Huge fire engulfs 42-storey tower block in Turkey

Huge fire engulfs 42-storey tower block in Turkey

www.itn.co.uk

© Reuters/Osman Orsal

Hundreds of people had to be evacuated after a fire broke out in a 42-storey building in Istanbul.

The blaze in the Polat Towers is thought to have been caused by a technical problem with a section containing air conditioners.

The building is partly residential and partly occupied by shops and businesses.

The fire burned through the building's external wall insulation, although the mayor for the district of Sisli, where the building is located, said the inside was not affected.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So another steel high rise gets burnt out with no sign of a collapse happening. Is this yet more proof that the 3 World Trade Center buildings that collapsed on Sept 11th did not go down from a short lived tiny fire spread over just a few floors?

It still remains that the only time a steel framed high rise has reportedly ever collapsed due to fire was on Sept 11th. Each time a high rise gets burnt out and does not collapse makes the incident at the Twin Towers and building 7 just seem all the more ridiculous.

www.itn.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Thank god no one was hurt, S@F and well-thought OP for bringing up the connection of steel structured frames and 9/11 I wasn't even thinking of that.

Yep I saw the video and the first thing I thought was, "now how come this skyscraper didn't come crashing down like the world trade centre did". It was a pretty intensive blaze where bits and pieces of the burning building came crashing down to the street below. A real eye opener.

So this massive fire which engulfed half of the building started because of a technical difficulty with air conditioners? I don't know about you, but something just doesn't add up.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
It still remains that the only time a steel framed high rise has reportedly ever collapsed due to fire was on Sept 11th.

Actually it just shows that when a steel framed building is hit by a high speed loaded airliner, or severely damaged by the collapse of another building, it will collapse!

Because F--- the people that may have been hurt, it's time to make a crappy comparison! Stay classy guys, stay classy.

reply to post by spoor


The official story on why the twin towers collapse was because of the fire that supposedly weakened the structure and not the impact of the lightweight planes that hit them. The fire on this building was burning longer and was larger.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by spoor

 

The official story on why the twin towers collapse was because of the fire that supposedly weakened the structure and not the impact of the lightweight planes that hit them. The fire on this building was burning longer and was larger.

So how much avtur was in this fire?

reply to post by spoor


Steel buildings just dont collapse from fire, thats why they are built from steel.

Check out this one in china in 2010



source

Every time a high rise burns and does not collapse it just proves the official story from Sept 11 can not be true..

reply to post by PhoenixOD


The official story claims that when the planes impacted the building it dislodged a hard fire-retardant which allowed the steel to get hot enough to melt. It's all bull, but that's what thy say.

I've seen many burning skyscrapers in the news and one the tube, never have I seen one fall as a result, other than the wtc

Can anyone tell me the number of these buildings that were impacted with a 450,000 lbs aircraft going 400mph with 120,000 lbs. of jet fuel in them?

reply to post by micmerci


The weight of the plane isn't really an issue because the strength of the materials that the plane is made up of is not very great. Even the Official report said that it wasn't the impact of the planes that cause the collapse of the twin towers. Both sides of the argument agree on that fact alone.

Also don't forget building 7 that didn't get hit by any planes but it supposedly wen down from fire.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Not trying to convince either side of the story here. Just pointing out that it seems like comparing apples to oranges.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
So another steel high rise gets burnt out with no sign of a collapse happening. Is this yet more proof that the 3 World Trade Center buildings that collapsed on Sept 11th did not go down from a short lived tiny fire spread over just a few floors?

Yes. But the building being burned down here does not contain pre-planted explosives... umm I mean thermite... ummm i mean jet fuel ummm

Oh hang on WTC 7 didn't contain Jet fuel... ummm... but it was damaged by falling twin towers...

Puhlease somebody kill the official story. It's full of holes. Everyone knows it's a lie. Hang these traitors!

World Trade Center 7 was not hit by a plane..... but it was heavily damaged from WTC 1 and 2 collapsing...

So were World Trade Center 3, 4, 5, and 6... and all other surrounding buildings....

Why did only Building 7 fall..? At free fall speed..? Defying physics...?

reply to post by RimDaas


yes something about this fire does not seem right
i don't know what kind of insulation they had used but i have never seen insulation catch fire before .
maybe turkey has poor building regulations

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

So another steel high rise gets burnt out with no sign of a collapse happening. Is this yet more proof that the 3 World Trade Center buildings that collapsed on Sept 11th did not go down from a short lived tiny fire spread over just a few floors?

It still remains that the only time a steel framed high rise has reportedly ever collapsed due to fire was on Sept 11th. Each time a high rise gets burnt out and does not collapse makes the incident at the Twin Towers and building 7 just seem all the more ridiculous.

www.itn.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Huge difference, the building in Turkey wasn't hit by a big ass plane. People forget that the twin towers had there structures weakened by the plane impacts. Then the fires weakened the structure further causing the buildings to collapse.

Originally posted by spoor
Actually it just shows that when a steel framed building is hit by a high speed loaded airliner, or severely damaged by the collapse of another building, it will collapse!

If you understood the OS you support you would know that the NIST hypothesis claims the collapse was caused by the floor trusses sagging, and pulling in columns due to the fires, not due to the planes. All the planes did was start the fires.

(NIST, nor anyone else, has demonstrated that sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the much larger columns. Without breaking the connections first btw.)

Originally posted by pharvey0829
People forget that the twin towers had there structures weakened by the plane impacts. Then the fires weakened the structure further causing the buildings to collapse.

No, the fires did not weaken the structure at all bellow where the planes hit. Even NIST does not use that as an excuse. The collapse, according to NIST (the OS) was initiated by trusses sagging from heat and pulling in columns. The planes had nothing to do with that, other than starting the fires.

The fires did not effect the building bellow the impact points, yet the collapse did not slow from loss of Ke due to friction/resistance, deformation, heat, sound, etc. There had to be another energy acting on the building that has not been investigated by NIST.