Breaking News: Plane Crashes into 10 Storey Building in Tehran

Rambuchan

The Funky President
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
13,560
Location
London, England
Happened about an hour ago:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/New...810Z_01_WRI639773_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAN-CRASH.xml

Reuters said:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian military plane carrying at least 94 people crashed in flames into a Tehran apartment block on Tuesday, killing all those on board, police said.

There was no word on casualties on the ground, but a local government official said the apartment block housed about 250 people. "The lives of 250 people are at risk," he said.

A police spokesman told state radio all passengers and crew on board the C-130 transport were killed when it hit a 10-storey building in densely-populated southern Tehran.

Iranian media reported at least 94 people were on board. They quoted witnesses as saying one of the plane's wings was on fire as it came down. The pilot had reported engine trouble.

Schools were closed due to high smog levels, raising fears that more children than usual would have been at home when the plane crashed at 2.10 p.m. (1040 GMT).

The semi-official Fars news agency said at least 40 bodies had been retrieved from the crash site.

"All the people on the plane must be dead. It was horrible, all the bodies were burnt and crushed," a policeman at the scene said.

Another policeman said earlier at least one man had been alive when pulled from the wreckage of the plane. He said the man was on fire but that he and other rescuers had extinguished the flames with a blanket.

"I saw the wing of the plane hit the building, then rushed to the scene. I was the first there. I pulled 30 bodies out of the plane. They were all charred," passerby Hassan Hedayati said, his face covered in dust and hands caked in dried blood.

The official IRNA news agency said 94 people were on board the plane. Fars put the number at 106.

IRNA said the plane was bound for the southern port of Bandar Abbas and most of the passengers were local journalists who were going to cover military exercises in the region.

Iranian reporters and cameramen at the scene were weeping because they knew colleagues on board.

ENGINE TROUBLE

The pilot had reported engine trouble and requested an emergency landing at Tehran's Mehrabad international airport, police told state television.

The apartment block is in the Shahrak-e Towhid neighbourhood inhabited by members of the military and their families. It lies on the flightpath to Mehrabad airport.

"I was sitting in my shop when I saw an airplane moving in the wrong way," said a resident who gave his name as Mohsen.

"We are used to airplanes but I thought: 'Oh my God, this one is going to crash'. Then it struck the building with a big bang and smoke came pouring out," he said.

Police cordoned off the area, trying to keep back scores of anxious residents trying to push past them.

Emergency services were using helicopters, ambulances and buses to evacuate the dead and wounded. Bulldozers also arrived at the scene. Smoke was still pouring out of the building.

Military officials could not be reached for information.

In Iran's last major military air disaster, an Iranian Ilyushin-76 troop carrier crashed in the southeast of the country on February 19, 2003, killing all 276 Revolutionary Guard soldiers and crew aboard.

(Additional reporting by Alireza Ronaghi and Parinoosh Arami)
 
I was half expecting another "A plane has crashed into the Eiffel Tower" type thread...
 
Interesting that the BBC used the same quote.

The Iranian air force is believed to have about 15 ageing US-made C-130s in operation, dating back to before the 1979 Islamic revolution and the US boycott of Iran.

and

Officials blame the high frequency of crashes on a lack of aviation spare parts due to American sanctions.

Edit: This quote might be a bit misleading as it seemed to be a general quote in reply to past plane crashes and it sounds like a politicians response rather than something people actually believe. There is a probably a bit of logic behind it since it will have an affect on maintenance, but if its unsafe don't fly it...
 
Why are there sanctions against Iran? :confused:

If it's about the hostages - that's hardly "evil Iran, good US" (more like "evil US, evil Iran" if it has to be characatured at all)...
 
Steph said:
Iran still operates US aircraft?
Iran doesn't get much else. I'm sure they still have a lot of American weapons from the days of the shah or leftovers of the Iran-Iraq War.
 
Thats a horrible tragedy :( but they can't blame America for something like this. Initialy thought that it was an exaggeration as well.
 
Amazing! A heavy C-130 transport crashes into a 10-story appartment building and the building does not collapse! What hit those WTC Towers then?
Or the Iranian ingeneers are much superior to their American counterparts?
Amasing!
 
Officials blame the high frequency of crashes on a lack of aviation spare parts due to American sanctions.

Yes, blame us because we don't want to trade with people that take over planes hold our citizens hostage and behead them when they get bored. And call for the utter destruction of Israel. Who also elect a former terrorist that has committed these types of actions against the United States as their President. I wonder why we don't trade with them? :mischief:

Yes, blame us when all the other nations of the world could just as easily sell spare parts to the Iranians. When last I checked, the United States didn't encompass the entire globe. So they should change that quote to "Officials blame the high frequency of crashes on a lack of aviation spare parts due to Western sanctions."

@ Harbinger: the 9/11 terrorists were flying 747's, a little bit bigger. They are also jet powered and nearly full of fuel. And the WTC buildings were a few stories higher too.

Floors in WTC: 110
Iranian building: 10

Also, check the numbers involved on the planes in the link (C-130 Hercules and the Boeing 747-400):

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft_comparison.asp
 
Tank_Guy#3 said:
Yes, blame us because we don't want to trade with people that take over planes hold our citizens hostage and behead them when they get bored. And call for the utter destruction of Israel. Who also elect a former terrorist that has committed these types of actions against the United States as their President. I wonder why we don't trade with them? :mischief:
Well, I hope that smilie was recognition of the litany of falsehoods in your post. ;)

1) "Iran takes over planes": Were? When? Show me evidence of Iran doing this please! Hint: You can't, they don't.

2) "Iran calls for the utter destruction of Israel": Unlike any other ME state that isn't 0wned by the US? :lol: And that is a reason for sanctions?? :crazyeye: (note: I know this isn't a falsehood, but using it as a reason for sanctions IS a falsehood, since it's patently NOT why there are sanctions).

3) "Iran has elected a former terrorist": Based on dodgy photos that EVERY expert says is not him? So what evidence do you have other than "it looks a bit like him" (as if every muslim doesn't look the same to you)...

So again, what exactly would you say the reasons are? Not the ones you listed anyway.
 
I just threw the Plane takeovers in there for the Hell of it.

By calling for the destruction of Israel, based on its religion (by my guess), which is like many other ME nations, they are calling directly or indirectly for terrorists to take part in religious terrorism to achieve this goal.

When was the Tehran Hostage Incident, in the early 80's wasn't it? That's quite a long time, a lot can change in 20 some years. I seen before and after pics of relatives spanning 20 years, they look like almost different people. So without question, what was him back then, could have changed by now. Explaining why the photos only look similar to how he looks now.

I have to get to Psych, I'll argue this later.
 
You are right Tank Guy#3!
I just saw the link. C-130 Hercules is really a flea compared with Boing 747!
Really it was just taking off - but probably its fuel tanks were not full - there's such a fuel shortage in Iran! And Iranian buildings are so strongly
built - I just rememberd the recent earthquakes...
Of course those evil Iranians are such terrible terrorists, but it makes you think, doesn't it?
 
OK Tank, but once you get back I want you to admit it's no more likely the president of Iran than any other muslim. Otherwise "it could possibly be him maybe" isn't really an excuse for sanctions right? ;)

As for calling for the destruction of Israel - again, every non-Us-0wned ME state does the same in some respect or another. Is that itself reason for sanctions?

Basically the US made itself an enemy of Iran, not the other way around. Any high-and-mighty attitude on behalf of the US totally undermines the fact that the US created and activly funded/supported the religous fundamentalism in Iran that your country loves to hate so much. One would think that after creating such a dirty mess (just read about the 53 coup and the history of the shah) the US and UK would be bending over backwards to make up for the terrible damage they did to Iranian lives and culture.

But no, lets not even admit that the CIA and MI6 are evil bastards that look after national interest over the lives of millions of ordinary people...

Sorry, this chat is all off topic. I just hate it when people are blind to (recent!) history facts.
 
The_Harbinger said:
And Iranian buildings are so strongly
built - I just rememberd the recent earthquakes...it?

You mean those earthquakes that killed 20,000 people? Those don't sound like very stroung buildings to me.

And by the way, the planes that hit the WTC were boeing 767s.

Anyway, if the Iranians are still flying 30 year old planes with bad maintenence and that have fallen into disrepair then that is their fault and nobody elses.

And its not like its that hard to get spare parts or new avionics for a C-130. Its one of the most produced and exported militarty transports ever made. Just about every country has some. And after all that it could have been pilot error for we know.

Buts I'm not surprised. People will always look for ways to blame stuff on the US. I am surprised that someone hasn't comeforward to suggest that the US shot it down yet.
 
Um... 747 weren't the aircraft that were used in 9/11. They were 757's. Considerably smaller than 747's but still a few tens of feet longer than a C-130 and both have wingspans that differ by a few feet. Of course the C-130 was probably travelling slower than 9/11's 757's and the article doesn't say whether or not that the C-130 was loaded with fuel but a 10 story concrete building still standing with only part of its structure blown off when a 100 story steel building built with the intention of withstanding an aircraft impact but collapsing after an hour, well...

One starts to think...
 
First, I want to extend my sympathies for those killed or otherwise affected by this.

Now, moving to the issue of blaming the US for not selling spare parts, I would still put the blame on whoever okays the aircraft for flight. If it needed parts replaced and they didn't do it, regardless of the reason, it's on the shoulders of whoever said that was okay. We're (the U.S.), just like every other nation in the world, not required to trade with anybody we don't want to.
 
Um... 747 weren't the aircraft that were used in 9/11. They were 757's. Considerably smaller than 747's but still a few tens of feet longer than a C-130 and both have wingspans that differ by a few feet. Of course the C-130 was probably travelling slower than 9/11's 757's and the article doesn't say whether or not that the C-130 was loaded with fuel but a 10 story concrete building still standing with only part of its structure blown off when a 100 story steel building built with the intention of withstanding an aircraft impact but collapsing after an hour, well...

MTOW of C-130: ~140,000 lbs
MTOW of 767: ~400,000 lbs (they were 767s, not 757s)

Besides, the aircraft itself didn't bring down the WTC, it was the resulting fire. This building would almost have to be struck on the very tops floors, whereas the WTC towers were hit on around the 90th floor. With the mass of 30 floors pressing down on that damaged section...well, you can see what happened.

If you honestly can't see the vast difference between the two... well, I'm not wasting my time trying to explain it.
 
Hmmm I'm picturing an episode of Alias going in that plane before it crashed....
 
You are right, Speedo!
The numbers you give are indeed a bit rounded - but that just helps to feel
the real contrast between the "flea" C-130 Hercules and the huge Biong "some_number"! I can't do anything but to agree with you that the
Towers were broth down by the "resulting fire" - indeed it's much less damaging to small buildings. In fact from ingeneering point of view it would be practically harmless to a small mud hut in a small African village. There is an old saying "the bigger they are the harder they fall"...
Thank you for the clarification, Speedo!
 
Back
Top Bottom