Talk:Building implosion

Disambiguation

In order to better relate to implosion, I exchanged "push" for "collapse".greyleonard 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

collapse reads much better than push which had the wrong meaning anyway as nothing is actually pushed. I've added to the end of the sentence to clarify how/why gravity/explosives "collapses" the building for readers who are not conversant with the construction/demolition industry. Wayne 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11?

Adding mention of 9/11 is not really appropriate. This is a specific subject page. 9/11 can link back here as a reference for a description of demolition all it wants but only proven demolitions should be here. Wayne 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, but this is nonsense. The World Trade Center towers are the tallest buildings ever to (probably) have been imploded and as such have a definite place in this page - properly prevaricated, perhaps, but at this point (2015) more than half the world is convinced (and no decent physics professor is willing to go on record to argue to deny) that it WAS an implosion that brought down those buildings. This makes *silence* on this subject in this article a political statement - precisely the kind of thing that Wikipedia is supposed to abhor. As for handling controversial members of lists, or controversial record holders, there must be plenty of examples of how to deal with them - and excluding them is probably not the way it is usually done. I can immediately name the Ruhrgebiet in the list of megacities, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:4B:2E2B:E238:4083:1FEE:80D9:9146 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

i tend to agree -- i think it was put here to make a rhetorical point rather than an informative one. Peterhoneyman 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My edit has been changed as "Correcting paraphrasing". Why does this correction involve only removal of the word most consistantly used by the reference? I'm suspecting POV editing in regards to the added 9/11 section. It's one thing to argue against a theory but quite another to edit out existing facts just to make such arguements easier. This type of manipulation is exactly why many people tend to support far out theories. It would be more constructive to remove the 9/11 section that shouldn't be there rather than hide legitimate material that should. Wayne 03:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Restored my version. The change made no sense. Apparently some guy said "pull it" refering to WTC7. This article not only does not say it that way but what it does say is industry terminology understandable by laymen. Which editor is the more credible? One using flimsy evidence to support a fringe theory or one manipulating and falsifying material to discredit the first editor? Unless given a valid reason in talk for a rv I'll treat any change as vandalism. Cheers Wayne 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You editors suck. Who pays you to block 911 truth? LOOK AT THE FACTS PEOPLE:

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/case4EDcardfront.jpg

a fine example of making a rhetorical point rather than an informative one. Peterhoneyman 13:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11 theories are fine on their own pages and can link to as many other pages needed to prove their point but non related pages should be nuetral. Such nuetrality is essential to allow readers to make up their own minds. That nuetrality covers those opposing 9/11 theories altering text to disprove theories not just those by 9/11 theories supporters. This applies to other subjects as well as I have seen several cases of minor alterations to support various POV's so I'm not singling out 9/11. Wayne 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is well known that gravity is a downward force. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming only material understood by educated people should be in an article? A pity considering your claim is false anyway. Gravity is not specific to any direction that can be considered as "down". Gravity pulls objects towards each other, in this case the building is pulled down faster than the Earth is pulled up. What is the problem? Wayne 16:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

surely there is a way to explain the building implosion technique that does not result in this kind of tug of war. something like "The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to collapse the building. Instead, the technique weakens or removes critical supports, so that the building can no longer withstand the force of gravity and collapses under its own weight." Peterhoneyman 18:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The new version is incorrect. It says "collapses under its own weight". This is wrong because weight has nothing to do with it collapsing, it is "pulled down by gravity", nothing more and nothing less.
The problem seems to be a desire to manipulate the info to suit an agenda. For example Arthur Rubin flat out lied in his summary when he said "(Undo. The word "pull" does not appear in the source, and is misleading in context)". In fact "pull" appears three times in the context of a building coming down and is the most commonly used word (other words used include "melt the building" and "bring down"). As a bonus the usage is by the worlds leading authority on implosions. Just because someone latched onto a word to marginally defend a fringe theory should not mean we now have to censor that word out. The correct phrasing is short and unambiguous with the added bonus of being exactly what happens. Wayne 06:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "pull" does not appear in the source quoted. I read it. You, apparently, did not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess i have to cut and paste to prove it does.
"the building itself isn't erupting outward (exploding). It's actually being pulled in on top of itself"
"sometime, we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings.....you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away"
"you're watching for certain things—counting the delays or waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward".
The only other terminology used is 2 X "bring down" and 1 X "blow up" by a third party. Wayne 09:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

weight is a measurement of the gravitational force acting on an object. weight has everything to do with collapsing it. Peterhoneyman 12:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

i prefer "collapses under its own weight" to "is pulled down by its own weight" because i prefer the active verb to the passive phrase. and "is pulled down by gravity" says even less about the action. imho, ymmv, yadda yadda yadda. Peterhoneyman 16:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Shameless Plug

It's amazing how many companies attempt to exploit Wikipedia for free advertising. Take a look at this nonsense:

According to Stacy Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc.,

The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

References

What's more, this ridiculous quote doesn't even have a hint of truth. The word appears to have originated in England around the 1900s. The first appearance can be traced to the Oxford Dictionary in 1877. - ICarriere 08:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are KIDDING right? That would be like claiming that the term "keyboard" has nothing to do with computers because pianos existed long before electricity! It's not a claim about the etymology of the term, only how the term is being USED in this context! Nakedtruth 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look and can only find the term used in economics and sociology before the 1960's. I'm guessing she's not claiming to have invented the word but to be the first to use it to describe controlled demolition. Wayne 09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

building implosion, a widely-used term of art, is an inept description: controlled demolition is not an instance of implosion. according to loizeaux, the use of the term in the context of controlled demolition originated with her grandmother. that is worth documenting Peterhoneyman 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if you argue for its inclusion, and you are not affliated with Controlled Demolition Inc., then you will not mind me removing the reference to Controlled Demolition, Inc.

After all, a person so notable as to have her quote in an encyclopedia article, should be able to have her name stand alone.

If however, the reason for adding the note was to plug the company, then you will attempt to revert my removal of the reference to Controlled Demolition, Inc. - ICarriere 04:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a plug. It's standard practice to mention who a person works for even if they are notable. I notice a quote by another demolition company (Implosion World) is mentioned in another article without anyone claiming it is a plug (or are you affiliated with them?). Wayne 05:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very good. You have me, I am a representative for Implosion World. I throw in my towel(sarcastically). Seriously, I had never heard of them, but I will remove that also when I find it. Wikipedia has a firm policy on not promoting commercial websites. This policy extends to worthless references to companies for no apparent reason.

And while I realize that it might be cool to have your company show up next to the definition of a word, I also realize that this practice underminds the integrity of our free encyclopedia. (This is exactly the kind of rubbish that is giving Wikipedia a bad name.)

Furthermore, there is no proof that Ms. Loizeaux's grandmother coined the term. The term may have been used by her grandmother, but why would we attribute the invention of the word to her grandmother, and by proxy their company? After all, that is why it appears in this article, is it not?

Now to the argument at hand. The Oxford Dictionary shows the following:

Implosion. [n. of action from implode; cf. explosion.]

The bursting inward of a vessel from external pressure. 1880 W. B. Carpenter in 19th Cent. Apr. 615

A sealed glass tube containing air, having been lowered (within a copper case) to a depth of 2,000 fathoms, was reduced to a fine powder almost like snow, by what Sir Wyville Thomson ingeniously characterised as an implosion.

With that said, I would contend the quote is irrelevant and has only one purpose -- to promote Controlled Demolition, Inc. -ICarriere 11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

the quote is relevant as documentation of the etymology of the subject of this article and serves that purpose (and that purpose alone). furthermore, the link associated with the quote is not to commercial website, it is to a public television series. if you know of a prior use of the term implosion to describe the controlled demolition of a building structure, or if you have any evidence that loizeaux' quote is false, please show it. Peterhoneyman 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You people are becoming transparent. When "pull it" was first put in the article it was removed because some liar claimed that wasn't what Ms. Loizeaux said. Now someone else thinks this is a plug by Controlled Demolition Inc? They've got their own Wikipedia page! They don't NEED to plug! This is a case of an expert witness. It would be no different than if this was an article about sports medicine and someone mentioned an athletic trainer along with the name of the team he worked for. The name of the team is relevant to his expertise as a trainer. Similarly the company name is relevant to the expertise of Loizeaux to the term "pull it". It's laughable for people to claim that only "Controlled Demolition inc" would be interested in their name being in this article. Nakedtruth 23:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

When "pull it" was first put in the article, it was removed because no one in his/her right mind believed it could possibly refer to controlled demolition (although possibly relevent to Controlled Demolition, Inc.). Most of us are still of that opinion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Attn: WLRoss

This article is not about conspiracy theories. If you review the edit history, you will see that NakedTruth added the Loizeaux quote in order to promote the fraudulent "pull it" mythology of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Therefore I am removing it. WillOakland (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about conspiracy theories so it should stay. It is relevant to the topic regardless of your OR on the reasoning behind it's original inclusion as you will see by the comments on this page. Although the term "pull" is common in the industry it is barely mentioned so you can't can't claim it is promoting any theory even using OR. If you have a source that shows it does then provide it. Wayne (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the word "pull" is not common in the industry, but it's only tangentially referred to here. I don't see the quote as that good, though. I certainly don't think it's worth edit-warring over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Finding and removing POV-pushing edits is not in any sense covered by the original research policies. Try again. WillOakland (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Arthur I did not know you had experience in the building industry. I should have said the term was common in my own country as I have no idea how common it is in other countries. WillOakland, considering this article is only peripherally related to 911 topics and should remain free of 911 influence it is clear from your edit comments and the nature of the edit that you acted from a POV position that is in violation of the ARBCOM and as such the edit is not valid as it does nothing to improve the article. Wayne (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the quote adds to the article. As WillOakland points out, it (the quote) is used by CDH people, so the needs to be a good reason for inclusion to avoid {{911ct}} bias. (A source that the term "pull" is used in the demolition (not building) industry would be appropriate in some related article. No credibile reliable source has ever been provided in the CDH article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To address your concerns I just had a quick look for RS' that used the term (that are not related to 911) and found a considerable number, of which some were written before 911 happened. For example see Iowa State University: Safety alert for planned implosion of University buildings pdf., Popular Mechanics: Delicate art of building demolition, How building implosions work, Dykon Blasting: FAQ, Pacific Blasting: Pacific Palisades Hotel 1994, Implosion world, Pittsburgh Tribune: St Francis Hospital implosion, KSL: A look at the company behind tomorrows planned demolition and Demolition Man just to name a few. It is also interesting that where the article says: “can no longer withstand the force of gravity and falls under its own weight” no source uses this terminology while several do say: “can no longer withstand the force of gravity and is pulled down by it’s own weight”. Therefore this article actually understates the term and the removal of the only use of the word (by a RS some five years before 911 so having no CT bias) is extreme POV pushing if done to avoid 911 implications. Wayne (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, "demolition man" is a blog quoting Alex, and "implosion world" seems to use "pull" for demolition other than by building implosion, but a number of those seem appropriate. Even so, they don't use "pull" the same way.

"Implosion is the removal/destruction of the inner structure of a building which allows gravity to pull the entire building down upon itself."

Seems a better quote than the one you've selected, although I'm not sure that source is reliable. "Your" quote is from a person claiming to be a relative of the person inventing the term, giving her a reason to shade the truth in favor of notability. If the quote were to be properly sourced as fact, someone else would really need to assert it. With a proper disclaimer, it seems appropriate for the body of the article, but not as a displayed quote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "falls under its own weight" may not be exactly a paraphrase of "is pulled down by it's [sic] own weight"; so you're welcome to make that change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have time to do more than glance through those articles but they did appear to be reliable. I'm not asking for change but am asking that edits be relevant and not to further a POV supporting any position in regards to the 911 controversy either pro or con. Wayne (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote IS relevant as to how and why a technically incorrect term is used. John McIntyre, instructor in journalism at Loyola College, who specialises in grammar and usage has argued against the words use by the media unless used metaphorically or in it's technical meaning. Loizeaux's quote justifies (or at least explains) it's use. Wayne (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 09:44, 29 August 2009 Hut 8.5 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to reinforce an existing stab.--Wing (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a misnomer

As pointed out on Talk:Implosion (mechanical process)#Building demolition, the use of implosion in this sense does not contradict the definition given at Implosion (mechanical process) at all. At least neither the IP, apparently the responder nor I could see a contradiction, and both the IP and I actually think the definition fits perfectly. True, there are no forces acting from the outside, but that doesn't seem to be a necessary condition. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Another video

Can this be in the article?

• File:Demolition of the HNA Development Building.ogv

Not sure if it is an implosion or explosion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Building implosion. 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/20070603021157/http://www.auslandsjahr.eu:80/2007/04/26/top-10-hochhaussprengungen/ to http://www.auslandsjahr.eu/2007/04/26/top-10-hochhaussprengungen/

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) 12:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)