Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

TETENAL · 08:13 PM

(source)

sugar_coated · Feb 13, 2005, 10:23 AM

It burned and then started smoking more!

Athens · Feb 13, 2005, 10:24 AM

thats brutal. Didnt they have any sprinklers in there?

f1000 · Feb 13, 2005, 10:29 AM

It seems nobody's been hurt, but the building's partially collapsed.

TETENAL · Feb 13, 2005, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Athens:
thats brutal. Didnt they have any sprinklers in there?

Sprinklers help against a burning trash can, but I doubt they do much for a full-blown fire. Maybe it started as a cable fire in the ceiling void or something like that.

Athens · Feb 13, 2005, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Sprinklers help against a burning trash can, but I doubt they do much for a full-blown fire. Maybe it started as a cable fire in the ceiling void or something like that.

ive seen first hand how much water a building sprinkler dumps and i can tell you if doors are closed you can drown!!

wdlove · Feb 13, 2005, 11:36 AM

Those are awesome pictures TETENAL, thank you for posting. Thankful that there was no loss of life.

ThinkInsane · Feb 13, 2005, 12:11 PM

Sweet jesus on a pogo stick! That's incredible and horrifying. I can only imagine what it must have been like to see in person. And I hope I never do...

MacGorilla · Feb 13, 2005, 12:24 PM

DeathToWindows · Feb 13, 2005, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Sweet jesus on a pogo stick!

seconded

spatterson · Feb 13, 2005, 12:59 PM

Man... is that sad! Madrid has had its fair share of issues... My heart goes out to them.

Mediaman_12 · Feb 13, 2005, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Athens:
thats brutal. Didnt they have any sprinklers in there?

I can see a tower crane Sticking out of the top on same of the pics. So it seams that the building was still under construction, the sprinkler system was probably incomplete and not connected up.

angelmb · Feb 13, 2005, 02:01 PM

The crane was just for some kind of adition/modification being done, the build itself is from the 70s.

Psychonaut · Feb 13, 2005, 02:06 PM

What did it look like before?

TETENAL · Feb 13, 2005, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Psychonaut:
What did it look like before?

Twilly Spree · Feb 13, 2005, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by wdlove:
Those are awesome pictures TETENAL, thank you for posting. Thankful that there was no loss of life.

MilkmanDan · Feb 13, 2005, 04:01 PM

super cool pictures man, freaky stuff.

brapper · Feb 13, 2005, 05:33 PM

wowzers.

voodoo · Feb 13, 2005, 06:09 PM

Well the fire is out in la torre Windsor and the firedepartment has begun investigating the cause of the fire. The current theory is that the fire was caused by electrical short-circuiting but so for other causes have not been ruled out.

The fire broke out on the 21st floor at 23:21 yesterday. La torre Windsor was 106 m high.

Good thing no-one got hurt or killed in the fire

!!

MacmanX · Feb 13, 2005, 07:02 PM

It's called Windsor Tower? Perhaps the king took offense and finally decided it was high time to burn the place down. Royal prerogative you know?

I'm glad it was empty, but what a mess. It would be interesting to see how they take it down.

TETENAL · Feb 13, 2005, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by MacmanX:
It's called Windsor Tower? Perhaps the king took offense and finally decided it was high time to burn the place down. Royal prerogative you know?

Why should the king take offense? He is a Borb�n, so I doubt he cares if an ugly tower is called Windsor.

Tarambana · Feb 13, 2005, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by MacmanX:
It's called Windsor Tower? Perhaps the king took offense and finally decided it was high time to burn the place down. Royal prerogative you know?

I'm glad it was empty, but what a mess. It would be interesting to see how they take it down.

Well, it's going to be extremely difficult to bring it down (and I hope it doesn't fall beforehand), because underneath it, there are many tunnels, and the subway (three, maybe four subway lines). They are all at different depths and positions. If they used explosives, we would see the whole zone (called "Azca") collapse (and that, believe me, wouldn't be pretty). So, it looks like they are going to have to bring down the building, one floor at a time; And do so with extraordinary care, to make sure no debris makes it fall apart.

There are already studies being conducted in order to check which structural elements have been more badly affected and in which order (and through which means) they should be demolished.

andreas_g4 · Feb 13, 2005, 10:19 PM

As sad as it may sound, I could bet there will be casulties. How does anyone know who was in there? Cleaning, service, etc.

olePigeon · Feb 14, 2005, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Sweet jesus on a pogo stick!

You were waiting for a thread to use that in, weren't you.

moonmonkey · Feb 14, 2005, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by Athens:
thats brutal. Didnt they have any sprinklers in there?

This is Spain, they probably didn't even have toilets in there.

Big Mac · Feb 14, 2005, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Sprinklers help against a burning trash can, but I doubt they do much for a full-blown fire. Maybe it started as a cable fire in the ceiling void or something like that.

I saw a TV documentary on a fire that broke out at one of the Las Vegas casinos. The area that had not had sprinklers installed was toasted, but the sprinklers in the other portions prevented the fire from spreading. The authorities stated that the incident would have been avoided if sprinkler coverage had been complete. It may have been the MGM Grand, as cited by this building safety company page. Fires are truly a great tragedy - lost lives and huge amounts of property destruction.

voodoo · Feb 14, 2005, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
This is Spain, they probably didn't even have toilets in there.

(OTOH I wouldn't bet much on the presence of toilet paper!

)

TETENAL · Feb 14, 2005, 09:51 AM

10.000 people couldn't go to work today because the area is closed. The building is feared to collapse. It'll take two more days before the remains are cooled down and then it can be decided how the building is going to be demolished.

(source)

f1000 · Feb 14, 2005, 10:42 AM

I wonder who insures that building. I bet you could've made a killing if you were shorting their stock right now.

dcmacdaddy · Feb 14, 2005, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by f1000:
I wonder who insures that building. I bet you could've made a killing if you were shorting their stock right now.

I don't know about the stock market but I wonder if there is some insurance company agonizing over the pay out for the destruction of this building.

Something about this still doesn't seem right to me. Maybe it is just me being suspicious but buildings like this don't burn so readily, and so completely, without some "help".

angelmb · Feb 14, 2005, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by f1000:
I wonder who insures that building.

I have read it is Allianz.

TETENAL · Feb 14, 2005, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by angelmb:
I have read it is Allianz.

Well, then we don't have to waste much sympathy. One burned house doesn't scratch them.

MacmanX · Feb 14, 2005, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Tarambana:
Well, it's going to be extremely difficult to bring it down (and I hope it doesn't fall beforehand), because underneath it, there are many tunnels, and the subway (three, maybe four subway lines). They are all at different depths and positions. If they used explosives, we would see the whole zone (called "Azca") collapse (and that, believe me, wouldn't be pretty). So, it looks like they are going to have to bring down the building, one floor at a time; And do so with extraordinary care, to make sure no debris makes it fall apart.

There are already studies being conducted in order to check which structural elements have been more badly affected and in which order (and through which means) they should be demolished.

It's definitely going to be hard to demolish safely. I just read on El Mundo's site that initial estimates for the demolition are at 22 million euros and some months of work. I just hope it's stable enough to be demolished. It will be interesting to see what the engineers find when they go in.

It's really a huge mess (and not just the building). That's really going to be a lot of offices to relocate as well. That taken with the impact to the area, and the people calling for fewer skyscrapers start to seem reasonable. I can't say I really agree, but it does give one pause.

Cheers!

TETENAL · Feb 14, 2005, 09:29 PM

Since the building is from the seventies, is there anything known about any asbestos been released?

f1000 · Feb 19, 2005, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by MacmanX:
It's definitely going to be hard to demolish safely. I just read on El Mundo's site that initial estimates for the demolition are at 22 million euros and some months of work. I just hope it's stable enough to be demolished. It will be interesting to see what the engineers find when they go in.

It's really a huge mess (and not just the building). That's really going to be a lot of offices to relocate as well. That taken with the impact to the area, and the people calling for fewer skyscrapers start to seem reasonable. I can't say I really agree, but it does give one pause.

Cheers!

One Meridian Plaza in Center City Philadelphia, right across from City Hall, had to be torn down after a major fire.

Here's a picture after the demolition. The empty space next to the tall white skyscraper in the foreground is where the Meridian Plaza used to be.

mitchell_pgh · Feb 19, 2005, 04:40 PM

Why didn't it collapse... and WTC 7 did?

I know they are totally different buildings, but they were built around the same time... you would thing WTC 7 would have been built better then a building in spain (during the 70's)

TETENAL · Feb 19, 2005, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Why didn't it collapse... and WTC 7 did?

The Madrid and the building in Philadelphia above were probably ferroconcrete buildings. The concrete protects the iron from heat.

Concrete building can only have a certain maximum height. After that the concrete is too heavy. The WTC had to be a steel building because of the height and therefore no concrete protecting from heat (probably had some heat protecting layers around the steel like asbestos or so though).

Maybe the fuel from the plane also was able to create a much higher heat than paper, furniture, carpets etc. in the Madrid building were able to.

ps:
I stupidly missed the 7 in your question. I don't know, was that a concrete or steel skyscraper?

mitchell_pgh · Feb 19, 2005, 06:56 PM

I'm not exactly sure... I've seen so many conspiracy theories saying everything from "it was also blown up by terrorists" to "the government knocked it down to hide something".

The official story is it burned out of control and collapsed.