Talk:Demolition

Initial posts

Why is this page redirecting to Talk:Demolition (Ryan Adams album)? ⇒ whkoh [talk] 07:32, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Probably an error on my part when I did the disambiguation page. Zack 22:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category: Urban planning / upgrading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.18.10 (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

"Implosion"

Just because the structure collapses onto itself due to the proper application of explosives does not make it an "implosion." - Dr Haggis - Talk 01:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Implosion is what demolitions people call it. Zack — Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The term is still incorrect. "Implosion" in this case is a PR term so people don't freak out about a building being brought down with explosives. - Dr Haggis - Talk 18:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is descriptivist rather than prescriptivist, so there is no such thing as an "incorrect" word. If it is the term that people generally use, which is true in this case, then it is correct. - SimonP 19:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I never planned on changing the article, but I cringe every time someone uses this term. ;) - Dr Haggis - Talk 19:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What we really need is some discussion of this issue at the implosion article. It mentions that buildings are only "colloquially described to implode," but never states why this is not a wholly accurate use of the term. - SimonP 21:52, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

World Trade Center

I would like to question the following statement:

"Many of the dangers of a building's demolition can be seen in the destruction of the World Trade Center by terrorists in 2001; its collapse caused a domino effect of destroying several neighbouring buildings"

Which buildings were "dominoed" into? If this is in reference to the collapse of WTC 7, then this is incorrect. It certainly did not collapse from damage by the towers, in fact, a VERY strong case can be made for controlled demolition, so perhaps this should be mentioned here! www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.50.147 (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

And i would question another statement. From what i've seen on some documentaries, nitroglycerine has long been phased out of demolitions because of safety concerns and costs. TNT was also phased out (although not completely) by ANFO mixtures with electronic blasting caps. Is this correct? Also, I think the reference to the WTC attacks is uncalled for since this page is about demolition and the attacks can't really be classified as such, otherwise the article would have to be greatly expanded to incluide military munitions and the such.--Lyojah 10:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea that WTC 7 was destroyed by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is bogus. What evidence is their for this? Rather WTC 7 collapsed like the two big towers: as if it were a controlled demolition. Indeed, Silverstein spoke of 'pulling' the building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianct (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

image

I have taken this photo http://www.mollusca.cz/demolition.jpg What is this machine? I will add it to commons then. --Snek01 11:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be some sort of pile driver. - SimonP 12:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Added as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pile_driver.jpg --Snek01 06:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's actually a hole-boring machine. It bores deep holes in the ground; indeed, one can be used to drill a hole in the ground for a pile, but this machine will turn the portion of the vertical pipe with hole in it. It looks to me like it is drilling a hole for a foundation; presumably the concrete from the cistern-thing on the right will fill it. KeepOnTruckin 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it could be vertical boring machine. But I do not understand it much. I do not understand termilogogy at all. Could it be upsetting press or compacting press used at demolition area to crush debris? The photo was taken near the building beeing demolished. --Snek01 19:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What's objectionable about noting that controlled demolitions are often termed "pull" ?

It's one sentence for clarity in an article that once did succinctly convey this knowledge but now obscures it. I'm curious to know the reason for the reversion which removed the important line:
The term "pull" is often used in reference to demolition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotick (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly that it isn't a very common term. It doesn't appear in any of the major dictionaries I checked, and is pretty much only referenced in 9/11 conspiracy literature. - SimonP 13:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's objectionable because it is a lie. Demolition is not referred to as "pulling," the act of pulling something is. See World Trade Center 6. Gazpacho 01:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are either of you commenting from factual knowledge, or just more opinion? I believe this term was removed based upon opinion. PBS broadcast a documentary interview with Larry Silverstein in which he explained how the NYC fire chief told him they were going to "pull it"; Mr. Silverstein then mentions "pull" again. I've also heard the president of Controlled Demolitions, Inc. mention "pull" in relation to demolition. Moreover, at least one '9/11 conspiracy type' video makes numerous references to the term "pull," even presenting footage of the cleanup crew clearly mentioning "pull" in relation to demolishing the remaining WTC5 and WTC6 structures. I'll gladly provide links to publicly available videos and other literature to demonstrate that, contrary to your unsourced assertions, "pull" a is a term which quite often refers to controlled demolition. Please advise; I'd like to see this important sentence returned to the main article as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotick (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see World Trade Center 6. Gazpacho 12:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the WTC6 page you suggested, but I don't understand what you imply it shows, other than that they 'pulled the building down with cables'? I also do not understand what you meant by "It's objectionable because it is a lie." It's no lie; I'm serious and genuine, and I believe the comment "pull" was removed from the main entry for some unsubstantiated and indefensible reason. I'd like the term "pull" as a reference to demolition restored to the main entry.

Do you posess any official recognition or standing in the demolition industry? What is your basis for assuming editorial control over this entry?

What type or amount of "proof" would adequately demonstrate that the term "pull" is a common, industry-standard reference to controlled demolition? Would letters from CD companies suffice? How about online video footage, or transcripts of existing movies? Another encyclopedia entry? Citations from book, perhaps?

Truth and accuracy matters. What you've called a lie, I think, is incorrect and baseless. I'd like to see the quality and accuracy of this information broadened and improved. What is the procedure for this? What "proof" is required?

Patriotick 10:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A citation from a book on demolition saying this is a common term would certainly be a sufficient source to have this included. - SimonP 12:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

... which you will not find, unless it is a 9/11 conspiracy tract, and not a book on demolition as such. Because what you claim isn't true. I've seen the relevant video footage.Gazpacho 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming in a TV interview Mr. Silverstein would use a term supposedly referring to demolitions presumes many facts not supported by evidence. Mr. Silverstein was not a demolitionist. I have searched the internet and been unable to find the term used in any way regarding explosive demolitions, prior to 9/11. Ockham’s Razor posits Mr. Silverstein could just as easily stumbled in his words, meaning to say they were going to “pull out of” it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.195.194 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

WTC Demolition deletion

I took the liberty on removing that paragraph because it was all speculation. It has not been proven that the World Trade Center was brought down by demolition. Let's not turn this into an argument. I only removed it because it isn't supported by evidence, and the mainstream does not believe this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Sandwich (talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove such material from this article on sight. WillOakland (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Not judging the merits of the theory - the insertion just doesn't belong since it doesn't add useful info about the subject of the article. imo. Zeng8r (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily go for conspiracy theories, but a demolition is a demolition. The evidence is that people brought down the towers by crashing airplanes into them and letting the fires burn. Since this brought down the towers, that counts as a demolition. (Note: Osama bin Laden may have originally intended to demolish only the top portions of the towers - see http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-12-13/news/17632552_1_laden-bin-building-and-collapse - but he failed to take the effects of progressive collapse into account, which turned a partial demolition into a complete demolition.) I am unsure if 7 WTC counts as a demolition, as Bin Laden was not targeting that building. 68.37.254.48 (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it relevant that "the mainstream does not believe" X ... can you cite some wikipedia policy that instructs editors to take into account the "belief" of "the mainstream"? 76.91.13.137 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

New method

I saw a video in youtube Daruma-otoshi skyscraper demolition about a new sophisticated method by Kajima Corporation. I tried to find something about that here, but I cuoldn't find it. Anyone knows about this? --Anothercountry (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Original History of the Term

Is anyone interested in adding the origin of the term to "raze" into this article? It comes from ancient history as the razing of cities through various methods have been around since the beginning of civilization, mostly because of war.--Douglass Moore (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Vérinage

I think that the article should give detail on the French method of demolition, Vérinage, which uses hydraulic jacks to set off a progressive collapse of concrete buildings. For my sins I had been persuaded, to an extent, by the 911 truth movement, mainly because of my percieved lack of examples of progressive/general, symmetrical, fast and pulverizing collapse (as seen at WTC) in explosion-less collapse. But there are plenty of explosive free fast, symmetrical, progressive collapses in the world of Verinage. I would be great if it were detailed here. At the moment, I have only seen this method of controlled demolition on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=V%C3%A9rinage --Timtak (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If Vérinage is only used for concrete buildings, (and not steel-frame buildings), I think this should be noted in the article. Also, it should perhaps be more fully explained that the method would probably not work if the collapse were initiated near the top of a tall building, as (by Newton's third law) the upper section would be completely destroyed before the destruction of the lower section is complete. I do not know the French language, so I don't know if these topics are discussed in the referenced video. Wildbear (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh...The topics were not referenced in the video. The most technical they get is when the technician describes it being like knocking down a house made of cards. In the videos I have seen the collapse is initiated near the middle. I could not find any English language sources. --Timtak (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"demolished by nonterrorist methods"

This is extremely awkward. What has demolition to do with terrorism? What is a "terrorist method" of demolition? 76.91.13.137 (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree and I've reworded it 101.98.203.58 (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demolition. 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/20130602042716/http://www.demolidora-demolidoras.com/ to http://www.demolidora-demolidoras.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference #1 is a dead link

Reference #1 leads to a page with a 404 error. I am not an experienced editor and am not comfortable with doing anything more than noting this dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.34.0.250 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)