Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Cue 9/11-troofers in 3… 2… 1…
The Turks may not know how to knock a building down, but they damn well know how to build them.
Or used to…
I don’t understand how this can happen. Large buildings that have part of their side gouged out are supposed to fall straight down into their footprint at free-fall speed. They obviously didn’t place the demolition charges correctly.
#1: yep, thats how the top of the tower was supposed to fall if it wasnt a planned demo.
#4: they fucked up
A guess, but maybe most of the charges didn’t go off leaving most of the structural integrity intact. In fact, it looks like the blast happened sometime earlier and they left the camera rolling.
Instead of being like little children and scoffing at an obvious screw up, this building’s design and construction should be studied and understood.
The leanings should be implemented in code and construction world wide.
Talking about earth quake proof, and; the life’s that could be saved if we learn and apply.
#7: im confused on what you are saying. what do you mean by the leanings and having them implemented in code? and the lives that could be saved? a. how many ppl die from toppling buildings. b. ppl would probably still die if they were in the building shown in the video
Wow… watch the video carefully… the sides of the building neither flex nor ripple at all as the building rolls over. And that it is at least 10 stories tall. As it comes to rest, it actually rocks back onto itself. Consider that a building is designed to take loads vertically in only one direction (down), with only wind loads laterally. It should have never made it past the 90 degree mark, much less roll over and happily sit upside-down. The way that the box so sturdily holds together just boggles the mind.
Compare this with some sagging melting beams bringing down whole buildings during 9/11. Modern buildings are built like a building made out of cards, where one failure in one place cascades into massive failure everywhere.
Remember the great San Francisco earthquake a century ago? Most building survived, but succumbed to fire later on. During the next big earthquake in San Francisco itself, expect dozens of ‘modern’ buildings to pancake upon themselves, 9/11 style, since modern buildings are put together like tinker-toys.
Best Turkey Roll I have had all week!
I would be VERY surprised if this building has anything at all to teach the profession.
Its all in the blueprint/as built.
Concrete floors? Type of fastners? Gauge of the steel? and a host of other variables all pretty well understood, documented, worked with in every design.
I don’t even know if a structure that can roll over like that would be more or less prone to earthquake damage. Probably depend on the nature of the quake and the underlying soil?
Doesn’t even look like the windows broke as it rolled over either. Maybe the glass should be studied as well.
I watched the video very carefully and I didn’t notice any planes flying into the building – which proves it was blown up by Dick Cheney.
#11. Reduce a structure’s weight without weakening it’s load bearing capacity, makes it stronger. It doesn’t have to carry so much of it’s own weight. Same reason why they drill holes in structural I beams, it actually increases the overall strength of the building.
#13–sargasso==right you are. Course you touch on the whole reason for the I-Beam design to begin with, so holes near the neutral zone of tension and compression would have little effect but what about torsion?
Seems to me the extra expense of drilling holes should be taken care of by the dimensions of the I-Beam thereby reducing overall cost.
But I’m just guessing.
Something similar has happened back east, both in Canada and the States, BOTH just happened to be abattoirs (slaughter houses) that were 1900s era concrete buildings.
The Canadian one was a Burns meat plant, I can not remember where the US one was, but it was in the north east.
Basically, they drilled and compromised the structure and planted explosives. After the dust cloud settled, everything was still there. So they drilled and rigged with explosives again…more or less the entire abattoir was standing after the second dust cloud settled. Then they just decided to go at it with manual demolition. The story was more or less the same with both demolitions.
It just proves that unreinforced concrete when way over built can be incredibly strong and since these structures are so rarely encountered modern architects and engineers vastly underestimate how strong they are.
Turkish dice…
building fall down
not go boom
They should have hired the guys that took the twin towers down.
Ferroconcrete load bearing walls, a meter thick. They don’t build them like that anymore.
They were upside down in their mortgage.
This actually happened in Legoland.
Looking carefully, this IS reinforced concrete. The rebar can be seen in the beginning shot.
HOWEVER, it is continuously poured concrete thus there are no seams to come apart. Apparently the floors are integral to the structure, so yes, they become part of the whole. Modern architecture will insert seams, often for expansion purposes, usually for construction convenience.
It appears they probably did this on purpose as the bottom portion is blown out. They didn’t want to pancake the building because of the other buildings right behind it. It is quite possible this was in the plans.
If you have the blueprints and if the building was constructed to them you can bring down the building in the way you want. This clip shows the building rolling towards the camera. Was it supposed to do that? Notice that you cannot tell if it did any collatoral damage from this camera angle. So maybe once it was off of its foundation the plan was another demolotion or the wrecking ball?
If this was a scene in a Godzilla movie, he would have kicked it over, obviously faked.
Look for it on Americas Funniest Videos, oh wait Turkey’s funniest videos.
“Compare this with some sagging melting beams bringing down whole buildings during 9/11.”
WTC twin towers didn’t have “beams.” They had floor struts. 30% lighter but they melt when a jet plunges in, knocks the insulation off & the fuel burns under ’em. That’s why they’ll never build ’em like that again.
There are still some floor-strut high-rises around though. Not sayin’ which ones.
They don’t make ’em like they used to? I don’t know ANYWHERE where they made high rise buildings with seamless reinforced concrete exterior walls and with zero windows.
This thing was built like the Hoover Dam. I think this was overkill for the construction of a flour factory. Then again, maybe they were afraid that the flour dust might combust and they didn’t want to level the neighborhood. Everyone inside would have died but it might have contained the blast.
Looking at this differently, what are the chances you could get a building to roll over if you wanted it too? A failed demolition is commonplace, but a flipped building? That’s cool. You won’t see that again…..