Talk:Beijing Television Cultural Center fire

Page Consolidation

It's maddening to see this new entry, given that the story is already being developed on Television Cultural Center and CCTV Headquarters. Great Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire of February, 2009 is cumbersome, misleading, and non-standard. (Why "Great"? Why the comma? This wasn't just a hotel fire.)

Failing a deletion, I would suggest a title revision and some serious consolidation effort. — Doppo145 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that theres 3 seperate articles that appear to developing. But this disaster does have large implications of fire engineering community. In paticular why didnt the buidling fall despite being on fire for 5 hours? 'Great' perhaps not yet, but it will have serious consequences to Fire building design not just in China but outside china. If you want to rename it to something like 'Beijing Television Cultural Center fire' or "Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire" thats okay with me, so the article is easier to find. It is a disaster and many other disasters have their own article specifically and ensuing investigations. So far the article is well sourced and notable. And if delted will likely be recreated anyway in time. If your worried about tone and it seems to bash Chinese media behaviour, thats the facts at this time, it might change. But there defineatly will be a continued interest into this. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As response to merging; An example of where i might see this article going can be seen here Cornwall Court Fire. This is just to illustrate that these incidences have their own article if propely developed. Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Propose change of name

Beijing Television Cultural Center fire would be more suitable, the official name of the building is Television Cultural Center, or TVCC, as different to CCTV. Arilang ^talk 03:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That would stop my complaining, i say go for it Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, since there is no objection, I agree with user Ottawa4ever, and proceed to move this article to Beijing Television Cultural Center fire. Arilang ^talk 20:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Without realising that this article had been created, I started the article China Central Television Cultural Centre, copied from the Chinese article. Most of the content is still in Chinese. I believe that the building and topic are tightly related (and the possibility that the building may be demolished), perhaps we need to merge the articles? Why the article for TVCC should redirect here is not sufficiently justified, IMHO. It seems to me more logical to have the fire as a major section in the article about the building, than a redirect going the other way. This is the same as zh:2009年中國中央電視台新大樓大火 redirecting to zh:中央電視台新大樓北配樓 Ohconfucius (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

@user Ohconfucius, you are a more experienced editor than me, you do whatever you think best, I agree with you, because I do not fully understand all these re-directions. Arilang ^talk 03:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought

I object to user Ohconfucius proposed redirection:

1. More than likely the burnt building would be demolished, that means TVCC(building) would be knocked down and rebuilt with another new(or yet to be announced name). That means TVCC(building) would become a historical name. So I think an article with the name TVCC fire says more than a mere TVCC(building), plus the fact that the future main content would have to be consisted of discussions center around the fire, instead of the building.
2. The name TVCC fire would be more relevent to future dicussions such as:(1) What was the reasons, or motives, behind the CCTV's putting large amount of chemical explosive inside the building, as can be clearly seen on large amount of live videos recorded by many Beijing residents, judging by the colors of the fire, because different and distinct colors show when different chemicals burn.
3. Legal questions yet to be asked: Did the Beijing police knew anything about the fact that CCTV was using 4 cameras to film the whole firework display? Did any Beijing police know how much Industrial strength high explosive was transported and stored in municipal Beijing?
4. When would Chinese government going to conduct a transparent and open investigation towards this kind of disaster, or may be they would just jail a couple of people as scapegoats (代罪羊)?
5. The question:Why the outer layer Zinc-titanium alloy so easily catch fire would be asked again and again, also, how many more modern buildings are covered in this flammable stuff?
6. Comparison with Twin towers of 911 fame, and why didn't TVCC building collapse after 5 or 6 hours of intense fire?
7. Fire prevention technology, why was it not applied in TVCC building, as it was being occupied in 2008 Summer Olympic, had the fire started then, how many more people would have been killed? Or, how many high-rise buildings in China have(or have not) installed modern anti-fire sprinkling system?
8. Chinese netizens humorous responses show that Chinese netizens were happy to see the multi-millions dollars building go up in smoke, it would be another topic for sociologists to explore.

All these yet to be discussed topics would be more suitable under a title TVCC fire, instead of TVCC (building), so I object to user Ohconfucius's proposed re-direction. Arilang ^talk 03:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You make excellent points above. The fire is only a week old the investigation will lead to some serious findings. One coulod argue the chinese media wouldnt allow this information to get out, but the building plans are available as the firm is not specifically chinese. The major issue i see is the WTC7 collapse versus this building. Although i know for a fact you cant compare these two very very different buildings people will, and alot of controversey will come out from this. It will hoever be very intriginug to see why the building didnt collapse. This article could be very well developed as a fire article, it just needs time. I would repeat whay Arilang says above again but you can read that over I agree with everything the last fact which i think is trivia but thats because i dont know much about that subject. Heres my vote, Ill rebuttel if necessary oppose any merge or redirection Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Humorous and sarcastic responses..." Section

I'm proposing the removal of the "Humorous and sarcastic responses from Chinese Netizens" section from this article. Looking at WP:NOT it seems to violate "Wikipedia is not a blog..." and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". In addition, the responses from major media section doesn't seem all that appropriate either. Quotes from two iReporters doesn't really reflect a response from CNN about the story, however since some of the information from that section seem to be more useful. Perhaps some of it could be incorporated into appropriate sections of the article, or the section could be consolidated. Anyway, if there's no objections, I'll proceed with the removal of the section (if someone else doesn't do it first). FantajiFan (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Objection to removal of "Humorous and sarcastic responses..." Section:

1. Editor who can read Chinese can easily find out from Chinese blogosphere that nearly 100% of Chinese netizens do not express feelings of sad or sorrow towards this disaster. Alternatively, non-Chinese readers can use online Google translator to help them, though the translation is not 100%, still non-Chinese readers can get some degree of understanding of the current feelings of Chinese netizens, which are reputed to be 250 millions strong.
2. Wikipedia editor's job is to provide information supported with verifiable secondary source, which is exactly what this section is doing. Arilang ^talk 02:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I originally thought that it appeared as trivia but from what im seeing now it lends more to cultural, if its sourced I beleve it to be notable. I think at this time its incorporated into the article (which doesnt make it trivia) and as said before you can find this yourself with a text translator (im surprised how many people dont know how to use these to verify sources). For blogs though they will need a more offical source if this can be done as its not really offical (just replace with a citation needed and find a better source) before deleting. As for a recent edit that consolidated headlines Im going revert the edit as i beleive it takes away from a proper fire article that has been made on other wiki pages, its a disaster it needs headlines to seperate causes, investigation etc. The information will trickle out give it time, dont delete everything right away. (The headlines for the humour/sarcastic/ diffferent media section I would not fully object to a better organization. Not to go too far with the media thing but different medias have diffrent interests, I did revert a vandalism attempt traced back to ctv (canadian) on this page before that deleted a mass amount of text, I think different media views are a valid section that can potentially be devloped (give a bit more time). Willing to discuss Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the comments by "Jeremy Goldkorn, editor of a website that tracks Chinese media, said that among China's young, educated and urban, the stodgy network has long been a subject of ridicule, both for its low production values and its propagandistic news coverage." is a little pushing the topic. The network may have news censor problems, but what does he mean by low production value. That is hardly a fair statement. Benjwong (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We can argue forever about what netizens said or didn't say, plus it is not wiki editor's job to make moral judgments on contents on blogosphere. If the content is notable, and verifiable secondary sources, then it can be included. Arilang ^talk 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk first then remove?

Could user Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso give some reasons on talk page first, before any further removal of contents. I know items on Boxun.com mostly are anti-communist and anti-Chinese establishment, that do not mean that all articles on Boxun.com have to be automatically deleted from China-related wiki articles Arilang ^talk 05:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Awwww. I deleted some subsections' headers and moved some lines, but I didn't remove anything, and I never heard of this Boxun before. May I change it back now?--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Boxun.com is a website operated by Chinese dissidents living overseas, based in US. Many prominent dissidents blog here, and most of the news item are from within China's whistle blowers. Arilang ^talk 00:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the main story that comes with this disaster at this time is the media involvement both abroad and in china. For those reasons i think setting the article up where it can be sorted works very well with the headers(Keep in mind this is a young article) Without them also its easy to remove information easily. Also in terms of the fire event in general, as far as I know ARUP hasnt commented on the structure I m sure when they do the page will flood with 'myth debunkers' and what not at the present state the article models other disaster articles, which allows for easy sorting of information as it comes along with the headers if not there should be more in that section. Presently on further reflection I think the article format isnt objectional and I beleive it works at this time providing additional information becomes available in the near future. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The fire happened more than a week ago, what makes you think there will be substantially more coverage on an accident that destroyed an unfinished building in China and claimed the life of "only" one man? You shouldn't plan the current layout based on further reports that may or may not be released in the future.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Various issues are listed above ("On second thought" for ref) about the fire and the building by arilang, but until the engineering firm reports (which will have to soon) on these its just speculation. To reiterate, the very fact that the building did not fall, opposed to the wtc 7 building is enough to cause a stir and is a very big deal to alot of people (Engineers will say this is explaianable) myth or truth seekers will say otherwise. The consequences of a disaster are not just measured as in `one man` being killed, but the lessons learned effect other buildings, codes, etc, and not just in china. Every proper investigation goes through a series of steps, and you can see this for yourself in other articles where the format is very simmilar in that the sub sections deal with incidences, causualties, aftermath etc, in this case theres another levl to it the media interest and censorship. The current layout at this point fosters development of the article, removing the headers at this point (and pockets of text) reduces the scope of the article, and makes the building fire as you inferred nothing more than a disaster that only claimed the life of "only" one man.Ottawa4ever (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Caijing article to br translated

Caijing article to be translated《财经》记者 欧阳洪亮 罗昌平

央视大火“烧出”工程腐败，审计署介入

元宵夜的火灾，亦使公司化运作和新址建设中的“黑洞”端倪渐显

《财经》记者 欧阳洪亮 罗昌平

　　在中央电视台新台址（下称央视新址）大火发生半月之后，指向渎职侵权的调查已获新的突破，共约20名涉案嫌犯被北京市公安局采取措施。

　　2009年2月9日晚8时20分左右，农历元宵之夜，央视新址因其工作人员擅自雇用烟花公司违规燃放A类烟花，导致北配楼起火并持续近六个小时。事故导致一死七伤（参见《财经》2009年第4期“追问央视新址大火”）。

　 　案发当夜22时许，央视副总工程师、新台址建设工程办公室（下称央视新址办）主任徐威，即被北京市公安局朝阳分局呼家楼派出所带走，监控在一家宾馆。相 继被查的还有现场三名央视新址办工作人员，以及负责现场燃放礼花的湖南浏阳三湘烟花制造公司的八名员工。上述12人因涉嫌危险物品肇事罪，成为第一批被刑 事拘留者。

　　2月19日，北京警方再刑拘五名涉案嫌犯。其中包括运输烟花爆竹的司机，以及帮助联系现场燃放公司的中间人等。

• 政府及央视未充分说明大火事件*

   北京资深的媒体人凌沧洲和中国青年报的资深编辑李大同都认为，在央视火灾上，无论是政府还是当事人中央电视台都没有给公众足够的解释。凌沧洲说，如果文章确实报导失实的地方，有关部门可以通过司法的手段来澄清这个事情。因为民众对这个事件有知情权。
   
   他说：“那么就是说央视的大火，你也知道，激起了民众这种很多看热闹的反应。民众有很多猜测，网上有很多帖子。我想大火应该一查到底，(看看)里面有没有腐败。那现在又封杀这种声音，那恐怕这里面就更印证了这里有腐败的(嫌疑)。”
   
   中国青年报的资深编辑李大同基本认同凌沧洲的看法。他表示，当局之所以对央视新址大楼着火感到敏感是因为，民众对于火灾普遍流露出一种幸灾乐祸的心态。
   
   他说：“央视的事情当然是敏感了。它是第一喉舌，第一强势媒体，第一垄断媒体，它都占全了。但是最重要的原因还是它这个火着起来以后，网友们、网 民们普遍的反应是幸灾乐祸。这个当局很明显迅速注意到了这一点。那么说当然得控制，不能让这种情绪蔓延开来。各个新闻媒体只能登新华社的东西，而且网络上 不许有照片，不许有视频。那么对这样一个大火，它实际上对公众交待上是不够的。”
   
   根据《财经》杂志这篇被删除的文章，央视的新址园区原本计划投资76.66亿元。后来工期一拖再拖，资金也一涨再涨。到目前为止已经耗资120多亿，另有70多亿元的新设备费用。   _ 

　　北京市警方、检方的调查并不止于渎职侵权，还延展至央视新址工程的经济问题。《财经》记者从多个渠道获知，承揽央视新址工程B标段（即北配楼）的北京城建集团一名项目负责人受到办案部门调查；中央电视台排名第五的副台长、央视新址园区法定代表人李晓明亦被调查。

　 　《财经》记者调查确证，上述约20名被调查人员中，央视新址办原主任徐威、新址办综合业务处副处长邓炯慧、北京大新恒太传媒科技发展有限公司（下称大新 恒太）董事长沙鹏，均已聘请辩护律师。沙鹏同时也有央视员工身份，围绕其名下公司在央视新址工程中的大宗业务，成为调查机关线索突破的关键所在。

徐威身后

　　据《财经》记者从接近办案的人士处获悉，徐威在被刑事拘留后，交待了诸多问题，已经超越简单的火灾渎职行为。据透露，徐威交待的问题涉及央视新址建设诸项工程招投标经济问题，“徐威之后还有谁，尚未可知”。

　　中央电视台现任台长赵化勇1999年2月主政央视以来，中央电视台经营业务向公司化、多元化方向发展。央视新址建设亦以公司化模式进行。2008年2月，赵化勇曾在中央电视台工作会议报告中称，2003年正式启动的新址建设工程，经过五年奋战，已经取得决定性胜利。

　　一年后的此番大火，则使公司化运作和新址建设中的“黑洞”端倪渐显。

　 　根据现行体制，隶属国家广电总局的中央电视台，为副部级事业单位。其最高决策机构为央视党组，下设行政、采编、经营、技术四个委员会。在行政委员会之 下，2001年3月新设立央视新址筹建办，由央视副台长李晓明任法定代表人，副总工程师、技术管理办公室主任徐威兼任主任，负责新址建设筹备。2005年 获得广电总局批文后，新址办正式成立，徐威开始全面负责央视新址建设。

　　对应于此，2003年，央视与北京市第一家专门从事建设项 目全过程管理的企业——北京国金管理咨询有限公司，联合成立了北京央视国金工程管理有限公司（下称央视国金），对央视新址建设实行公司化运作，由徐威任法 定代表人。徐威得以掌控央视200亿元新址建设资金的运作。

　　地处北京CBD核心区域的央视新址园区，于2005年4月28日开 工，内含位于园区西南侧的CCTV主楼、西北侧的TVCC电视文化中心（即起火的北配楼，含文华东方酒店）、东北角的能源服务中心。早在2001年，原国 家计委“[2001]2795”号文批复，央视新址工程项目获准立项，总投资76.66亿元；其中央视自有资金55.17亿元，银行贷款21.49亿元。

　　此后，央视新址建设工期一延再延，项目资金也一再上涨。至2004年8月，国家发改委的批文增加资金至78.91亿元。至今，央视新址工程的建设投资已达120余亿元，另有70多亿元新设备费用。据悉，央视搬迁新址将全部使用新设备，原设备将留原址备用。

　　在担任新址办主任之前，徐威在央视任职近20年，一直为技术人员，曾多次参加央视的大型宣传节目和重大报道活动的技术方案制订和组织实施工作，自2000年12月起任技术管理办主任。

　　为何新址建设没有让基建处或者后勤部门主抓，而让一个技术负责人牵头？熟知内情的央视内部人员称，原因之一可能是徐威与央视副台长、央视新址园区法定代表人李晓明是大学同学，关系密切。

　　在周围人的印象中，徐威为人灵活而豪爽义气。其中学同学忆述：“每次同学聚会，都是徐威为大家埋单。”在同学眼里，徐威当年在班上并不起眼，但毕业后混最好。

　　《财经》记者获悉，2月9日央视大火当晚，李晓明即被办案部门传讯，旋即回家。第二天，李再度被传讯。接近李晓明的人表示，火灾后，副台长李晓明接受了办案部门调查，但并未被控制，2月24日，依旧见到李晓明在台里上班。

烟花牵出关联公司

　　元宵夜的烟花不仅是火灾元凶，亦是经济问题调查的主要突破口。

　　从2007年开始，央视连续三年安排在新址园区燃放烟花，其中2007年放了价值约30万元的烟花，2008年放了约50万元的烟花。此次引起大火的烟花燃放号称100万元，据央视内部人士透露，实际价值约35万元。

　　据《财经》记者从业内了解，烟花行业回扣高达30％。经销商获利丰厚。

　　接近案件的人士告诉《财经》记者，央视新址办多次燃放的烟花，均采购自浏阳三湘公司。初步调查，仅此批烟花，徐威即从三湘公司获得约8万元现金回扣。这成为徐威涉嫌经济问题的直接突破口。

　　进一步调查发现，央视新址办采购此批700余发烟花，全由大新恒太走账。火灾发生当晚，大新恒太董事长沙鹏被控制，接着被刑事拘留。

　　大新恒太业务主要为针对央视新址建设提供设备、软件、系统设计、系统集成等。大新恒太成立于2006年1月，500万元注册资本由央视国金全资注入，徐威为该公司第一任法定代表人。自此之后，大新恒太走上了一条由内部人控制的“私有化”之路。

　　2006年4月12日，央视国金将所持股权转让给影响传媒有限公司。影响传媒有限公司亦长期依托于央视承揽广告、咨询和培训业务。

　　不过，在成功中标央视的多哈亚运会转播设备采购项目、“专用采编四（SATA）”项目两笔业务后，影响传媒有限公司即从大新恒太全身退出，将股权转让给李鷷、赵军、沙鹏、沈旭、赵序霞五名自然人。

　　《财经》记者查证，李鷷又名李明桦，系沙鹏女友，现任央视国金财务部副经理、央视文化中心财务总监，为徐威下属；赵军、沙鹏亦为央视新址办员工，五人均与徐威关系亲密。

　 　此后的2007年，大新恒太公司的股东变动频繁。当年7月9日，沈旭、赵序霞退出，黄丽芳进入；11月17日，北京亚细亚智业科技有限公司向大新恒太注 资500万元，使后者注册资本增至1000万元。2007年11月23日至今，李鷷、黄丽芳、亚细亚公司退出。此后，该公司股权再未发生变化，1000万 元注册资本由五名自然人分持，其中，罗凤娇330万元、赵军310万元、沙鹏180万元、李小冬150万元、赵序霞30万元。

　　上述人员中，赵军、赵序霞两人均为央视新址办员工，且在关键部门任职；其中，赵序霞系徐威在电视技术设备和软件工程方面多年合作的伙伴，在新址开始建设后，调入新址办。

　 　根据公开资料显示，大新恒太成立三年以来，至少经营了与央视新址工程有关的七宗业务，标的总金额过亿元。如2007年，仅在央视新址工程，即承揽了弱电 工程B标段及A标段服务楼弱电网络系统设备材料供应项目、基础应用系统集成和软件开发项目；2008年，又获得奥运节目光传输设备，以及新址工程中的B标 段酒店客房AV系统设备材料招标项目；等等。

微妙的“责任分担”

　　据《财经》记者了解，在徐威、沙鹏被刑拘后，央视有关方面即为两名当事人聘请了代理律师。

　　其中，徐威的律师在接手此案之后，曾就责任归属提出三点法律意见：一是此工程是否交付，若未交付，施工方是否承担责任；二是当夜燃放烟花，是徐威个人行为还是单位行为；三是烟花公司在A类烟花的运输与燃放过程中是否担责。

　　接近案件调查的人士告诉《财经》记者，目前如何鉴定这三方的责任，专家组仍存在争议。据初步核查结果，徐威的行为显然是单位行为。当晚烟花燃放时，央视安排了四台专业摄像机，“现场录制焰火中的央视新址，以备存档今后用于电视节目中”。

　　上述人士介绍，目前偏向于业主单位央视负主要责任，施工方、烟花公司负不同程度的次要责任。 　　湖南三湘烟花制造有限公司目前被刑拘的员工共九人，为所涉当事各方身陷最深者。2月17日上午，三湘烟花公司董事长戴剑虹在电话中告诉《财经》记者：“北京市公安局已派人来公司，正在调查此事。”

　 　据新华社报道中引述的北京警方人士的话称，在新近五名被拘留人员中，包括运输烟花爆竹的司机、帮助司机躲避警方检查绕行小路的带路人，以及帮助联系现场 燃放公司的中间人等。根据《北京市烟花爆竹安全管理规定》，北京对烟花爆竹实行专营制度，单位和个人必须从具有许可证的销售网点购买烟花爆竹，私自从外省 市购买烟花爆竹被明令禁止。非但如此，北京市还规定，在该市行政区域内运输烟花爆竹，应当取得公安机关的运输许可，否则不得运输。

　　不过，针对三湘烟花公司的责任，各界说法不一。徐威的辩护律师认为，烟花公司应该承担运输和燃放A类烟花的申报责任；但反对的声音认为，三湘烟花公司受雇于央视新址办，后者才是直接的责任方。

　　随着施工方北京城建集团一名项目负责人被调查，此案又已引起对工程建设与实施的关注。

　 　2月13日，央视召开高层会议，通报了火灾现场勘察的初步结果：央视新址北配楼着火后，燃烧主要集中在钛合金下面的保温层，具有表皮过火的特点。大楼保 温层使用的材料是国家推荐使用的新型节能保温材料，这种材料燃烧后过火极快，因此瞬间从北配楼顶部蔓延到整个大楼，这次火灾是新中国成立以来建筑物过火燃 烧最快的一例。

　　北京市消防局副局长、新闻发言人骆原告诉记者，火灾蔓延如此之快，与建筑材料、建筑物高度都有直接关系。

　　据北京市消防局提供的资料，起火的电视文化中心共30层，高159米，建筑面积103648平方米，主体结构为钢筋混凝土结构，外立面装修材料南北侧为玻璃幕墙，东西立面为钛锌板，外墙保温材料为挤塑板等。

　 　由此看来，此次大火虽为“人祸”，但大楼防火不达标的保温材料“挤塑板”亦是“帮凶”。此次失火的央视新址B标段，其幕墙工程由中山盛兴股份公司承建。 2005年11月21日下午，央视和中山盛兴关于北配楼幕墙工程签约仪式在北京建国门外长富宫饭店举行，央视副台长李晓明亲自出席签约仪式。

　 　中山盛兴股份公司副总经理冯国敏对《财经》记者表示，有关幕墙防火材料是否达标的问题，相关部门已经在进行调查，目前不方便表态。《财经》记者获得的一 份《防火审核意见书》显示，北京市消防局曾对央视新址共提出26条消防整改措施，其中八条涉及北配楼，如“地上14层采用扩大防烟前室代替避难层”，“5 层、27层、28层厨房所用的燃气管道要从地下一层进线处穿越防火分区”等，均不符合防火规范。可见，施工方在消防方面的疏忽，以及元宵之夜未劝阻业主方 燃放烟花，也存在责任。 善后之局

　　而今，火后的央视新址北配楼仍被封锁，一侧的三环路边，常有人驻足留影。其是拆是修，为人们所关注。

　 　2月13日，央视召开高层会议内部通报称，专家组认为，北配楼过火后，由外墙往里损失逐渐减轻，越往外损失越严重。大楼朝南、朝北方向的窗户玻璃没有破 碎，室内的物品基本完好。玻璃破碎的房间大都只在窗户附近有火烧情况。“初步判断，大楼主体结构基本没有问题，挂幕墙的金属网架整体也基本完好，钢筋混凝 土结构没有受到损伤，承载屋顶的桁架没有发生明显变形，但个别部位需要修补。”

　　然而，央视此次会议所述的“专家组”，邀请的是建筑专家。他们初步形成的结论不具有法律效力，亦未获得建设、消防主管部门的认同。

　 　据《财经》记者了解，建设部、北京市消防局的联合调查组，国家安监总局的独立专家局，仍在进行勘察工作，目前均未正式发表调查结论。一位建筑装饰专家对 《财经》记者表示，他对央视内部通报持谨慎态度，认为其中某些细节难以置信，比如“大楼朝南、朝北方向的窗户玻璃没有破碎的，室内的物品基本完好”，是“ 基本不可能的”。

　　接近调查组的一位人士称，一名受央视邀请现场勘察的建筑专家口头表达了两条意见：长达六小时的高温燃烧导致结构强度大大下降，受力状况明显改变，安全隐患很大；作为全球瞩目的中国标志性建筑，加之处于华北地震带和北京中央商务区，不容许再次发生任何意外。

　　“烧了五六个小时，楼的主体结构也差不多了。”参与北配楼前期设计的建筑师吴朝辉说。

　　另一位主张拆除大楼的建筑专家告诉《财经》记者，如果不拆除，修补的资金远比拆除的少。但对未来的央视接任者来说，不拆除，可能意味要时刻应对一个“定时炸弹”。

　　大火和徐威被拘，亦使得央视电视文化中心面临着善后之局。

　 　失火的央视电视文化中心（TVCC），由央视所属的中广影视卫星有限责任公司与中国国际电视总公司于2007年4月共同出资组建，是新址建设工程以及中 央电视台媒体经营业务的重要组成部分。至失火时，电视文化中心已完成投资20多亿元；2009年年前，央视资产登记时，核定为30亿元。

　　电视文化中心核心产业为央视华汇时代剧院和文华东方酒店。文华东方酒店拥有241间豪华客房及高档配套设施，原计划酒店于2008年中开业，但一直拖延到2009年火灾被烧毁，依旧没有开业。大火过后，酒店开业将无限期后延。

　　央视华汇时代剧院在2008年完工开始承揽演出业务，作为开幕大戏的《陪我看电视》已经签约并进行广告宣传，原计划于2009年3月18日上演，演出票都已经售出。火灾后，必须临时终止演出更换场地，央视电视文化中心将面临系列合同纠纷。

　　2月13日，中央电视台台长赵化勇主持召开的央视高层会议决定，央视新址主体大楼的搬迁计划不变，仍在今年国庆节前后陆续进行。

　　央视内部人士告诉《财经》记者，61岁的赵化勇本应在2008年正常退休。火灾发生之后，赵化勇全力投入善后事宜，中央电视台日常工作由第一副台长张长明全权负责。

　　据悉，国家审计署2009年专项计划中，将包括对中央电视台管理层的离任审计，并延伸审计央视新址工程。

http://bbs1.people.com.cn/postDetail.do?boardId=1&treeView=1&view=2&id=90993684

目前，这篇题为“央视大火‘烧出’工程腐败，审计署介入”的文章已经无法从《财经》杂志的网站上找到。然而通过“谷歌”搜索引擎搜索可以发现，这篇文章在 中国很多论坛上都有转载。但是点击进入后发现不是文章已被删除，就是链接不存在等错误提示。目前只有《人民日报》“强国论坛”上保留了这篇文章的转载。

Category:Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group

copied from my talk page Ohconfucius (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going through the list of Mandarin Oriental articles and adding the existing Category:Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group and you reversed this cat for this article. Despite the official name of the building: - Mandarin Oriental is the primary tenant which is referenced in the article. - The fire is referenced in the main Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group article by other contributurs. - There is an existing redirect from Great Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire of February, 2009 Based on those three items, I'm reinserting the cat. If you still disagree, let's cut and paste this discussion into the article and see if other contributors can help us reach a decision.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• I believe it is not relevant to this article. Had the article been entitled Beijing Television Cultural Center, it could arguably be included. However, if the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Beijing article existed, it would belong to the category:Beijing Television Cultural Center as well as Category:Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"high explosive pyrotechnic devices" ?

The Wikipedia article mentions "high explosive pyrotechnic devices" as the cause of the fire. The article on the Malaysian Insider's site at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/world/article/Credibility-of-CCTV-tarnished-by-big-fire cited as the source makes no mention of high explosives. High explosives are exceedingly rare in pyrotechnic fireworks. Except under very unusual conditions, high-order explosives do not produce the kinds of effects pyrotechnicians desire.

Another thing, the Wikipedia article says the fire started on the roof. The article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html?_r=0 says the fire spread from the lower floors up, which is the opposite. 108.205.30.247 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Beijing Television Cultural Center fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212111611/http://oma.eu:80/index.php?option=com_projects&view=portal&id=388&Itemid=10 to http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_projects&view=portal&id=388&Itemid=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518043124/http://www.arup.com:80/eastasia/feature.cfm?pageid=4000 to http://www.arup.com/eastasia/feature.cfm?pageid=4000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301210842/http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download582.pdf to http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download582.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.cctv.com/china/20090210/101207.shtml.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213212443/http://www.cbn.com:80/cbnnews/538581.aspx to http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/538581.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604120236/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=10&art_id=78230&sid=22727166&con_type=1&d_str=20090216&sear_year=2009 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=10&art_id=78230&sid=22727166&con_type=1&d_str=20090216&sear_year=2009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604110825/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=10&art_id=94917&sid=27171652&con_type=1&d_str=20100224&sear_year=2010 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=10&art_id=94917&sid=27171652&con_type=1&d_str=20100224&sear_year=2010

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beijing Television Cultural Center fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721182213/http://www.boxun.us/news/publish/chinanews/Why_Reporting_on_CCTV_Complex_Fire_Censored.shtml to http://www.boxun.us/news/publish/chinanews/Why_Reporting_on_CCTV_Complex_Fire_Censored.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720124639/http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/18432-credibility-of-cctv-tarnished-by-big-fire to http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/18432-credibility-of-cctv-tarnished-by-big-fire

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)