Moscow Federation Tower On Fire (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

Smoke and flame rises from the top of the "Federation" tower of the Moscow City business compound in downtown Moscow, Monday, April 2, 2012. (AP Photo/Sergey Ponomarev)

MOSCOW — Huge flames danced for hours on the top floors of an under-construction Moscow skyscraper that is to be Europe's tallest, lighting up the night sky Monday. No injuries were reported in the blaze.

The fire at the eastern part of the Federation Tower complex was visible from much of the Russian capital's western half. Two firefighting helicopters noisily circled the blaze, dumping huge buckets of water on the flames before the Emergencies Ministry said the fire had been stopped from spreading by about 11:30 p.m. (1930 GMT), some three hours after it broke out.

The fire, some 250 meters (880 feet) above street-level, was believed to have started when plastic sheeting came in contact with a spotlight illuminating a work area, Nikita Zhuravlev, a representative of project developer Potok8, told Associated Press Television News. He said a firefighting helicopter appeared to have spread the flames by flying too low over the fire.

The Federation Tower is part of a massive development on the banks of the Moscow River about 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) west of the Kremlin.

When completed, it is to consist of two glass-sheathed office towers flanking a mast reaching 560 meters.

The tower that caught on fire is to top out at 360 meters (1,150 feet tall).

That would make it Europe's tallest building, exceeding the current record-holder, the 302-meter (990-foot) City of Capitals building in the same development as the Federation Tower, and yet another building in the complex, the Mercury City Tower, which is to reach 332 meters (1089 feet).

Russian news reports said the fire engulfed some 300 square meters (3200 square feet) at its height. It hit multiple floors, reportedly the 65th to 67th.

Firefighters were forced to climb stairs to reach the blaze because elevators are not yet in service, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

In August 2000, Moscow's 540-meter (1,771-foot) Ostankino broadcasting tower, once the world's tallest freestanding structure, caught fire and burned for 26 hours.

___

On the web:

Architect's projection of completed tower: http://www.federationtower.ru

RATE IT!   |  

VOTE

CURRENT TOP 5 PICK YOUR OWN TOP 5

USERS WHO VOTED

NEW! CREATE YOUR OWN SLIDESHOW

Comments

[d2air]

08:53 AM on 04/11/2012

The corporate media sure did hide this story. The tallest building in Europe caught on fire for over 12 hours and no structural collapse due to fire?

They are also hiding airplane crashes. It's only a matter of time before the corporate media is left to only report on congressional sexcapades and cute kittens.

[evilgoogleman]

06:10 AM on 04/06/2012

I'd like to post one more comment on this if I could.

I always pause before I say anything about that day, the 11th of Sept 2001. The reason is, part of me wishes I didn't believe the things I do. Truth be told, I really don't want people to FEEL the way I do about this. However, there are a few things that make me speak up when part of me is saying to let it go.

One is the 3000+ people who died that day, one of them I knew personally, someone I went to grade school with. He was a wonderful kid and I can only assume who grew up to be a good man. Because of everything I have learned about this, I don't believe they died for the reasons we were told. I don't believe Robert had to die that day. So until I feel the right thing has been done for those who are gone, I won't ever be able to stop questioning the events of that day.

[FakeAlvin]

06:37 PM on 04/05/2012

will it collapse like the WTC? Of course not. It wasn't loaded with thermite to take it down.

Shhh, but don't tell anybody. It might blow their minds

[wardropper]

10:36 AM on 04/04/2012

Perhaps we should keep a close eye on this...
People with the mentality of the last administration would undoubtedly like to convince us through their mainstream media outlets that "See, fire alone CAN bring down a modern building!"…
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it right now, however.

[evilgoogleman]

12:11 AM on 04/05/2012

Yep, looking forward to starting my demolition company... "Have Match Will Travel"

Anyone want to invest? It's going to be huge... No need for fancy equipment, just a few books of matches.

[westcoastsc]

10:08 AM on 04/04/2012

Did it fall down, the floors pancaking into its own footprint?

[wardropper]

10:27 AM on 04/04/2012

This page pretty much covers that.
Take a look.

[westcoastsc]

10:52 AM on 04/04/2012

I guess you don't understand that I am referencing two particular fires over ten years ago whose fires were unprecedented in history.

[Noodlegirl]

09:06 AM on 04/04/2012

Breaking--Vladimir Putin is now the world's greatest firefighter, too. Following a meal of spicy nachos washed down with vodka, our hero extinguished the flames with the wind from a single mighty fart!

[wardropper]

09:53 AM on 04/04/2012

Extinguishing flames with a fart is highly dangerous.

Have you never tried...?

[furby8]

10:05 AM on 04/04/2012

Now that would be one heck of a blue angel.

[jackdaniel58]

07:32 AM on 04/04/2012

I can see Russia from here.

[Vyslichajici]

06:58 AM on 04/04/2012

i am confused: why didnt it fall straight down into its own footprint in ten seconds at freefall speed after burning for 45 minutes? i thought that was what happened in such cases?!

[MWA1111]

08:27 AM on 04/04/2012

Your point? Did it have a plane full of jet fuel hit it in the middle? Was it constructed with the same architecture? Please do come with more real data..

[wardropper]

09:17 AM on 04/04/2012

The fire looks the same.
And jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to bring down buildings like that.
The mainstream media are one thing; the evidence of one's own eyes - and the eyes of thousands of other people - are another.
Plane crashes have been common enough to provide plenty of evidence as to what happens to the things they crash into.
And - forgive me if I repeat what thousands, if not millions, of people have been asking for more than ten years - what about WT7, which was NOT hit by a plane, had far smaller fires than the ones in today's pictures, yet still came right down into its own footprint...? There are plenty of videos showing it to be a controlled demolition, but the conclusions to be drawn from that are so horrible that probably half the country is quite capable of going into denial about it.

I guess that would by Vyslichajici's point.

[american-dolt]

10:20 AM on 04/04/2012

WTC7 was not hit by a plane and it collapsed. Here is the fire that brought a building symmetrically straight down.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9606/wtc7nbc00001az0.jpg

[fuzzychickens]

12:10 PM on 04/04/2012

That only happened on a day physics and statistical probability called in sick - 9/11.

[Vballboy60]

05:47 AM on 04/04/2012

Russia's Towering Inferno?

[evilgoogleman]

05:10 AM on 04/04/2012

This images if for those of you who believe that the somehow the towers knocked into 7 causing massive damage.

Look at the surrounding area about 7...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/WTC_Area_With_Building_Numbers_50dpi.png

[evilgoogleman]

12:17 AM on 04/05/2012

Is it me or does this picture remind you of the old sesame street song, "Which of these things just doesn't belong here?"

[nixthetrix]

11:03 PM on 04/03/2012

Don't panic . They are just trying a new process to cure the concrete .

[OzzieTonto]

04:49 AM on 04/04/2012

Bit like how the Russkis light fires under the engines of their rigs, to get them started in sub-zero... Just got carried away...

[evilgoogleman]

07:23 PM on 04/03/2012

Let me see if I can explain why this Federation Tower fire relates to people posting here about 9/11 and how building 7 is the key, an anomaly and proof something is really wrong with the official story.

Building 7 not being hit by a plane and with no fuel burning it, collapsed due to what the official story said were fires. This having never happened in the history of steel construction is like finding a rock that defies gravity. It would be all physicist would be talking about for years.

However, instead of this being a huge deal, to the investigation, to the way the whole world would have to consider building standards, it's barely mentioned and just seen as a one off fluke. Now considering that two other buildings collapsed under suspicious circumstances that same day, you would think all buildings that were being built at the time would be halted construction and investigating building 7 would have left no stone unturned. This never happened.

[gavrielle]

01:10 AM on 04/04/2012

And what nefarious purpose would deliberately collapsing building 7 serve? Seriously, who cares about building 7? Or any other then empty building in the area? What were they conspiring to cover up? Poor building standards? This is your reasoning? Really, sweetie, you need to move on and get a life.

[OzzieTonto]

03:11 AM on 04/04/2012

A black security man has given extensive evidence of many DEAD people - that's DEAD - littering Building 7 as he was led out of it. Additionally, Building 7 housed an office of the Secret Service and a repository for thousands of documents, evidence in an enormous corporate swindle. That's just a few reasons why people care.

[Vyslichajici]

07:05 AM on 04/04/2012

an absence of provided speculations regarding motive do not trump physical impossibility in considering the relative likelihood of the cause or causes of destruction of building seven. reread since you probably will not understand it the first time, sweetie. really.

[hcwcars]

06:56 PM on 04/03/2012

The israelis ?

[evilgoogleman]

07:24 PM on 04/03/2012

No cause they wouldn't have been able to make the US government white wash the investigation.

[evilgoogleman]

08:18 PM on 04/03/2012

Evil Middle East Magic

[wardropper]

10:23 AM on 04/04/2012

But I thought the US government always whitewashed Israel...?

[hcwcars]

06:55 PM on 04/03/2012

What brought down building 7 ?

[evilgoogleman]

08:52 PM on 04/03/2012

"Evil Middle East Magic" This was meant to be on your post... Not sure how that happened?

[gavrielle]

01:15 AM on 04/04/2012

The real question is not what, but why? Why would anyone deliberately take down a completely unimportant building? More to the point, why after so many years do conspiracy theorist keep harping on it? Are you all so worried the rest of New York is going to collapse at any minute? At best, they were unsteady in someway and the fire department did it - though I can't imagine how they could have done such deliberate planning, since they were reeling from the loss of their leadership and so many fellow firefighters. At worst there were poor building standards involved. If that's the case, good riddance and let's move on.

[evilgoogleman]

04:36 AM on 04/04/2012

If someone you loved was in that building and you thought maybe things didn't happened the way you were told they did. Would you want to move on?

There are a ton of reasons why. right 9/11, we went to war, twice, patriot act was started giving the government sweeping powers. The towers themselves were do for an asbestos removal that was going to cost over a billion dollars, running as high as 3 billion. Instead, the lease holder had a $3.5 billion insurance policy on the towers. He actually claimed twice the insurance $7 billion cause two buildings were hit by the planes. They settled on $4.6 billion.

And as OzzieTonto pointed out above. Building 7 was home of an SEC investigation into wall st fraud. The investigation was destroyed along with the building.

There were more than enough reasons.

[wardropper]

10:25 AM on 04/04/2012

You have a lot of reading to catch up on before you graduate out of this class.

"Move on" is what organized crime always likes to say to intelligent investigators.

[StopMakingSense2]

03:22 PM on 04/03/2012

Someone needed an insurance payout? I know putting Moscow and organized crime together is a stretch! Not!

[wardropper]

10:46 AM on 04/04/2012

I understand 500 million dollars were involved in the insurance aspect.