Everything comes down... but how?

Factual Questions
1

Hi. I hope that this is not an insensitive question, because it certainly isn’t meant that way.

I have had a long interest in skyscrapers and have always wondered what the plans were when it came time to demolish one of the 80+ story leviathans found around the globe. Even though the destruction of the north WTC tower was uncontrolled, it was a nearly perfect implosion and I believe it is more clear now than ever that such a method will never really be attempted for something that large (the tallest building ever imploded is less than 45 floors).

So, what is to be done? The Empire State building is pushing a hundred years old and can’t be expected to last forever. What if either or both WTC towers had not collapsed, but had been crippled beyond repair?

In most situations, I assume that a systematic disassembly is the expected procedure, but what about the cases where a two-year plus demolition isn’t reasonable (or safe, such as with a heavily damaged structure)?

Any thoughts?

2

A previous look at the question: How are giant skyscrapers intentionally demolished?

3

The Empire State Building is 71 years old and is expected to last as long as the medieval cathedrals (i.e., perhaps 500 years).

4

Whoops, looks like this is a repeat question… sorry.

5

I remember reading a book a long time ago that gave a hypothetically portrayal of how the Epire State Building would be disassembled. Basically, you would have to:

  1. Cover the entire thing with massive tarps like the ones they used to cover One Liberty Plaza and the Duetshce Bank Building.

  2. Create some kind mechanism to transport material to the ground (just tossing steel girders down the elevator shafts would not be all that safe).

  3. Start breakin that shit apart and carting it away.

6

The book is called “Unbuilding” and is by David Macaulay.

7

A nearly perfect implosion? It didn’t contribute at all to the number of buildings that came down or will have to be demolished?

8

Wikkit I think that is Ejes’ point.

Ejes is saying that the north tower’s implosion was “nearly perfect” in the sense that it fell down on and into itself, in a way that caused as little destruction to the surrounding area as it possibly could have.

But the problem that Ejes is identifying is that “as little destruction to the surrounding area as it possibly could have” in this context is equivalent to “massive destruction”.

9

What Princhester said.

Wikkit, imagine the damage if one or both of the towers had fallen over instead. (I pretty sure I heard somewhere that this was the goal of the 1993 WTC terrorists.)

10

I heard that there was absolutely no chance that either tower would have fallen over.