Talk:Building implosion

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  9/11? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Translation into Chinese Wikipedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not a misnomer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another video 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified