Demolition In Turkey Goes Wrong and Building Falls Over Sideways and Onto Its Roof

The video is on a BBC video player which I don't think can be directly embedded, so here is the link.

A plan to demolish a building in Cankiri, central Turkey went badly wrong when the 25-metre high structure rolled over onto its roof.

The building, a flour factory built in 1928 which had been idle since the 1980s, was scheduled to be demolished to make way for a shopping centre.

No-one was reported to have been injured.

Here it is on Youtube

DogGone! It fell towards the path of least resistance!?!

Duh! Those guys did not read "The New NIST Physics Demolition Handbook" ...all they had to do was to set a few small fires in the building.

Sorry Tom

These guys were not dealing with the anomalistic new phenomena of thermal expansion.

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?

Asymmetrical collapse

It looks like the building had asymmetrical damage and, guess what, it suffered asymmetrical collapse!

When one of the anti truthers say that the north side of WTC7 "had it's side gouged out" we can show them this video to show what should have happened.

You can also quote the NIST report

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on
initiating the collapse of WTC 7.
The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven
exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood conventional fires on several floors for
almost seven hours. The debris damaged the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the
steel columns, girders, and beams, only in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of
WTC 1. This was near the west side of the south face of the building and was far removed from the
buckled column that initiated the collapse. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have
collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.
transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office
building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.

-- NIST NCSTAR 1A, xxxiii

Futhermore, you can cite this 911blogger post: New York Judge Dismisses Claim Negligent Construction Contributed To WTC 7 Collapse if they try to say WTC 7 was a "weak building".


Controlled demolition, not an easy thing to accomplish

Perhaps they should have used matches. Since 9/11, we know that random office fires do the trick.

And by the way, controlled demolition continues to count among the strongest evidence - unlike, say, wild speculation that flight 77 flew over the Pentagon.

Amazing... Incredible... Pick your word.

I'd like to see THIS clip played side by side with the Building 7 collapse.

So would I

Like I always say, the official story is a fairy tail. How anyone with half a brain can believe it is beyond me.

Coup de grace

Can someone do this, please? Sorry but I'm not a tech person..

This would be the coup de grace-- A short clip that combines Building 7 side by side a demolition.... . & Building 7 side by a side a building collapse. (or a botched demolition). Compare *AND* Contrast.

Who said 'botched'?

Botched? You mean buildings aren't supposed to come down like that with controlled demolition?

More seriously, though: Defenders of the OCT aren't known for consistency in their reasoning. I could easily imagine them trying to argue that since this footage shows that controlled demolition can result in asymmetrical collapses, a symmetrical collapse is actually more of an indicator of an UNcontrolled collapse.


How on earth could they mess that up???
All they had to do was set a few random fires and it would have gone straight down.

I can't imagine...

... being a tenant in the next building and seeing this THING begin to roll my way...

Who was the demolition engineer?

Homer Simpson?