Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My point is that the "implosion" term as applied in destroying buildings is not accurate in terms of what implosion means in physics. So if we are trying to get people to understand why it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for airliners to destroy the towers then it is contradictory to not get the physics terminology correct.
What happened to WTC 1 and 2 were not "implosions" even by the word's inaccurate usage by the demolition industry.
We were using demolition terms, not physics terms in this context mate.
The term is used to describe a building falling in on itself, as opposed to falling outwards as it would naturally do. It defines the difference between that type of demolition, as apposed to demolishing to one side.
An imploded building doesn't explode either, so the former term IS a more accurate term to describe what happens and it IS used in the industry the way I am using it.
You can demolish a stone wall with a sledgehammer, and it's fairly easy to level a five-story building using excavators and wrecking balls. But when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a 20-story skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint.
science.howstuffworks.com...
Implosion demolition is ONE specific way to demolish a building.
edit on 3/21/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



