One Of Biggest Residential Towers In World Burns In Dubai

Florida Sandy alerted me to this news: one of the tallest residential towers on earth is burning down, killing…who knows how many hundreds of victims.  Ironically, it was named ‘the Torch Tower’.  These disasters could be seen developing since day one.  The WTC buildings, I watched them being built, I was horrified about how they were built and begged my husband to cease working there because of my fears…Why are architects building dangerous structures in the first place?  And especially huge towers that are Towers of Babble.


Dubai skyscraper on fire in 2012- YouTube

 

And a few hours ago the exact same thing only worse!

Dubai Torch Tower burning 2017


Dubai Torch Tower Fire: Huge fire rips through apartment building – YouTube

 

These two fires in the same stupid tower are very similar to the tower that burned in England last month, killing so many people.  A number of super high towers built for no good reasons…and the WTC complex was ridiculously oversized for any function and people were forced to move in because the government was embarrassed by its tremendous empty spaces…this mania to build super big has a huge downside if anything goes wrong, even little things like electricity being cut like in mass blackouts.

 

The Torch Tower is the fifth tallest residential building in the world and stands at more than 330 metres (1,105 ft).

It became the tallest residential building in the world in 2011 but lost the record the following year to the neighbouring Princess Tower.

In February 2015 hundreds of residents were evacuated from the same building after it was engulfed in flames in the early hours of the morning.

The blaze ripped through multiple floors of the new building, in the expat-heavy Marina district of the city.

Flames shot out from two sides of the building and glass and metal rained down from the skyscraper.

After a series of recent fires, Dubai is introducing a new code for skyscrapers this year, insisting that full-scale mockups of the facade are fire-tested rather than just the individual materials.

External sprinklers are also being encouraged for new buildings.

 

Too little, too late.  The mania to build higher and higher is highly dangerous.  London, for example, has some huge towers smack dab in the middle of neighborhoods with many small buildings.  If these huge monsters fall, and they eventually will fall, it will annihilate everything just like we see over and over again.

The second monstrosity here is a building that bulges out at the top.  When this insane thing collapses, it will destroy everything around it and everything around is a bunch of much older, very much smaller buildings which will be annihilated.

 

This is pure lunacy!  There is no regard for future demolition and these buildings don’t last all that long, either.  They are basically windows set in boxes.   A skeletal structure holds the floors and windows in place and are not very strong, not at all strong.

 

Brick and wood buildings can be destroyed, too, but they have strong limits on size. These mega structures don’t so they are built as if they won’t ever come down again despite history showing very clearly, this happens.

 

 

50 Comments

Filed under .money matters

50 responses to “One Of Biggest Residential Towers In World Burns In Dubai

  1. Kenogami

    Why are so many modern architects designing very hideous buildings? I would never want to live in an architect’s house: so many idiotic choices they make.

  2. Ziff

    @ keno. Show me one u don’t think is hideous , just curious

  3. floridasandy

    it looks like there is no loss of life, although you have to wonder what started it and why it seemed to be on separate floors::Is it a structural flaw, or sabotage?

    Resident R.J. Morlock, 33, of Houston, Texas, shot video on his phone that showed bright yellow flames reaching what appeared to be several stories on two separate parts of the building. He said residents were nervous coming out but fire crews were able to bring the situation under control.
    “I was really surprised they got it under control pretty quickly,” he said. “It looked like it was going to go up.”

    This was at 2 am, I think. One of the smart things was that they didn’t tell everybody to stay in place, and forced everybody to evacuate. People need to get out any way they can, and ignore anybody who tells them to stay put and wait.

  4. Kenogami

    @Ziff
    I find the Gherkin in London quite beautiful. I like churches before the 20th century, mosks, Hindu temples, and castles: many are quite extraordinary and beautiful.

    But I have no formation in arts or architecture. It is just my personnal taste. But since I am the only one who can live my own life, I’ll keep my own artistic opinions over those of art experts. 🙂

  5. Moe

    Odd that these recent towers didn’t collapse into their own footprint.(sarc)

  6. ziff

    keno , i just thought knocking architects was a bit off given most live in generic building code boxes that may be unsuited to their location and i don’t think you would want to actually live in a castle

  7. Towers that JUST have a fire, don’t fall down. Anything hit by two massive passenger jets, on the other hand, can and do have total destruction.

  8. Christian W

    WTC7 wasn’t hit by a plane yet collapsed at free fall speed in it’s own footprint. Do note that WTC7 was barely on fire either compared to other recent fires in high rise buildings.

    Since WTC7 wasn’t taken down by fire or an airplane hit, the only explanation that remains is…MAGIC.

  9. floridasandy

    ziff, I want to live in a castle. 🙂

    Christian, I have read a lot of stuff on WTC, and I could go either way on that one. At the time, no steel frame high rise had ever before collapsed because of a fire, although there had been previous cases of collapses or partial collapses of smaller steel buildings due to fire.[73] However, the ability of such a building to be completely destroyed by fire would be demonstrated in 2017, when the Plasco Building in Tehran collapsed following an uncontrolled blaze.[74] In addition, 7 WTC also sustained significant structural damage during the collapse of 1 WTC from ejected debris.[75]

    I thought this site was interesting at the time:

    http://debunking911.com/collapse.htm

    what a tragedy, no matter what.

  10. Fires don’t smash huge holes in non-wood buildings. The WTC is like so many crash sites: everything collapses on top of the thing that crashed into the building. Same with the WTC only it was two jets in the middle of the buildings, not just one and not a crash that didn’t penetrate. Both jets and the Pentagon one crashed right through walls due to moving at a high speed.

  11. Christian W

    WTC7 was not hit by a plane. Dear Elaine please adhere to facts.

  12. I am baffled as to why people cling to weird ideas. The idea that the smaller tower was crushed as if it were destroyed by a volcanic eruption due to a huge amount of cement landing on it suddenly, that just doesn’t occur to people who don’t understand how structures work. ALL of our huge towers and small ones, are EMPTY SHELL buildings. They have little structure to them aside from the metal skeleton.

    Unlike say, Victorian buildings which weigh more per square foot, our soaring towers today are all ‘shell’ type buildings. They look solid but are not very solid. Their outer skin is 80% glass!

  13. Christian W

    You changed your argument.

    WTC7 didn’t collapse from being dusted with concrete dust from the collapse of the two towers. It didn’t collapse from “structural damage” as a result from debris. It didn’t collapse as a result of some tepid fires.

    The FACT is WTC7 imploded in its own footprint at free fall speeds. The entire building simultaneously collapsed.

    That is different from a partial collapse from damage to parts of the building or fire. The entire building was not equally damaged throughout its entire structure. The only thing that can collapse a building in the fashion WTC 7 collapsed is if the entire structural integrity is removed in the same instant. That is obvious.

    Steel is stronger and more flexible than stone. The reason skyscrapers are built around steel skeletons is simply that the “stronger” Victorian stone buildings would collapse under their own weight if high enough.

  14. Jim R

    You can plainly see from the videos, WTC7 was not hit by a volcanic eruption, nor anything else. Buildings all around it survived with only superficial damage to their facades. It was a block or 2 away from the twin towers.

    And it fell straight down, it did not crumble nor was it crushed.

    So there’s that, and there’s Larry Silverstein with his “decided to pull it” remark.

    It was pulled. Next question…

  15. Christian W

    Here is a video of a building that has not only been burnt out but has been bombarded daily with artillery, HE bombs and gun fire. The building STILL only partially collapses even when a huge amount of explosives are detonated beneath it.

    This building has been ravaged by fire and has had direct structural damage sustained many times more direct and impactful than the WTC7 sustained by proximity damage. Yet the only thing that can partially collapse it at free fall speed is explosives. Even then only the part of the building closest to the damage collapses. See?

  16. Moe

    WTC 7 Controlled Demolition Comparison

  17. Jim R

    And you can’t do that unless you have plans for the building, and know where to place the charges. To pull it.

  18. I can’t fix stupid. It was not ‘dust’ that fell on that building. It was ALL THE JUNK that comprised of the WTC both buildings that fell. Only a fool could pretend it was little. And this really pisses me off, the need of people to cling to bizarre ideas never ceases to amaze me.

    And comparing the window/with a bit of steel buildings with solid old style buildings is dishonest. All of the ‘honeycomb/cement/brick’ buildings are hard to pull down.

  19. What really steams me here is, I watched the WTC buildings being built, I have been inside them repeatedly, I pointed out that garages at the bottom were insane because they have NO REAL INTERNAL STRUCTURE only posts holding up things which is why terrorists first tried to pull them down via bombing in the garages in the basement…I have built and torn down buildings and people come to this blog to tell me I am stupid while they sit at a computer and watch movies and videos that lie about everything under the sun…if no one here believes a word I say from my very solid past knowledge, then why on earth bother coming here? Go hang out at the lunatic sites! They are fun and stupid at the same time and makes people think they have ‘inside information’ when they are being conned.

    Humans are shockingly easy to con.

  20. Jim R

    Just look at the videos.

    Nothing fell on 7. Not anything more than a little dust. You could plainly see that the building is standing, whole, intact, erect.

    And then it just falls straight down. It doesn’t crumble or topple or lean or partially collapse. It completely collapses STRAIGHT down. After never doing anything straight in the rest of its several decade existence.

    It was pulled. Next question..

  21. Christian W

    If you can’t use your own eyes or face facts contradicting your preconcieved ideas then I’m sorry Elaine but I can’t help you.

    You are right you can’t fix stupid, but you can fix stupid in yourself at least.

    Look at the videos of WTC 7 posted for your convenience in this very thread. You can see with your owns eyes there is no major fire engulfing the entire structure, no major damage to the roof or the facade, no damage from debris from the fallen towers even close enough to compromise the total, complete, entire support structure of the building.

    You are correct in your observation that the terrorists once tried to blow up the supporting pillars to take down the building. That is how you collapse a steel structure building in it’s own footprint and that is how WTC7 was taken down.

  22. HAHAHAHA.. Yes, professionals like me are stupid. Got it. Why on earth are you guys here?

  23. This reminds me of the ever-popular pit bull posting I wrote last year. Everyone thinks I am stupid even as these dogs kill people. Too funny.

  24. Christian W

    So when you run out of arguments you start flinging nonsense, got it. You claim to be a professional but I doubt you are a professional structural engineer. All I’ve seen from you is arguments that the steel structures are ‘flimsy’ and what not but I have not seen you back this up with anything other than claims to your experience, which is not the same thing as an fact based argument. Mabye that is why you cannot see the simple, basic fact that for a steel structure to collapse simultaneously across the entire building the entire load bearing structure needs to collapse at the same time.

    Here is a nice 30 minute video of demolitions of steel structure buildings for you to watch and learn from:

  25. Christian W

    Those bridge pillars around 16:30 look very much, for example, like how the two WCT towers (not WTC7) suddenly disintegrated.

  26. Lou

    What about the Oklahoma bombing?

  27. Jim R

    There were 47 pillars holding up WTC 7. It was not a hollow shell, as Elaine keeps shrieking.

  28. Jim R

    Lou, the Oklahoma bombing was a different animal. Of course, I can’t prove anything one way or the other, and there’s no video of it, but that truckload of fertilizer did not knock down the whole building. It did blow away a big chunk of the facade, however.

    Apparently the perpetrators had arranged the barrels inside their truck to make a kind of ‘shaped charge’, aimed at the building from the parking space on the street. So it was a lopsided burst.

    The rest of the building had to be demolished afterward, as about 2/3 of was still standing, with all the windows blown out and the mangled steel. And it was a much, much smaller building than any at the WTC.

  29. Jim R

    Christian, notice the botched demolitions at 18:51 and 19:06. Either some of the explosives did not detonate, or they were poorly placed.

  30. Um, you prove me ‘wrong’ by showing what EXPLOSIONS do exactly what two HUGE JETS do. Thinking that this proves jets didn’t do it same thing is what is crazy here.

    You are all bent on doing this ridiculous thing because…you cling to it like a life raft…the ‘bombs in the building’ crap is a CIA OPERATION, jeeze.

    It was to distract from the fact that all the terrorists trained within 10 miles of Jupiter Island, Florida where the CIA has a very big presence due to the island being owned by the Bush family and the state run at that time by Jeb Bush.

    To cover up this fact, they cooked up the ‘bombs in the building’ junk to fool people into chasing after a phantom and not the truth. Too bad you all fell for it and cling to it desperately. People are fooled all the time by fake information and I cannot correct this condition. It is self imposed like all propaganda stories.

    The more it is false, the more people cling to this junk. Have fun being a toy of the elites. They will make you suffer a great deal for this.

  31. Jim R

    We were talking about building 7.

    * No obvious damage not even broken windows
    * Conventional skyscraper, with 47 support columns
    * Not struck by a plane
    * Its engineer, Barry Jennings, described massive explosions, damage, bodies — last one out, barely escaped
    * Suddenly collapsed … completely
    * Its owner said they decided to “pull it”.

    The debris was whisked away and shipped overseas for scrap, instead of preserved for analysis like in other disasters. No explanation was given.

    There was planning; this was not an unfortunate accident.

  32. Good lord. You just can’t accept facts about powdery cement which is very much like a volcanic eruption: it weighs a lot. I mixed cement all my long life and the bags are HEAVY. All powder, too! Imagine that.

    Why are you all so fixated on that building? It was stupid to ‘blow it up’ while having no sound of explosions. Why do that dumb thing? If there was anything important inside, they would PROTECT IT, no?

    DUH….I swear, the lack of motivation pisses me off. It makes no sense.

    ONE person claimed there were bombs. DUDE: there were thousands of people nearby!! Everyone was streaming out of their buildings!!! Basing your entire insane beliefs on one person’s story is crazy. Makes zero sense.

    But cling to your beliefs, it is like Santa Claus. Brings presents all the time, I am baffled as to what is inside the pretty boxes, but it amuses you all no end. Have fun.

    Just don’t expect me to believe in your Santa stories.

  33. About Oklahoma: you are set in imagining all events are fake or rigged. This is called ‘paranoia’ and I am pissed about the people who deny that event, I WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED.

    I am the one who called the BATF guys in DC to report I overheard two men talking on shortwave radio about attacking the building in Oklahoma.

    The next day, within 2 minutes of the attack, the BATF called me back in hysteria and this is when I learned about the truck attack…they yelled at me, ‘Give us the names’ and I couldn’t because the people were anonymous but it did give them the first clue to look for people pissed about the previous event when the religious cult was attacked by the federal agents and the adults in the cult set the buildings on fire and killed all the children.

    People manage to be unable to understand that event, either. All of these events freak out people and prevent them from being logical or reasonable.

  34. Jim R

    The important thing that was in that building was evidence.

    For example, the Enron financial records were stored there, pending prosecution of the principals of that company for financial crimes.

    That building was the control center for the whole complex. It would have contained, for example, records of what happened in WTC1 and 2.

    The CIA had offices in that building.

    And so forth.

  35. Jim R

    Listed in #31 were merely the high points. There’s more. Firefighters and police also heard the blasts. They are not your unreliable ‘person in the street’ witnesses, they know about such things. The FBI ignored their testimony.

    So far all you have is powdery concrete dust. (by the way, the architects [they take a lot of math in school] calculated how much energy would be required to convert that much concrete to dust. it takes energy, you know. they calculated that it would be 150 times as much as the gravitational energy released by the collapse. even if it was poorly made concrete, it would still require more energy.) All of the buildings that completely collapsed that day were rigged.

    So, you’ve got nothing.

    It was pulled. Next question..

  36. Christian W

    @ Elaine

    Yes, it’s a FACT that a bag of cement is heavy. It is your OPINION that it was sediments of cement dust that brought WTC 7 down. You need to prove that it was the weight of the dust that made the entire structure of the building collapse. That is the rational scientific method.

    Sprinkle an inch of cement powder on something and it is not that heavy.

    Now, if you were openminded instead of protecting your preconceived notions you would be able to see, with your own eyes from the videos, that there was no layer of cement dust heavy enough to collapse the WTC 7 or make the steel bearing beams collapse simultaneously across the entire building.

    Moreover, there is nothing contradictory to say the US government blew up WTC 7 and hold the opinion that the US government trained the Al Qaeda operators as part of the attack. Both can well be equally valid.

    You ramble on and on about Saudi’s doing the attack. But Saudi Arabia has always been a US/UK protectorate. Al Qaeda from the very beginning has been a CIA/Mossad operation. Hence it is not surprising that the 9/11 attackers were trained in Bush controlled Florida or that a Bush was member of the WTC security company and so on.

    As for sounds of explosions, there were plenty of people close by that gave first hand witness testimony of explosions in the building. Some where thrown by shock waves. We have posted the videos, but since you are closeminded and not open to factual reasoning you have not been able to accept the challenges to your preconceived notions.

    You asked some of us why we are here. Well, if we didn’t call you out on your bullshit then we would be just brown nosers, no? If you want yes men and yes women to propagandize for then sorry no such luck.

  37. Christian W

    It is also a FACT that a bag of cement is “heavy” in terms of human strength. A bag of cement is undoubtedly heavy for Elaine to carry. That does not mean a bag of cement is heavy for a solid steal beam construction to prop up.

  38. ziff

    jim & Christian = twats , THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO KNOCK THE BUILDINGS DOWN ! 4 airplanes full of people killed on 9/11 , that would have been the headline , THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH ! you stupid fucks

  39. Christian W

    4 airplanes hijacked is not the same thing as AMERICA UNDER ATTACK!!111!!!111!!!!!!

    4 hijacked airplanes would have been forgotten in 18 months. The images of the collapse of the Twin Towers (how many even know about WTC 7) have been part of the collective western psyche for 2 decades and have been used as an alibi for countless US war crimes and the death of over +1 million innocent people.

    And of course I had to spell that out for you Ziff.

  40. Moe

    in defense of all ‘twats’ and ‘stupid fucks’, I don’t believe the official version (or Elaine’s) either. Perhaps we should get T-shirts printed up? Something to display our ignorance and cupidity: ‘Twats Is Us’;
    ‘What Up Stupid Fuck’; ‘9/11 Twats’,or perhaps a cryptic ‘T-SF’.

    Hey, we could have a contest here at ems for the most insulting aspersions!

  41. Christian W

    @ Moe

    Shhh, we mustn’t question peoples’ religious programming or what they have been told to think by their government. They may get upset.

  42. Jim R

    I know, Elaine, the disinformation campaign has included everything from tiny little microscopic nuke weapons (no such thing) to holographic projections (not there yet either) to space lizards with energy beams (please).

    But the evidence that the buildings were rigged is pretty extensive. Video posted in newer thread.

  43. Jim R

    Moe, I’ll take the T shirt with the label ‘truther’, with the built in implication that the person slinging that insult is a liar.

  44. Ziff

    @40 ,that’s pure hindsight , Elaine needs to kill you off and get a better class of respondent . Like chasing a mouse with a hammer.

  45. Christian W

    @ 45

    It was the MOTIVE.

    There have been PLENTY of US false flags in the past. That is simply the factual historical record.

    ΩΩΩΩ

    ELAINE: ARRRGH…the mere fact that two jets slammed into the WTC buildings and Pentagon were more than sufficient. Why add on more junk?

  46. ziff

    @ 40 is a classic stupid , how about flaming towers as a symbol ? @ 45 is illogical . elaine needs at least 2 mouse traps.

  47. Christian W

    Nothing illogical about it. Qui bono?

    9/11 + sending some US military Anthrax to some senators was all it took to push through the Patriot Acts (prepared long in advance), destroy or make irrelevant large parts the US constitution, invade Afghanistan and Iraq illegally and loot the US treasury (ie the US citizens) for $Trillions, give Israel 100% US support in murdering Palestinians and stealing their land and tens of $billions in “aid” and on and on and on.

    The CIA is stronger than ever. The Pentagon is stronger than ever. Wall Street has a death grip on the US political system. The only option US voters get to have are Zionist stooges. The US controls a global surveillance system which is magnitudes more powerful than anything seen on earth before. The US MSM has reverted to pure propaganda.

    And all that thanks to an made to order operation designed to attack the minds of American citizens.

  48. Ziff

    Just because A , B , C events are false flags does not prove that D is. I happen to agree that it was a false flag but it was so without bombs in buildings. Hence your illogic . U r a nutter butter .

  49. The entire edifice of the fake story about bombs in the WTC buildings is due to the CIA planting this storyline to delude people and thus, stop any investigation of the real CIA/bin Laden collusion business.

    This is why I am furious with people falling for this stupid stuff. It takes one off the real trail of who did what and why. And the Bushes were able to slip the noose due to this distraction.

    They should have been investigated! Now, it is too late.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s