Implosion Goes Wrong, Building Rolls Over (VIDEO)

Officials in Turkey are trying to figure out why a building demolition went wrong. Instead of imploding, the structure fell over, narrowly missing a neighboring apartment building. TODAY's Ann Curry reports.

Watch video:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

[Jim Broderick]

05:58 PM on 08/06/2009

The Chinese need to find out who built that building and hire them to build their schools.
Notice the building rolled completely over and still remained intact!

[donnajr]

05:56 PM on 08/05/2009

i love the smell of nanothermite early in the morning.you ready for your flu shot "changers" ?

[leeskyblue]

04:14 PM on 08/05/2009

Twenty second conspiracy theory -- One of Cheney's bureaucrat trolls buried the FBI reports that told of the plot and they let Al Qaida do the rest, and its finally official, there was no conspiracy to kill Kennedy, Jesus never married Mary Magdeline, and for cri-eye, Sarah Palin is STILL news?
Meanwhile there is rape in the Congo, we are all getting screwed by Wall Street, we still have the Patriot Act, nobody's current health care plan will work very well, and besides we couldn't afford one because we are all going bankrupt, and so get a life. And maybe we should hire Turks to build the top halves of all of our buildings.

[Bull Chitern]

09:42 AM on 08/05/2009

I know that the 3 WTC buildings did fall at free fall speed from office fire damage.

Because I grilled some burgers and my BBQ pit collapsed at free fall speed to.

Any one know that all jet fuel exploded on impact.

I know about cointell trolls that are still tring to distance 911 from obama but we know the truth.

[USAPresidentialPoll]

11:01 AM on 08/05/2009

Lame.

[sharpstick]

12:16 PM on 08/05/2009

Yes, you are.

[Wide Stance]

11:42 PM on 08/04/2009

It's a fact: truthers are worse than birthers. Our nuts can't be beat.

[FZliveson]

10:08 PM on 08/04/2009

AE911Truth.org

Go there

[Wide Stance]

11:04 PM on 08/04/2009

Go yourself. Why don't you just make an argument? Are you that intellectually lazy?

[sharpstick]

12:44 AM on 08/05/2009

You're such a tool.

[USAPresidentialPoll]

02:12 AM on 08/05/2009

He's been spamming that link in most of his threads like it's the bible. Maybe it's his site. There's another site with the same name but the info extension that debunks that one and does a pretty good job at it: AE911Truth.INFO. :-)

On the home page the dot info site destroys the dot org graphic titled "Compare These Fires". One thing sticks out right away with this: they use the missleading and wrong caption "small isolated fires" to discribe building 7 fires. This is complete BS. The fires inside building 7 were not small and isolated. Also, the Mandarin Oriental Hotel was built after studying the WTC collapses. LOL. Plus the fire was faught by firefighters and was out within one hour.

Check out the page that has the top 10 boneheaded mistakes made by AE911Truth.ORG.

[justlw]

05:59 PM on 08/04/2009

Just after the building lands on its roof, you can see at the rear of the foundation what appears to be a vertical beam with a trusspiece at a 45-degree angle to it. I wonder if this was some sort of structural element added at some point that the demo team was not aware of, that held the rear of the building up long enough for it to tilt rather than collapse.

There would also appear to have been some problem in causing the floors to pancake. All in all, they really seem to have botched the explosive charges.

And just as a side note, good to see you can't escape Truther rambling anywhere! I had friends in WTC 2 that day who did get out, whom I talked to that day. As you might expect, they did not mention anything about the building being wired with explosive charges. Maybe they just weren't paying attention, though.

[DRaymond]

03:55 PM on 08/04/2009

The WTC compiracy theorists throw about imagined facts while ignoring the elephant in the room:

Nobody with the required knowledge would ever have agreed to do it.

Bringing down just one of the twin towers would have pushed demolition science far beyond anything ever done before, That is risky enough by itself. Then you have to do it in an occupied building, which violates all the core safety protocols that demolition experts works with. Then it has to be done covertly with absolutely no security leaks either before or forever after. Then it has to work perfectly (no wires being snapped or knocked loose, no charges set off prematurely) after the building has been hit by a plane and burned uncontrolled for hours. Then it has to happen just as flawlessly a second time with the extra uncertainty of the shock of one of the tallest buildings in the world having collapsed next door. Then several hours later a third covert demolition has to occur after many hours of unrestrained fire plus the shock of both of the largest buildings in New York having collapsed next door. And all this has to happen without any wires being snapped, any charges going off early or wrong, or anybody developing a conscience. Any engineer or operations planner would have estimated the chances of complete success as utterly infinitesmal and rejected the idea outright.

[FZliveson]

04:19 PM on 08/04/2009

DRaymond....spun with the expertise of your garden variety of witch doctor.
Compelling words, fabulous conjecture and convincing sounding yammering.
You provide no evidence whatsoever.

[LightningJoe]

07:04 PM on 08/04/2009

"Evidence" is totally beside the point of the above post, and you know it.

Raymond isn't trying to prove anything (that's why evidence is beside the point). Beyond his very last sentence, he's only pointing out the unrestrained difficulty of doing what some have said was done.

If your illogic survives the removal of its supporting myths, there is no hope for your reason.

[Wide Stance]

11:25 PM on 08/04/2009

"DRaymond....spun with the expertise of your garden variety of witch doctor.
Compelling words, fabulous conjecture and convincing sounding yammering.
You provide no evidence whatsoever."--FZnutters
---

This comment becomes more and more comical as it becomes apparent that FZliveson can't make an argument on his own behalf.

[FZliveson]

04:24 PM on 08/04/2009

Wide---You failed to answer this in an earlier query.

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO TOPPLE THE BUILDING?
What is the advantage?
Where is the labor saved?
How is it safer?
WTF---You dream 'em up as fast as your little mind can work. Bless your heart!

[Wide Stance]

08:08 PM on 08/04/2009

Wrong. I failed to answer nothing. Do you really think I follow you around looking for your questions? Get a clue, genius. You didn't even reply to the correct post. You are so clever you posted to someone else.

Okay, I'll go slow. Implosion is a skillful solution, and that makes it expensive. Only a few companies worldwide will attempt the difficult conditions. You implode for a reason, not because it's fun or looks cool. You implode to avoid damaging nearby buildings. What happens if there aren't any nearby buildings? Huh? Do you spend the money to hire a company to implode it, or do you simple topple it and haul away the rubble with front end loaders and bulldozers.

(F***ing genius, is what you are, FZliveson.)

[Wide Stance]

11:09 PM on 08/04/2009

You could get this stuff from Google, if you weren't so intellectually lazy.

"The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble."

Just another embarrassing fact you didn't know.

[ccw]

02:27 PM on 08/04/2009

They should have used the same crew who did the World Trade Center... now those guys know how to collapse a building!

[daedelus]

02:43 PM on 08/04/2009

You joined for that?

[jsgaetano]

03:07 PM on 08/04/2009

Either that or the demolition guys on this building should have used thermite on the supports.

[NobodyLikesMilhouse]

02:07 PM on 08/04/2009

ARRGH!! How many times must we get this straight. Building demolition is not done by an "implosion" it's an explosion. an implosion is a scientific phenomenon where matter collapses on itself. buildings fall inward during demolition because EXplosives are placed in the right spots.

[Feanor]

02:36 PM on 08/04/2009

It is always funny when people insist that words have ONE AND ONLY ONE meaning.

[NobodyLikesMilhouse]

03:27 PM on 08/04/2009

sorry, my nerdiness has caught up with me. :(

[mairs]

03:34 PM on 08/04/2009

Well then can't you say the building imploded.... since it's structure falls in on itself.... by using EXplosives.... and wouldn't it be ok to say it like that?

[hrholmes]

01:57 PM on 08/04/2009

I think the Turks are on to something! This is the new age dwarf bowling only now we'll use buildings! Brilliant!

[Wide Stance]

01:33 PM on 08/04/2009

Headline goes wrong, journalistic integrity goes wrong, knowledge goes wrong, but NOT the demolition. Implosion was never the intent. Toppling was.

[kburlz]

01:17 PM on 08/04/2009

Katamari Damacy!

[mathme]

04:02 PM on 08/05/2009

Na naaa na na na naa na na naaaa

[WasteNJ]

01:12 PM on 08/04/2009

How'd you like to be standing on a balcony of that opposing building? This must be the most sturdy building ever! They could use some of those in California (or Iran, or China).

[MJinCanada]

03:48 PM on 08/05/2009

Well, they have earthquakes in Turkey too. And it was a Muslim mathematician and architect who figured out how to stop the Hagia Sophia from collapsing a few hundred years ago.

[jugganaut]

12:26 PM on 08/04/2009

Silly Turkish demo experts.

They should have known that all they had to do to make the building implode perfectly in its own footprint was light a few small insignificant fires, ala WTC 7.

[hrholmes]

01:49 PM on 08/04/2009

Ram it with an old airplane and in 30 minutes it's done and no more airplane either! It follows the new age 9/11/01 law of physics! It would also cause a neighboring building or 2 to collapse also too. lmao

[USAPresidentialPoll]

02:39 PM on 08/04/2009

Insignificant fires? Not true.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm