If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   How not to implode a building   (youtube.com) divider line 38
    More: Fail, Australia  
•       •       •

9009 clicks; posted to Video » on 13 May 2013 at 3:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-13 02:24:06 AM  
Also see: WTC 9/11 videos
 
2013-05-13 03:23:32 AM  
I wouldn't really call that a failure. Sure it took about an hour longer than they expected but it still came down in the end.
 
2013-05-13 03:57:46 AM  

Skyfrog: I wouldn't really call that a failure.


You know nothing, John Snow.

The moral of the story is always double up your explosives.

There is no overkill, only Adam and Jamie.

tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-13 04:11:18 AM  
For implosions lasting longer than four hours, consult your demolitiologist.
 
2013-05-13 04:17:57 AM  
Man, what a wasted opportunity. Tourists would flock to the leaning silo of Brisbane.
 
2013-05-13 04:55:50 AM  
There is no wrong way to use explosives.
 
2013-05-13 04:57:24 AM  

I Like Bread: There is no wrong way to use explosives.


There's some.

media.mlive.com
 
2013-05-13 05:29:26 AM  
You don't tear down a building by using explosives in the bottom floors, you fly a plane into the top floors. That makes it fall down really neatly in it's own footprint instead of this failure.
 
2013-05-13 07:16:59 AM  
At least they had a backup plan.  In China, they would have sent 200 workers into it with jackhammers and pickaxes, and 7 of them would have died at the end.
 
2013-05-13 07:32:28 AM  
FM 3-34.214 CLEARLY states "P" for plenty. Anything less is a no go.
 
2013-05-13 08:04:52 AM  

lucksi: You don't tear down a building by using explosives in the bottom floors, you fly a plane into the top floors. That makes it fall down really neatly in it's own footprint instead of this failure.


They didn't have a plane.
 
Xai
2013-05-13 08:58:57 AM  
1999 - Republicans "Finally, we got rid of Clinton! Damn him and his dangerous economy boosting policies!"

2000 - Republicans "Finally, a republican president, he'll keep us and the economy safe!"

2001 - (september) "well he may not have kept us safe from terrorists, but the economy will never fade under bush!"

Later - "Hmmmmm..."
 
2013-05-13 10:00:01 AM  
I liked the end, when it "tuhned to robo."
 
2013-05-13 10:21:27 AM  
 
2013-05-13 10:44:25 AM  

Zasteva: I like the new Japanese way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_4G_8gEjng&feature=player_embedded


That is freakin' sweet!
 
2013-05-13 10:48:24 AM  

lucksi: You don't tear down a building by using explosives in the bottom floors, you fly a plane into the top floors. That makes it fall down really neatly in it's own footprint instead of this failure.


Know how I know you failed physics?
 
2013-05-13 10:50:37 AM  

croesius: Zasteva: I like the new Japanese way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_4G_8gEjng&feature=player_embedded

That is freakin' sweet!


Yeah I'm going to have to jump on the "freakin' sweet" bandwagon as well.  I especially like the part about using the mass of the descending rubble to produce electricity - that pushed it up to an 11.
 
2013-05-13 11:57:24 AM  
I've seen video of a method using giant hydraulic pistons at ground level.  They demo the first floor, take out one structural support at a time and replace it with a piston until the whole building is supported by pistons, then they lower the whole building and repeat the cycle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwf9LoS9Xt8

I remember seeing a news report about it a few years ago.  They did it this way for similar reasons; they couldn't use explosives.
 
2013-05-13 12:11:43 PM  

Skyfrog: I wouldn't really call that a failure. Sure it took about an hour longer than they expected but it still came down in the end.


Even turned to rubble like it was supposed to.  It was more of a hiccup than anything else.
 
2013-05-13 12:47:40 PM  

Hurr, you think that's bad, you should check out...

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Also see: WTC 9/11 videos




...yeah..
 
2013-05-13 12:52:52 PM  

NightSteel: I've seen video of a method using giant hydraulic pistons at ground level.  They demo the first floor, take out one structural support at a time and replace it with a piston until the whole building is supported by pistons, then they lower the whole building and repeat the cycle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwf9LoS9Xt8

I remember seeing a news report about it a few years ago.  They did it this way for similar reasons; they couldn't use explosives.


Pretty cool. The one I posted where they take it apart from the top down seems safer, and you could continue to use the lower floors in the meantime, so I like it better. But still, very impressive.
 
2013-05-13 12:54:29 PM  
Is there an equivalent to Poe's law for conspiracy theorists?
 
2013-05-13 01:56:35 PM  
Go home building, you're drunk.

http://youtu.be/oQzCGoUkVOM
 
2013-05-13 02:28:25 PM  

Rezurok: Is there an equivalent to Poe's law for conspiracy theorists?


Edgar Allen Poe wrote "The Fall of the House of Usher"
Which was part of a false flag operation for the Spanish-American war.

Wake up, sheeple!
 
2013-05-13 03:57:31 PM  

Zasteva: Pretty cool. The one I posted where they take it apart from the top down seems safer, and you could continue to use the lower floors in the meantime, so I like it better. But still, very impressive.


After seeing a 50 ton excavator crawling around on the top floor, i think i'd steer clear of the lower levels...
 
2013-05-13 04:09:44 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: lucksi: You don't tear down a building by using explosives in the bottom floors, you fly a plane into the top floors. That makes it fall down really neatly in it's own footprint instead of this failure.

Know how I know you failed physics?


I know, right. The planes were just a distraction.
 
2013-05-13 05:02:26 PM  

lucksi: You don't tear down a building by using explosives in the bottom floors, you fly a plane into the top floors. That makes it fall down really neatly in it's own footprint instead of this failure.


I'll give you 5/10 - given there are some real honest tinfoiler truthers on Fark, you'll probably get some bites.
 
2013-05-13 05:38:20 PM  
"That big SOB is leaning over to one side and you want to me go in there and chip away at it in this little-bitty end-loader??? Seriously? Fark it, I quit!"

/guy on the far side looked like he had a NOS set up in his rig the way he got away from it...
 
2013-05-13 06:19:26 PM  

lucksi: You don't tear down a building by using explosives in the bottom floors, you fly a plane into the top floors. That makes it fall down really neatly in it's own footprint instead of this failure.


I know you're joking but it's really sad how many people really believe this.  We should make high schoolers take 4 years of physics just so that stupid conspiracy theory dies.
 
2013-05-13 08:26:00 PM  
I know I'm fighting a losing battle with this one, but I refuse to surrender: Collapsing a building with explosives is not an implosion. An implosion is a very specific scientific phenomenon. The collapsing of a building with explosives is the collapsing of a building with explosives. The explosives explode, and the building collapses inwardly. That is not an implosion. It is an inward collapsing of a building, following a series of smaller explosions designed to make it collapse inwardly. Period. Fark you!

If I were in charge of the networks, an excerpt from George Carlin's book, Brain Droppings
 
2013-05-13 10:51:37 PM  
Reinforced concrete grain bins are tough mothers.  There were some by our shop that looked to be about the same size and they used excavators/tool carriers to gnaw away all but a very small portion at the lower level.  Finally, it fell over.  Made me decide that, if I ever had to build a really sturdy building, I'd use reinforced concrete.
 
2013-05-14 12:05:36 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Also see: WTC 9/11 videos


I bet a jet would have been cheaper.
 
2013-05-14 12:13:38 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: lucksi: You don't tear down a building by using explosives in the bottom floors, you fly a plane into the top floors. That makes it fall down really neatly in it's own footprint instead of this failure.

Know how I know you failed physics?


Them Left Wing Islamists used applied physics, not that book stuff you're talking about.
 
2013-05-14 12:19:28 AM  
Gough:
Reinforced concrete grain bins are tough mothers.

That's what happens when you have to build a structure that needs to hold a lot of loosely-packed grain (vertically, so it can fall out with gravity), plus make it resist potential dust explosions.

It's like a really tall reinforced bunker.
 
2013-05-14 06:34:41 AM  

croesius: Zasteva: I like the new Japanese way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_4G_8gEjng&feature=player_embedded

That is freakin' sweet!


Yeah, seriously!  Time consuming, but freakin' cool!
 
2013-05-14 06:56:28 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: lucksi: You don't tear down a building by using explosives in the bottom floors, you fly a plane into the top floors. That makes it fall down really neatly in it's own footprint instead of this failure.

Know how I know you failed physics?


Love it when people cite physics, but all they've really read is a Popular Mechanics article.
 
2013-05-14 09:39:37 AM  

Meatybrain: For implosions lasting longer than four hours, consult your demolitiologist.


+1
 
2013-05-14 04:36:54 PM  

heinrich66: Mr. Eugenides: lucksi: You don't tear down a building by using explosives in the bottom floors, you fly a plane into the top floors. That makes it fall down really neatly in it's own footprint instead of this failure.

Know how I know you failed physics?

Love it when people cite physics, but all they've really read is a Popular Mechanics article.


I know not what article you speak of.  But, for the WTC buildings, explain how the force of the collapse would have been translated from a vertical direction due to gravity to a lateral direction.  In the case of those silos, the reinforced concrete is strong enough to create a torsion which caused it to roll to the side, but the WTC buildings were not built to withstand huge torsional loads.  Once the collapse started, there was no way for it to go any direction but down.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report