eagle Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 I have to wonder whether his conclusion that the fire was started by fireworks raining down on the roof from another building is accurate. It contradicts other eyewitness accounts, and it's the only version that has it this way. makes me wonder what the (outside) of the roof was made of. it'd be much, much MUCH easier to catch the soundproofing on fire, even with a cigarette or an electrical short, than burn through most types of roof. Was probably smoke up to the ceiling the guy was talking about. He was in a state of panic. Same thing happened at the Great white show, stage fireworks igniting the stage area. Hopefully the fireworks indoors stops now so it doesn't happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyoiy Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 I believe if he was really there when it was happening, it's hard to feel all normal so soon. As the owner, it probably haunted him for the rest of his life. I cannot say if he's just being BS with the media or that's how he really feel. But I do believe he really feel sorry and guilty. I can't imagine how could I say any better if I'm in his shoes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 A Thai newspaper today had a horrific photograph of some of the bodies while they were still inside the building. Pretty much exactly how one would imagine it to be... I think it's the single most horrifying image I've seen in this life. Unbelievably tragic. Graphic images of death, the moment of death, or the aftermath of fatal accidents and shootings are absolutely inappropriate and should not be printed in the media or broadcast in any visual media. How would these "people" feel if it turned out to be a photograph of one of their loved ones? In many countries now the media have actually woken up to the horror and pain caused to the relatives of those in the images, and self-censor such material. This is not newsworthy, it is not informative - it is hurtful sensationalism - nothing more nor less. ANY news paper that does this permanently loses me as a reader - after one such occurrence, I have now absolutely banned anyone in my family from ever bringing any copy of Thai Rath into my home. Have to say G, the BBC here in UK showed many graphic images from Santika also, as did many UK newspapers. All the BBC did was issue warning prior to showing report that it 'contained images that may be disturbing to some people'. While I agree that in some cases, the media should be allowed to display graphic images; for instance to drive home the horror of drought and famine, or when running anti-drink driving or domestic abuse campaigns, I see no need for such images in cases like this other than sensationalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beej Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Big fire in China town too tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMatlock Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Big fire in China town too tonight. Can you imagine a fire breaking out while perusing video games at Saphan Lek? Would be a disaster... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelis Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30092415/Fire-breaks-out-at-shopping,-residential-plaza-building Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 also from the Nation; Deputy Police Commissioner-General Pol Gen Jongrak Juthanon said the Metropolitan Police was opposed to the operation of Santika Pub but the pub was allowed to operate by an injunction of the Administrative Court. He said the Metropolitan Police did not allow the pub to be open in 2004 on grounds that the place did not conform to standard but the injunction allowed the pub to operate pending a ruling in the case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbroker Posted January 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 The "Thai Way..."Yes, I am the foreign staff boss of an infant school with hundreds of kids. I raised the issue of fire safety with the Thai Vice-director when I took the position. The response: it's bad luck to talk about it and it hasn't happened yet. Well I appreciate someone acknowledging what I perceive to be the main issue BEFORE the fire started; an issue I raised. Accidents happen; people make mistakes. It's the efforts made (or not) prior and the mindset behind it that might mitigate tragic results. A fire policy/code at least partly based on superstitions? This is not relevant AND widespread? I'm sorry bringing it up causes the "reactions" by some here. As for the stupid fighting going on in this thread about sandals, politics and name calling, can I ask you guys take it somewhere else? I have my strong opinions and try to stay on topic the few times I post. When I "attack" it tends to be the post; until the venom is directed at me. There are those here would rather attack me personally than address what I believe to be valid points raised. It's also my belief that's often all they're capable of when dealing with my posts. Nothing I can or would do about it; but I won't let idiocy, esp. directed at me, go unpunished. Well, as someone who was involved in the exchange about tourist numbers, it was basically a response to a wanker who was putting this country down on every level possible and pronouncing that this incident means tourism is "finished" in this country.It's not, and this incident isn't going to kill it. Bullshit. I said no such thing nor was there any implication. I'll save calling you who and what you are. Carry on....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Loburt wrote:Well, as someone who was involved in the exchange about tourist numbers, it was basically a response to a wanker who was putting this country down on every level possible and pronouncing that this incident means tourism is "finished" in this country. It's not, and this incident isn't going to kill it. --------------in response vbroker wrote------------------------- Bullshit. I said no such thing nor was there any implication. I'll save calling you who and what you are. Carry on....... Back to top Yes fire codes are a good idea. Don't think that will get an argument. Its all in how you say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I have to wonder whether his conclusion that the fire was started by fireworks raining down on the roof from another building is accurate. It contradicts other eyewitness accounts, and it's the only version that has it this way. makes me wonder what the (outside) of the roof was made of. it'd be much, much MUCH easier to catch the soundproofing on fire, even with a cigarette or an electrical short, than burn through most types of roof. The ceiling caught fire about 1 minute after the on-stage pyrotechnics went out. But there was still flames burning on stage. The heat from the flames would have been rising to the ceiling. When most flamable materials are exposed to intense heat their combustion point continuously drops until they ignite. Sounds to me this might be what happened. (I know far too much about this kind of stuff becuase my Dad was one of the top authorities on fire fighting in New Zealand for over 30 years.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PMike Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 after seeing the pictures, news walk thru, it seems that the stage show would be the cause if you asked me (my op) One thing to note was the news camera intervue up on the roof side camera lift. You could see the fire did not start there as the roof was mostly intact except distorted and partial colapse. This same type of thing happend in the usa back east some years ago. It was caused by the stage show and some foam sound material ignited and filled the place with thick black choking smoke. I did read in the paper about the police blaming the court and the court saying they are not to blame for issuing the op license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeGeneve Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 A Thai newspaper today had a horrific photograph of some of the bodies while they were still inside the building. Pretty much exactly how one would imagine it to be... I think it's the single most horrifying image I've seen in this life. Unbelievably tragic. Graphic images of death, the moment of death, or the aftermath of fatal accidents and shootings are absolutely inappropriate and should not be printed in the media or broadcast in any visual media. How would these "people" feel if it turned out to be a photograph of one of their loved ones? In many countries now the media have actually woken up to the horror and pain caused to the relatives of those in the images, and self-censor such material. This is not newsworthy, it is not informative - it is hurtful sensationalism - nothing more nor less. ANY news paper that does this permanently loses me as a reader - after one such occurrence, I have now absolutely banned anyone in my family from ever bringing any copy of Thai Rath into my home. Have to say G, the BBC here in UK showed many graphic images from Santika also, as did many UK newspapers. All the BBC did was issue warning prior to showing report that it 'contained images that may be disturbing to some people'. While I agree that in some cases, the media should be allowed to display graphic images; for instance to drive home the horror of drought and famine, or when running anti-drink driving or domestic abuse campaigns, I see no need for such images in cases like this other than sensationalism. Although some limitations on the depiction of deceased and injured in the press were imposed some 18 months ago much still gets shown in this country that really ought not to from a newsworthy point of view as Greer rightly points out. It may be that in the internet age such is relatively moot. The absolutely horrific and haunting pics of deceased who died inside the premises that are doing the rounds of emails accounts, I am sure are being spread far and wide. I have received a few of these pics in emails from thai friends for god knows what reason. They seem to be on a few chat sites as well. Is it just voyuerism or are many really that insensitive that they want to be shocked, have their 3 mins of empathy and then move onto the latest celeb gossip news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grezzzy_greer Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Yes, I am really saddened and in a way quite embarrassed that the news media, a very strong part of the broadcast industry in which I have worked all my life, have absolutely no qualms about displaying images that will definitely hurt or shock readers or viewers, never mind the awful effect on the relatives and close friends of those shown in the photographs. I wonder how they would feel if it was their own relatives who were involved; would they be so willing to allow the public to ogle and stare at images of their family and friends in such an awful and private moment? Death is not a public spectacle. As for the debate over the causes of this terrible fire, I have my doubts that we will ever really know the truth. It would be nice to think that perhaps out of such a tragedy, some good would come; improved fire codes, or the better application of penalties for non-compliance, but realistically, it's not likely to happen. A meaningless and unecessary loss of life, affecting people all over the world, and even reaching our own TF community - we can only pray that it will not happen again.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyoiy Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I was sent an email with pics that I can't believe that anyone would let leak. The faces, though melted into ghastly masks, are clearly recognizable. People literally melted together. Good lord. What a gruesome death. I can't believe that these are not official photos and further that they were allowed to leak into the public domain. That's it what I fear that it gonna happen... and it happened... within a few days only. Before ppl gonna fwd such emails, I dont know why they think they should do that? I remember fwd mail of horrible pics from Tsunami.... unbelieaveable... but still better than if any media publish them.. thats unforgiveable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Mike Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I have to wonder whether his conclusion that the fire was started by fireworks raining down on the roof from another building is accurate. It contradicts other eyewitness accounts, and it's the only version that has it this way. makes me wonder what the (outside) of the roof was made of. it'd be much, much MUCH easier to catch the soundproofing on fire, even with a cigarette or an electrical short, than burn through most types of roof. The ceiling caught fire about 1 minute after the on-stage pyrotechnics went out. But there was still flames burning on stage. The heat from the flames would have been rising to the ceiling. When most flamable materials are exposed to intense heat their combustion point continuously drops until they ignite. Sounds to me this might be what happened. (I know far too much about this kind of stuff becuase my Dad was one of the top authorities on fire fighting in New Zealand for over 30 years.) Neo is exactly right, when most hard surfaces are heated to a certain point it changes their molecular structure into a liquid or gaseous state and it becomes flammable. Even sheet rock and concrete can burn if it gets hot enough. From the photos it is easy to see the metal frames of temporary walls that had burned. Once this fire started in that enclosed environment it burned everything. A simple, 20,000 baht fire sprinkler system would have probably put it out and we would not be having this conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garlic Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I have to wonder whether his conclusion that the fire was started by fireworks raining down on the roof from another building is accurate. It contradicts other eyewitness accounts, and it's the only version that has it this way. makes me wonder what the (outside) of the roof was made of. it'd be much, much MUCH easier to catch the soundproofing on fire, even with a cigarette or an electrical short, than burn through most types of roof. The ceiling caught fire about 1 minute after the on-stage pyrotechnics went out. But there was still flames burning on stage. The heat from the flames would have been rising to the ceiling. When most flamable materials are exposed to intense heat their combustion point continuously drops until they ignite. Sounds to me this might be what happened. (I know far too much about this kind of stuff becuase my Dad was one of the top authorities on fire fighting in New Zealand for over 30 years.) Neo is exactly right, when most hard surfaces are heated to a certain point it changes their molecular structure into a liquid or gaseous state and it becomes flammable. Even sheet rock and concrete can burn if it gets hot enough. From the photos it is easy to see the metal frames of temporary walls that had burned. Once this fire started in that enclosed environment it burned everything. A simple, 20,000 baht fire sprinkler system would have probably put it out and we would not be having this conversation. my old business put a fire system in the first "hooters" in connecticut...the owners of the franchise told me it cut their insurance by 50%...so...no reason to be without one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMatlock Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 my old business put a fire system in the first "hooters" in connecticut...the owners of the franchise told me it cut their insurance by 50%...so...no reason to be without one... Sure there's a reason... The Thai owners would have had to pay money for it. If you've seen how a lot of people here do business, they don't exactly put much thought into the effects of the present on the future. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Big fire in China town too tonight. Can you imagine a fire breaking out while perusing video games at Saphan Lek? Would be a disaster... i'd like my odds better at saphan lek than at mbk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I have to wonder whether his conclusion that the fire was started by fireworks raining down on the roof from another building is accurate. It contradicts other eyewitness accounts, and it's the only version that has it this way. makes me wonder what the (outside) of the roof was made of. it'd be much, much MUCH easier to catch the soundproofing on fire, even with a cigarette or an electrical short, than burn through most types of roof. The ceiling caught fire about 1 minute after the on-stage pyrotechnics went out. But there was still flames burning on stage. The heat from the flames would have been rising to the ceiling. When most flamable materials are exposed to intense heat their combustion point continuously drops until they ignite. Sounds to me this might be what happened. (I know far too much about this kind of stuff becuase my Dad was one of the top authorities on fire fighting in New Zealand for over 30 years.) ace forensics work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeGeneve Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Last week I read that 3 of the Santika owners were finally issued warrants to appear to be interviewed by the police. I was wondering why it took 3 weeks for this to happen? However, this news confirms what many have already suspected. More it seems to indicate systemic failings at all levels of officialdom - hardly a suprised there. Santika 'left alone' after CSD officer bought a stake Bkk Post 27/01/09 (Edited)Police stopped raiding the doomed Santika pub soon after a deputy chief of the Crime Suppression Division became a shareholder in 2006, a panel of investigators has found. The panel looking into operations of the pub _ which was consumed in a deadly inferno early on New Year's Day, killing 66 people _ said no Santika executives had been arrested for breaches since Pol Col Prayont Lasua had bought shares in the pub on Sept 17, 2006. Before Pol Col Prayont bought his shares, police had laid charges against the pub 47 times for operating without a licence. The panel implicated both pub executives and government officials. It was revealed pub executives had failed to pay excise taxes for operating an entertainment venue for the past five years. The panel found the pub earned 250 million baht over the past five years and owed 25 million baht in tax. It also found the signatures of engineers who designed the building and supervised the construction had been falsified. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/10472/santika-left-alone-after-csd-officer-bought-a-stake And now the police have arrested the singer who allegedly lit the fireworks; "Burn" rock-band singer arrested, charged with causing Santika Pub fire The Nation breaking newsPolice Tuesday arrested the singer of the Burn rock band and blamed him for causing the santika Pub fire on New Year's Eve. Sarawut Ariya, the singer, was arrested and charged with negligence causing deaths and injuries. Police said Sarawut was the one who lit a firework, that flew up about 10 metres into the air, causing decorations at the ceiling of the pub to catch fire. Police said the pyrotechnic effects of the pub did not cause fire because they were not high enough to reach the ceiling. Sarawut alerted his band members to flee when he noticed the fire, leaving dozens to be killed and injured. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30094271/ Prays to all of those still in hospital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJack Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Last week I read that 3 of the Santika owners were finally issued warrants to appear to be interviewed by the police. I was wondering why it took 3 weeks for this to happen? However, this news confirms what many have already suspected. More it seems to indicate systemic failings at all levels of officialdom - hardly a suprised there. Santika 'left alone' after CSD officer bought a stake Bkk Post 27/01/09 (Edited)Police stopped raiding the doomed Santika pub soon after a deputy chief of the Crime Suppression Division became a shareholder in 2006, a panel of investigators has found. The panel looking into operations of the pub _ which was consumed in a deadly inferno early on New Year's Day, killing 66 people _ said no Santika executives had been arrested for breaches since Pol Col Prayont Lasua had bought shares in the pub on Sept 17, 2006. Before Pol Col Prayont bought his shares, police had laid charges against the pub 47 times for operating without a licence. The panel implicated both pub executives and government officials. It was revealed pub executives had failed to pay excise taxes for operating an entertainment venue for the past five years. The panel found the pub earned 250 million baht over the past five years and owed 25 million baht in tax. It also found the signatures of engineers who designed the building and supervised the construction had been falsified. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/10472/santika-left-alone-after-csd-officer-bought-a-stake And now the police have arrested the singer who allegedly lit the fireworks; "Burn" rock-band singer arrested, charged with causing Santika Pub fire The Nation breaking newsPolice Tuesday arrested the singer of the Burn rock band and blamed him for causing the santika Pub fire on New Year's Eve. Sarawut Ariya, the singer, was arrested and charged with negligence causing deaths and injuries. Police said Sarawut was the one who lit a firework, that flew up about 10 metres into the air, causing decorations at the ceiling of the pub to catch fire. Police said the pyrotechnic effects of the pub did not cause fire because they were not high enough to reach the ceiling. Sarawut alerted his band members to flee when he noticed the fire, leaving dozens to be killed and injured. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30094271/ Prays to all of those still in hospital. freaking outrageous. why arent the police brought up on charges as well? why cant they find these guys? they take a picture of me and photocopy my passport everytime I leave the country, withdraw money from my savings account or take a sh^t in a public restroom. Thai bureaucracy records everything, doesnt it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMatlock Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 freaking outrageous. why arent the police brought up on charges as well? why cant they find these guys? they take a picture of me and photocopy my passport everytime I leave the country, withdraw money from my savings account or take a sh^t in a public restroom. Thai bureaucracy records everything, doesnt it? On the National Geographic channel, you don't see pirannha eating other pirannha, do you? Sad isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beej Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 What I find curious is that in none of the news reports I have seen so far, both local and foreign, is there any mention of who owns Santika. Interesting point, he/they will be dragged out for sure, I'd put 1000 baht on one of the partners is a policeman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannyboy Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 What I find curious is that in none of the news reports I have seen so far, both local and foreign, is there any mention of who owns Santika. Interesting point, he/they will be dragged out for sure, I'd put 1000 baht on one of the partners is a policeman. beej mate...only in Thailand! It seems the scapegoat is going to be the band's lead singer....Absolute pieces of excrement...I hope they get theirs in the *next life* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beej Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 None of the owners will be held responsible for running an unlicensed death trap. ******* SAD! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.