ViennasNachos (January 1, 1970 at 12:59 am)

as you can see, and of course hear the demolition in comparision with the wtc 1 + 2 + 7 which were not brought down by demolition but by jet fuel.

OohGoshYoureRight (January 1, 1970 at 12:59 am)

0:21believe thee! believe thee!

SySt3m (January 1, 1970 at 12:59 am)

@isheildmexicans wow.......... just get out of here.

JAXEVANS (January 1, 1970 at 12:59 am)

@iamconnermccloud i see it too.lol

jwigeland (January 1, 1970 at 12:59 am)

@livnlife012 because the building was collapsed upon itself as opposed to an explosion, where the debris is scattered hither and yon.

jwigeland (January 1, 1970 at 12:59 am)

@mikeellerbeck1 usually because the building has developed a structural flaw that makes it unsafe or prohibitively expensive to rebuild i.e., it's no longer a perfectly good building though it may appear so from the outside. in these cases it can make sense to demolish the existing building and build a brand new one in its place, especially in urban areas where most available real estate has already been built on.

ihaveaverybadcold (January 1, 1970 at 12:59 am)

@mikeellerbeck1 oh man for i thought it was the wtc

mikeellerbeck1 (January 1, 1970 at 12:59 am)

i don't really understand the point of imploding buildings. surely they could have used it for something. anything. why blow up a perfectly good building?

isheildmexicans (January 1, 1970 at 12:59 am)

there are no radical atheists you moron atheists are all the same, no belief not the belief in nothing, why would atheists blow up a building? and where do you see a plane? and why r these the highest rated comments?

sugargliderpal202 (January 1, 1970 at 12:59 am)

@nadoeloiskat my nuts itch