agree so ass/u/me all you want to.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)....however that doesn't make it so.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)doesn't matter. Keep assuming what ever.
arikara
(5,562 posts)I don't buy that story either.
Mira
(22,380 posts)It won't collapse because there is no jet fuel involved
Though tempted, we can't in this tragedy re-visit our own. It was drastically different. I feel sad for all involved and count on all the people getting out safely.
I feel confident about it, just as i do about that there won't be a collapse.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)penetrated inside the building at all.
Also, probably related to the fact it didn't have a ~365,000lb aircraft full of ~20,000 gallons of basically kerosene slammed into it at ~520mph. Hence the sprinklers, baffles, fire doors, etc, all being in working condition.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)How do you explain that? Point proven.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Mira
(22,380 posts)and wish genuinely it made sense to me the way it does to you. My life would be easier without the beliefs I hold about these incidents.
Additionally I am stumped about the implosion in just a few seconds of the 50 story World Trade Center building 7 with only a few small fires in it and no airplane at all.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)before it collapsed. The firefighters knew it was coming down, and warned everyone. When towers 1 & 2 collapsed, they killed most of the firefighting resources in the area, both men and bone, AND water mains.
When a structure like that fails, it doesn't collapse higgledy-piggledy. It transfers strain across the entire structure. When it fails, it fails catastrophically. Like the bridge on I-5 in Washington near Sedro-Woolley when a oversized load snapped one support, the entire bridge fell immediately, because the entire structure was then over tolerance.
It's not able to bend and sag, it snaps.
I like to use this as an example of a load-bearing metal structure going over tolerance. The wings on this plane don't gracefully fold or bend. They shatter violently.
WTC7 did the same thing, you just can't see it because the exterior walls of the building are 'hung' on the building's cantilever steel frame like curtains. The collapse is happening inside. When the walls start to go, it's because there's nothing left to hold them up.
Mira
(22,380 posts)I would like for all of this to be explained to the many Engineers and Architects who have been interviewed and who have given testimony that specifically in building 7 the structure was steel -frame and fire proofed, and it could not have been destroyed by the isolated small fires barely visible from the ground.
We will respectfully disagree here.
I do not recognize what you are saying as the same as what I learned in my own study of the collapse of building 7 specifically, and I know we can find videos to support our differing truths quite easily, so we have to let it go.
By the way, the fire I see on my screen in the Dubai catastrophe is many million times larger than anything we saw in the little isolated flames in building 7, and that building is still standing. Though I doubt it will remain standing for much longer. This Dubai building is only about 13 more stories than building 7 was.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And it is being actively fought.
There's really no comparison.
If you want to see a fair-ish comparison, check out the Madrid Tower fire in Spain, on youtube. About 3 minutes into the video, the steel framed components collapse.
The ENTIRE building doesn't collapse because it is a hybrid construction method. Parts are concrete pillar supported, parts are steel framed. The upper penthouses are steel framed because it allows for thin walls, and wide expanses. The rest of the building has stout concrete columns.
All that is left standing after that fire, is concrete.
The new WTC1 is concrete pillar construction for this reason. However, it's only rated to withstand that sort of fire for four hours. A many-fold improvement over the old design.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 31, 2015, 08:46 PM - Edit history (1)
we all know how thin exterior finishes can supply such large flames with all the fuel they need to consume for such long durations.
Even if that were the case at the beginning, the very nature of a structure fire would dry and compel the vapors from combustible on the inside to ignite as well as long as a source of oxygen could be tapped.
on edit:
Lot's of rooms appear to be on fire
?1
even when the exterior has been quashed individual rooms still appear to be aflame
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The exterior carries power, insulation, vapor barriers, expansion seals, etc.
pansypoo53219
(20,987 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Smarter people know better:http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)available the days after as well as during 9*11 that have been made hard if not near impossible to come by that can never be taken back. A whole generation will die off and still they will not be able to shame everyone to remembering it *their way*.
but, hey. I'm sure it's intoxicating landing on the side of money or power (or still hoping beyond hope that it will happen.... some day. - why does that sound so.... familiar? It's funny who they try to affiliate with RW nutjobs isn't it? but they say it First! that's what counts!)
Thanks for posting WB
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)keep it up.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)the voracity and efforts that are made to snuff out something so apparent isn't it? Even the first post in this thread at quieting any post on whatever belief one has of went on that day is so telling enough on it's own, isn't it?
I applaud you for your bravery WB. I usu. stay quiet on this matter as I suspect many unfortunately do, until people I respect are attacked in such manner.
So much has been swept under the rug in recent history. 'Let's move beyond' has become such a catch-phrase of the past decade and I'm certain history will look back embarrassed about this moment
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)And I hope history will not be written by the liars and psychopaths but I wouldn't bet against them.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)the crackpottery of 9/11 truthers hailed as bravery. When did google engineering become synonymous with standing up to the man?
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)somebody decided to spend over half of their DU time over on the Creative Speculation board.
I feel no shame, do you? Perhaps we should come up with a 'Stranger Shaming' group *rz~
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Celebrating ignorance should never be honored, yet you and your associates prize that over legitimate knowledge to the point where it's a badge of honor to invoke an argument by incredulity.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)to realize there are some who obsess so much to the mere ideas over at... (oh we must'nt summon such bad spirits) that they must keep apprised of all the going-ons in that arena for the majority of their stay here on DU. How bold and couragous must that individual be to keep such vigilance for all the rest of those that unduly - slip. Truly Grieving. Condolences.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)You've been here since when - June 2015?
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)huh..
and yet during such enlightenly fruitful enjoyable moments it is such a shame I have never had the joy of visiting the creative speculation board. I shall make a point of dropping by sometime to acquaint myself and indulge with open mind and friendly discourse with some of the individuals that post there. I'm certain, now, I will be bumping into you there as such and look forward to the enjoyment of good spirit the start of a new year imposes upon us all.
Happy New year to You!
AZCat
(8,339 posts)I don't post there much anymore. Anyone who claims to still have questions is probably not worth engaging. All the interesting questions were answered quite acceptably a long time ago.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)universities. To say nothing of the hundreds of thousands in the field with millions of man-hours of experience.
You found less than three thousand. Wow. Oh boy. You sure got me there.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Here's a report on 7.
The 47-story World Trade Center (WTC) 7 building, which was heavily damaged by the collapse of the nearby WTC north tower, collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11. A three-year-long investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that the collapse of the WTC north tower ignited fires in WTC 7, which burned out of control on several floors because the water supply from the city water main had been damaged by the collapse of the twin towers. These fires caused the steel structure of the WTC 7 to expand and eventually buckle, causing the collapse of the building. NIST found no evidence of controlled demolition.
See the NIST videos on the collapse of WTC 7.
Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2009/04/20090428110108atlahtnevel0.7957117.html#ixzz3vwpxh3E2
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2009/04/20090428110108atlahtnevel0.7957117.html#axzz3vwoB9cal
Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #5)
Post removed
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)A jet aircraft crashing into a building wouldn't have any effect on its stability. I don't care how fast it was going or how much fuel exploded and burned. You have to be a fool to think that would have any impact on building stability. The fact is that a fire cannot bring down skyscraper and this is proof. You could crash ten jets into a skyscraper and it wouldn't cause any damage to the structure of the building. That's just simple basic physics and science. I am always amazed by how so few people understand science-'n'-stuff.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)as imagining a firey bowling ball slamming into a re-bar lattice. re-bar lattice bends some but hardly bats a lash structurally.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I have yet to encounter a sane, intelligent 911 Truther.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Not unexpected from a 9/11 truther though.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)The kind of people who will fall for anything and stand for nothing.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)with those who are gullible enough to not need the truth about 911. Stupid plus severe Dunning-Kruger= Anti-truthers!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)"9/11 truther" is code for what, exactly? A stupid person who wants to know what the secret government won't tell?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Orrex
(63,220 posts)Looks like I may have found it. What of a disgusting pseudo-human being tries to score points for an idiot conspiracy theory while a building is ablaze and lives are at risk in real time?
And to any kneejerk juries who care to rule on my reply, I will be very happy to accept the hide.
Last edited Fri Jan 1, 2016, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)
No matter how big that fire gets, I knew it will never fall. And that was a huge fire.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not a threat to the structure at all. Zero comparison to WTC7, which burned internally for 7 hours with no water, and no firefighting response.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Praying nobody died but that doesn't look very likely, does it?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)"There are no injuries, thank God ... of course, it will not affect the celebration," Major General Rashed al-Matrushi, general director of the Dubai Civil Defence, told the Al Arabiya TV channel.
Apparently the fire never made it inside. Amazing.
RT - but it was the newest I could find.
https://www.rt.com/news/327592-dubai-hotel-fire-address/
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)New Years luck.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)They should all play the lottery!
matt819
(10,749 posts)In nearby Saudi Arabia, officials are still claiming that some 700 people died during the Hajj stampedes. Other reporting has put the number over 2000.
So I'll wait a while before I believe the "no injuries" claim.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)It could very well be untrue.
sarge43
(28,942 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)That thing spread so fast it is hard to imagine that there were working fire sprinklers.
teach1st
(5,935 posts)Witnesses on SkyNews are saying that codes are strong. It appears that it's the exterior of the building burning, but I'm not even close to an expert.
I think this document contains their building codes:
https://www.dewa.gov.ae/images/greenbuilding_eng.pdf
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)I would think that sprinklers would have slowed it down some but it never stopped growing.
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)daleo
(21,317 posts)underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)measures taken, with fire doors, sprinkler systems, etc, that a fire like this is nearly impossible.
Something funky with this... or just really piss-poor building practices.
Ford_Prefect
(7,917 posts)It looks quite bad no matter what the truth is about cause. I cannot image what it must be like on the upper floors above it.
I have never seen the exterior of a building like this one burn in such a manner. It makes you wonder what they skinned it with.
MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)https://twitter.com/AtiehS/status/682635889126670336
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/682634236281647106
patsimp
(915 posts)daleo
(21,317 posts)It should be very hard to perform a big arson like that, if the building has proper protection, though. One wonders if the sprinkler systems were working, for instance. Infiltrators got to that Russian civilian aircraft in Egypt, so anything is possible. News will be heavily censored.
riversedge
(70,280 posts)Top news story
rasi ?@twisira 56m56 minutes ago
December 31, 2015 REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY A fire engulfs The #AddressHotel in downtown Dubai http://wpo.st/UI601
riversedge
(70,280 posts)Marc Perrone and 1 other follow
Yrjötapio Kivisaari ?@Kivisaari 3m3 minutes ago
Wish everyone is OK. This is one of my favorite buildings in the world. #dubai #address #addresshotel #fire
daleo
(21,317 posts)The bottom, a Dalek.
Not really significant, just shows I watch a lot of SF.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)JCMach1
(27,569 posts)Don't believe anything the Dubai government says about this. This is most likely a terrorist act.
They, as usual, will do their best to cover it up.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)What's this about it only being on the outside? That sounds... unlikely.
NJCher
(35,713 posts)"It looks like it's completely gone"
Ahmad Al Bader, a restaurateur who was at The Burj Khalifa with friends, watched as the fire took over the entire building, according to The National newspaper:
Quote:
I saw the flames just as it started and now it is out of hand. I cant see anything because of the smoke.
They evacuated the people in the Address. My uncle and aunt were having dinner there and they were quickly rushed out, its crazy.
It looks like its completely gone.
Cher
JCMach1
(27,569 posts)and
Under Construction
MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)NJCher
(35,713 posts)Thank you for posting!!
Cher
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)any minute now.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Lighten up.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)Either you're making a joke about a tragedy in progress, or you're a ridiculous conspiracy theorist.
Take your pick as you lighten up.
How gross.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Stop projecting.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)I've read your nonsense in the CS forum. You have no credibility to lecture anyone.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Your opinion means squat! But you know that right?
hack89
(39,171 posts)if not, it is unlikely it will collapse.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)eom
Orrex
(63,220 posts)Someone's going to get written up for it, that's for damn sure.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)write on!
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)someone's feeling a bit overly threatened.
I'm sure the overlords will overlook this momentary failure to snuff-out.
your monthly check is secure.
whew!
Orrex
(63,220 posts)He might ask you to support him quietly, to keep from making his supporters look like a bunch of tinfoil hatters.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)That one is bound to get you a supplement bonus for the start of the new year!
Congrats!
Orrex
(63,220 posts)Or, rather, you don't think I'm a shill, but you react like a standard conspiracy theorist and attack anyone who doesn't believe your bullshit fairy tales.
You're embarrassing yourself. Go back to your forum and play with the soft, felt toys there.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)the word 'Attack' First! You've been taught well! Any Babushka would be proud to make your acquaintance.
and rich coming from someone so well mannered such as yourself!
More than anybody out there in political contention has the ability it would lie with Bernie to whole-heartedly start taking of the lid to a lot of corrupt monied interest - no matter how uncomfortable that may make some people.
You have a Happy New Year!
hack89
(39,171 posts)Remember the FDNY reporting the 20 story gouge in the side of the building?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)beside it! Some of the debris hit it on that side. But it was demolished symmetrically.
hack89
(39,171 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:34 PM - Edit history (1)
and continued to stand for another 20 minutes.
Eugene
(61,938 posts)Source: The Guardian
One person suffers heart attack and 15 injured as fire shoots up high-rise city
centre hotel building
Martin Chulov, Kareem Shaheen, Ruth McKee and agencies
Thursday 31 December 2015 20.45 GMT
A huge fire has engulfed part of a luxury Dubai hotel, near where revellers had gathered to watch a New Years Eve fireworks display.
The inferno lit up the side of the Address Downtown hotel near the centre of the city, scattering bystanders and shoppers in a nearby mall. The Dubai government said one person had a heart attack as a result of the smoke and the rush to get out of the building. One person was described as moderately injured and 14 people were said to have suffered minor injuries.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/31/dubai-skyscraper-fire-ablaze-new-years-eve-fireworks
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Warpy
(111,327 posts)and You Tube is filled with often spectacular videos of them. I don't think sprinkler systems can be much of a priority there.
Most of the buildings have been empty, or nearly so, the luxury apartments at the top sold to billionaire investors as investments or future bolt holes when they've ruined their countries to the point they have warrants out for them.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)I approve.
Warpy
(111,327 posts)to build a nest egg: check out the accommodations for things like flammable balconies and trim outside the building that can go up like a Roman candle, which is what this place did. The original fire was on a lower floor and it roared up one corner. Now the whole building seems to be out but toasted and still smoking.
The fireworks were elsewhere and went on as scheduled, the videos showing the hotel producing heavy smoke in the foreground.
So far, no fatalities, although one guest had a heart attack. The stairwells on the opposite side of the building were a sound evacuation route.
It's pretty obvious that if they do have sprinklers, they're not connected to anything until there is a fire and the fire department shows up.
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)daleo
(21,317 posts)Two in the same year - It makes you wonder.