Talk:Demolition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Demolition article.
Article policies
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

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?

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
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)

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! http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)