digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How To Demolish A Skyscraper One Floor At A Time

freshome.com — What you are going to see in this post, is one of those rare things in life that leaves you truly speechless, and one more reason to say that technology in these days has no limits.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Vinceres, on 07/18/2008, -6/+60Now THAT'S pretty cool!
    • frasermoo, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2well they developed that, but why couldn't they make a time-lapse of the whole frickin thing being dismantled?

      dugg for Ninja Tunes backing track though.
  • Fxer, on 07/18/2008, -9/+35As with many things, the more time you spend, the better the end result is.
    • xwfilm, on 07/19/2008, -5/+16That's what she said.
      • MuskokasFinest, on 07/19/2008, -1/+19...as she was leaving : (
      • frasermoo, on 07/19/2008, -5/+1digg that reply. i just cried. genius.
    • mlwarrior, on 07/19/2008, -1/+10The more time you spend, the more money you spend.
    • groo68, on 07/19/2008, -1/+30This takes less time though, 20% less time as quoted in the article.
    • TheSexyGeek, on 07/19/2008, -2/+14This method actually takes LESS time.
    • tromboneamafone, on 07/19/2008, -2/+10from the article:

      "According to the company, this method greatly reduces the environmental impact of the demolition, as well as the time. Kajima says that it speeds up the task by 20%"
    • chaoswings, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7All they have stated about this method is that it takes less time and materials are more easily recyclable. However there is no direct statement as to weather or not they save money which I find odd. I would expect that to be one of the first things they would focus on.

      Anyone know if this process is indeed cheaper?
      • groo68, on 07/19/2008, -4/+1The process itself seems more expensive while yielding a greater profit.
    • warsongs7, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2As with all things, if it is cheaper than it takes more time. If it takes less time than it costly. And if it is environmentally friendly than it is both more expensive and costly.
  • thegreenspanput, on 07/18/2008, -37/+12just demolish the 3rd floor from the top... the sheer weight of the above floors will cause them to pancake on one another.
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/18/2008, -14/+6I almost didn't realize how clever you are.
      I thought you just didn't read the article and was about to bury you when my tiny brain figured it out.
    • jabberwolf, on 07/18/2008, -16/+8Wow really?
      But arent controlled demolitions done from the bottom up as this shows and NOT like a pancake?
      But then that would kinda ruin your conspiracy crap right?!
      • ptsuk, on 07/19/2008, -8/+5phear the magical little elves who creeped in and did this to the WTC at lightspeed and got out again when 32ft per sec took hold.

        i think these conspiracy nuts watch that cartoon with the shoemaker and the elves to many times.
      • overtoke, on 07/19/2008, -3/+6There are many types of controlled demolition.
  • RegularJohn, on 07/18/2008, -18/+5This will come in handy, once I decide to blow up the ***** hole, sorry excuse for a flat building I live in. Much appreciated!
  • chrisc3, on 07/18/2008, -20/+4w0w0w00w0w0w0w00w!
  • WallnutBoy, on 07/18/2008, -18/+146must.. not.. make... 9/11.. joke..
    • AutoTom, on 07/19/2008, -16/+136I'll do it for you..

      Q: What's Al Qaida's favorite football team?
      A: The New York Jets

      Did you hear the one about American Airlines new deal? They’ll fly you straight from the airport to the office.

    • damian7, on 07/19/2008, -23/+17Q: What's the biggest difference between 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing?
      A: Foreigners once again prove they can do it better and more efficiently.
    • Somedude2137, on 07/19/2008, -9/+93"It's a bird!"
      "It's a plane!"
      "It's.... Oh *****, it IS a plane!"
    • DestroyFascism, on 07/19/2008, -7/+2Just goes to prove all the chaos you can have if you leave a dick in charge..
    • kingp, on 07/19/2008, -11/+4Good point. My immediate first thought was "Huh, didn't they do that with the WTC?"
    • ufia, on 07/19/2008, -4/+10How many conspiracy nuts does it take to demolish a skyscraper?

      None, the Pentagon tapes is proof that the Major League Baseball satellite was behind 9/11. Google it!
    • KiSA, on 07/19/2008, -8/+6You are all sick, horrible people who will likely burn in hell for such insensitive jokes; That being said, I am still laughing at them while typing this, so I will likely see you there
    • dartmanx, on 07/19/2008, -4/+10And cue the truthers...
    • poopsmcgee, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1No doubt WTC came down faster than that. Upside with this method is less dismembered torsos.
  • cheetosfan, on 07/18/2008, -3/+64it's like an adult version of jenga
  • vladsmiljanic, on 07/18/2008, -17/+2The best part was when the building blew up...oh wait.
  • skyroket, on 07/18/2008, -31/+10Bush should've used this method on the twin towers so people would have time to get out.
    • Somedude2137, on 07/19/2008, -12/+7Nahhhhh.... massive casualties ensures the sheeple get angry enough to go to war against anyone they tell them to
  • errorunknown, on 07/18/2008, -33/+5According to the Loose Change 9/11 videos, this is how the towers went down!
  • jabberwolf, on 07/18/2008, -27/+19"According to the Loose Change 9/11 videos, this is how the towers went down!"

    WOW according to them? Then why did the WTC on 9/11 get destroyed from the top down?
    Look it up! This old conspiracy crap is getting ...well... OLD!

    Will the retards with this 9/11 conspiracy crap please stand up - and go away?!!
    • AutoTom, on 07/19/2008, -19/+8They say ignorance is bliss.. you must be in ***** heaven.
    • warsongs7, on 07/19/2008, -4/+3Will the sheep stand up and crawl away?!!
  • judicar, on 07/18/2008, -12/+4JENGA
  • Nobiting, on 07/19/2008, -9/+17Hmm. A decent submission from MBM. Thank You.
  • abran1984, on 07/19/2008, -10/+37This article draws the Truthers like a light draws moths
    • onetimer, on 07/19/2008, -7/+28Well they have roughly the same intellectual capacity. Except instead of hovering around a light, they hover around this guy:

      http://www.51short.com/images/jonestard.gif
      • overtoke, on 07/19/2008, -11/+2jones is making fun of people like you there
      • inobla, on 07/19/2008, -1/+12Jones is a junk science evangelist and con artist. Nice to see a picture of him emulating his target audience.
  • Walcherina, on 07/19/2008, -3/+12"I'm melting!"
  • BonersMilloy, on 07/19/2008, -27/+1*****
  • nickstang, on 07/19/2008, -19/+1I thought this was going to be World Trade Centers demo footage.
  • gravityPersists, on 07/19/2008, -3/+13This could be a very bad practical joke.


    "Sir, are we sinking today?"
  • cuevas4711, on 07/19/2008, -2/+11Its not nearly as exciting.
  • amauldin71, on 07/19/2008, -1/+44Still prefer the Rampage method.

    PUNCH PUNCH PUNCH
  • Eggzb, on 07/19/2008, -16/+3thermate is quicker. under 10 seconds.
    • trogdoor, on 07/19/2008, -3/+3And how many demolition companies use "thermate[sic]" ?
  • EvansHall, on 07/19/2008, -4/+3Oh screw this! How will they make more episodes of When Buildings Explode?
  • Somedude2137, on 07/19/2008, -19/+4Why didn't Bush think of this for 9/11???? Much less effort to clean up afterwards
  • spin164, on 07/19/2008, -29/+3Ummmm....9/11 is perfect footage. You guys can also watch WTC7 fall down too. Oh wait, you guys don't know about the THIRD tower that fell on that same day did you....of course not....how stupid of me.

    http://www.wtc7.net/


    Hmm....I wonder if it's still a conspiracy....
    • zyklon, on 07/19/2008, -4/+7RTFA
    • trogdoor, on 07/19/2008, -2/+14It's almost sad how you think that your paranoid delusions actually make you better than everyone else:

      "Oh wait, you guys don't know about the THIRD tower that fell on that same day did you....of course not....how stupid of me."

      We know about it you arrogant jackass, we just did actual research and found out how truly idiotic the troofers are.
      • inobla, on 07/19/2008, -1/+9It's crazy how smug and proud the Alex Jones disciples are of their own ignorance.
    • DamienKarras, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Actually, if I recall correctly, they mentioned WTC7 when it was in the process of collapsing on CNN or one of those outlets.
  • bokep, on 07/19/2008, -12/+6OM NOM NOM NOM
  • zyklon, on 07/19/2008, -3/+9Heh... I was half-expecting to see something about 9/11 conspiracy here. It's so much cooler though! Leave it to the Japanese to do something awesome.
  • HappyScrappy, on 07/19/2008, -2/+9I think if I were to destroy a skyscraper one floor at a time, I'd do it from the top down. It's much less hassle.
    • TheSexyGeek, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7I guess the engineers who decided on this method didn't think of that.
    • PabloMac, on 07/19/2008, -1/+11I thought so, too at first, but it's probably more work and time to move the materials down to street level safely and efficiently.
      • grumpyrain, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2And to get the bulldozers up to the top.
    • CrazyEddie041, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5There is the issue of moving materials. At street level, you can just walk up, tear a chunk out of the building, and chuck it into a truck. Top-down, you'd need to transport people and equipment up, tear the floor apart, and transport everything back down. Probably adds up to a lot of time and sweat in a 90-floor building.
      • HappyScrappy, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1And jacking the building up and down doesn't add up to time and sweat?

        They use chutes to transport stuff down. It's not a huge problem
    • jasonh1234, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1And this is why you will never own a successful demolition company.
  • yosserhughes, on 07/19/2008, -3/+6Wouldn't it make more sense to demolish it by hand from the top down?

    I remember as a kid watching the demo guys taking a smoke stack down like that, they just kept knocking the bricks away from the top until they reached the ground.

    No it wasn't Blaster Bates, but he did it that way as well.
    • InfernoX, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4I think it'd be harder to clear away the materials.
  • Pusod, on 07/19/2008, -17/+15Woes Mr. Babyman is on a roll again! I count 6 articles on one page! How do you do it Mr Babyman? I wish I can be as cool as you. I love you so much Mr. Babyman!!! Can I be your Mrs. Babyman even if I'm a dude? We can make Mr. Babyman babies and my name will be Mrs. Pusod Babyman.
    • marvinmatthew, on 07/19/2008, -2/+8This is good content.

      So why are you complaining?

      Hell, I honestly don't ever look at who submitted a story. I didn't even notice the Mr.BabyMan submitted this until you pointed it out.

      And you know what?

      I don't care. And I don't think that you should either.

      Does the guy (Mr.BabyMan) have a lot of influence on stories that reach the front page?

      A: Yes.

      Does the stories he submits suck?

      A: Some of them do, some of them don't.

      So exercise your ability to choose, and digg or burry the articles he submits.

      It's stupid to be so against a specific user that you automatically consider everything he/she submits to be garbage. It seems to me that Mr.BabyMan usually submits decent stuff.

      (And before you think it- no, I am not an avid supporter of Mr. BabyMan. I could care less about individual users on digg).
      • Pusod, on 07/19/2008, -5/+1What are you talking about dude? I meant everything I said and I looooove that Mr.Babyman he's so awesome! I want to marry him! There is absolutely, positively no hint of sarcasm in any of my comments regarding my love for that superstar... Mr Babyman! You better get that straight!
  • Ubergoober3, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2how do you laugh your ass off while you hold back laughter?
  • metalgel, on 07/19/2008, -12/+1buried because its MBM
  • jeffburg, on 07/19/2008, -3/+4Leave it to someone to take something totally kickass like blowing a building up and making it boring. Does everything that is "environmental" have to be boring?
  • johndoesovich, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3What happened to the good old days when they used a bunch of c4 and dynamite to blow up?
  • chkdg8, on 07/19/2008, -14/+3Very easy: Building 7
    Go ahead and bury this and all 9/11 references because I know how tasty that Kool-Aid can be. It's okay.
  • DutchGuilder, on 07/19/2008, -0/+28Could you build a building using the reverse of this?
    • CptBuck, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4No, because then you'd have to lift up every floor, which would get heavier and heavier and eventually be impossible. This works because the support structure for each floor already exists, so they just replace and individual floor, lower the building, and then the next floors support structure is already there.

      Moreover, i don't know why you'd want to do that unless you really cared about worker safety, and to my knowledge building skyscrapers with modern technology is already quite safe.
    • blackjack75, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1You could do it. You just put the pillars on top of each new floor to build. And then remove them because they'd be useless.
    • jasonh1234, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Where would you rather have the fresh cement? At the top? Or at the bottom?
  • ohhsnap, on 07/19/2008, -9/+2Fly a plane into it?

    (Yeah, I know. Go ahead.)
  • hellahyphy, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2pretty cool.
  • ripple123, on 07/19/2008, -5/+3Oh please... "is one of those rare things in life that leaves you truly speechless, and one more reason to say that technology in these days has no limits.". Quit your wanking. Its not that spectacular.. in fact its a lot less spectacular than your average building demolition implosion...
  • Gazzali, on 07/19/2008, -1/+0that i say subtle technology..ha ha
  • Jenadae, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2nom nom nom nom
  • eviljolly, on 07/19/2008, -1/+21Coolness factor: 9
    Fun Factor: 3
    Manliness factor: 1

    Blowing up a building? 10/10 on all of those. Stupid efficiency screwing up all our fun.
    • Falsey, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1Apparently "this method saves time".

      uh..?
      • devilwarriors, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1it's probably take more time to clean up the mess after an implosion, or it's the time it take to calculate where to place the charge..
      • Burn, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Or both?
  • pieceofred, on 07/19/2008, -7/+1just ask ***** bush to do it live for you....have him blow it TO *****
  • roadnottaken, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2Are the red support columns jacks that collapse, are removed, and are re-used for the next floor? Or do they sink down into the ground? If the latter, are they removed and... ???
  • Trots, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4I'd be pretty damn scared if I was cleaning out the levels. The whole time I'd be thinking "man, I hope the mechanical pillars don't suddenly drop down...".
  • diggenerate, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4if you think about it, they could probably build them the same way. Eliminating the need for cranes perhaps?
  • CrazyEddie041, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Considering that it cuts down on time by 20% and all they have to do is stand around and look at it, I'd say no, it doesn't add to time and sweat.
  • atgmac, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3What happens to the red structural columns?
    • blackjack75, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3They dive into the ground one after the other. It is expected that after a few generations they will reach the other side of the planet and pop out in the middle of your garder.
  • duffy89, on 07/19/2008, -3/+1I saw this quite some time before this was submitted but didn't bother submitting thinking it wouldn't of been dugg... but since mrbabyman submitted it I guess it's front page *****
    • rock774, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Probably wouldn't have it depends on who you are to get Dugg !
  • Spyder2k, on 07/19/2008, -0/+25It's like getting a full bottom row in tetris.
  • P5ycHo, on 07/19/2008, -8/+3Why not just blow it up after stearing a plane in it?
    Proven to work !!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.