China Goes Full Keynesian-tard: Demolishes Never-Used Just-Built Skyscraper

Tyler Durden's picture

"Growth" meet "mal-investment boom-bust" In a perfect example of the smoke-and-mirror-ness of China's credit-fueled expansion, a 27-storey high-rise building which was completed on November 15th 2015 was just demolished, "having been left unused for too long."

As China People's Daily reports,

Directional blasting demolition of a high-rise building was completed successfully at 7 a.m. on November 15, 2015 in Xi'an, in northwestern China's Shaanxi province.



The building was 118 meters high (27 floors) with a total construction area of over 37000 square meters.



Having been left unused for too long, the building could not be brought back into use so local government decided to demolish it.



It is reported to be the highest building that has ever been demolished in China.

*  *  *

The silver-lining - now workers can clean up the mess, dig a bigger hole... and fill that in - all in the name of Keynesian "growth."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Bill of Rights's picture

Shrivel ready jobs ...

El Oregonian's picture

2 months is too long? ... Boy, talk about a real quicky...

0b1knob's picture

I can remember a public housing tower built in Indianapolis in the 1970's.   It was left unheated after construction and the water pipes all froze.   When it got warmer the whole place flooded.    After some debate they decided to destroy it.  No one was ever housed in it for even a day.

At one time this story had a point but I've forgotten what it was.    Something to do with windows....

knukles's picture

Kinda like Progressive stewardship of race relations in 'Mercia.
Were well built and improved over generations only to be torn asunder in 7 years.

Scooby Dooby Doo's picture

All you have to do is thermite the top floors and the rest pancakes!

AdolfSchicklgruber's picture
AdolfSchicklgruber (not verified) Scooby Dooby Doo Jan 9, 2016 5:17 PM

No scooby, all you have to do is dump a few hundred gallons of jet fuel and burn some office furniture and paper and the beams will all melt at the same speed and fall straight down. Its physics! Just like Popular Mechanics taught us...and the 9/11 commission report. All those official sources never lie and always have our best interest in mind. 

BuddyEffed's picture

You don't have to melt all the beams at the same time.

Rick Blaine's picture

Wait guys...

When was this building completed?

Unless I'm missing something, the story from the Chinese site says it was demolished on November 15th...

However, I don't see anything about when the construction was completed...

Maybe it was an older building...

...but again, maybe I'm missing something.

BuddyEffed's picture

You don't have to melt all the beams at the same time. With the weight of so many floors above, damage or softening to beams on one side that leaves the overhead weight unsupported can cause a little sag And that sag will start to torque the beams elsewhere. Once that torque gets to a certain point structural failure occurs and the rest of the beams quickly snap. At the snapping point the corner or side sag hasn't moved the upper floors but a few feet off center. Hence it falls pretty much straight down.

BuddyEffed's picture

I wonder if anyone ever tried to analyze video looking for evidence of corner or side sag prior to the pancake-ing. You might be able to compensate for sway from wind and see evidence of a few feet of off center shift.

mvsjcl's picture

A pyroclastic cloud! Now, where have I seen that before....?

BuddyEffed's picture

Just trace lines from lower floors through the torn gap to the upper floors. Any change in the line up over time would be pretty convincing.

mvsjcl's picture

Yeah. I think David Chandler did something like that:

BuddyEffed's picture

That video mostly not on WTC and focused just on acceleration after drop started. More interested in data points looking for signs of sag or torque in the minutes leading up to the start of the fall of either or both WTC.

eatthebanksters's picture

The PROC probably finds it cheaper over the long to knock down a number of buildings vs having a very high vacancy rate which would drive rents down and perhaps leave the entire office building market under water.  I get they made some real 'smart' loans to the developers of those buildings.

The Blank Stare's picture

Wow! What a waste. They could have had some Uyghurs fly a plane into it for insurance purposes.

boattrash's picture

WWTS (What Would Trump Say) to this business model?

Xibalba's picture

"It didn't say TRUMP, so I don't really care". 

- Sincerly, Donny

Not Victor E. Overbanks's picture

Beware of the user "DontGive"

He has been hijacking accounts through ZH Chat and posting as other people.

Durrmockracy's picture

China is supposedly on a different time slot, so that could explain the discrepancy with when it was built and when it was destroyed.

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) Durrmockracy Jan 10, 2016 6:55 AM

China just pulled it to prove to the world that the World Trade was controlled demolition.

Stuck on Zero's picture

I suspect that omeone discovered structural flaws in the building. A building inspector was probably paid off to pass deficient construction and it was cheaper to demolish it than repair it.

zhandax's picture

That or the bribes on that building were so excessive that they wanted a plausible reason to shred the documentation.

Big bro Xi is looking for examples to make.

Scarlett's picture

A search by image brings this up:  


Where they say it's been there since 1999... 



mvsjcl's picture

LOL!!! That's freaking hilarious! Please, keep it coming!

besnook's picture

the problem with your engineering is the core support structure of the twin towers were meant to support the cantelevered floors extending from the core. in other words the base structure was strong enough to support the entire building. the tenth floor core was built to support the entire building minus the bottom ten floors and so on all the way up the center of the building. under the .gov conspiracy theory the core of the towers should have remained virtually intact as the weight of the building fell away from it. as the building fell the core would have needed to support less and less weight.

instead the core fell away from the base of the core structure. that could never have happened in ny physical world. yet it did. go figure.

balolalo's picture

Two comments:

1.  It's a good thing there aren't any homeless people in China who could've used some shelter...

2.  This is how humans use our precious Mother Earth's resources.  


FreedomGuy's picture

That is not how the cantilevers work or will collapse. Vrtually all building collapse into their own footprints regardless of how they are constructed. Look at photos from WWII bombings.

Buildings are designed more for vertical forces, not horizontal. Torque and sway-vectors are designed as well.

The best analogy I can offer is to imagine a sandcastle. If you throw a pencil at it will not knock it over (as Rosie O'Donnell supposed). It will penetrate it. If you weaken the sand castle it will collapse vertically. You cannot apply a large enough force spread over a large enough area to knock it over. The mass is huge and the force is perpendicular to the base...vertical forces from gravity. This is particularly true the higher you hit the building. Short of a controlled demolition these buildings do not fall over.

My college engineering project was touring the WTC. We studied the structure, fasteners (welds, rivets, etc.) and fireproofing at the roof.


besnook's picture

i don't know if they are still available online but i was able to study the architectual blueprints of the structure of the towers. it was clear to me that if you had to determine how the building failed without considering more than a plane crash into the building the official explanation was plausible given the weakest point of the building was the outer shell which supported the ends of the cantelevered beams attached to the core center structure except that, because of the structure of the building a good portion of the core should have been sticking up from the pile. the force of the pancaking floors may have compromised the upper structure but the base should never have completely collapsed toward the center of the building. under the .gov theory the outer beams should have been popped out the frame as massive projectiles(some apparently did. imagine a several ton ibeam  flying through the air at considerable speed).

i am not toatally convinced of the other theories i just know it didn't happen the way the official claims that it happened. that means the real reason is not known.

FreedomGuy's picture

At least you are being reasonable. The truth is we never will know exactly and precisely but we can know in general. Put broadly it is heat, weakening support members (probably denuded of fire retardant) and simple building design.

As I see it, as floors pancake the mass of stuff above continues to grow and accelerate. This would allow complete failure. There is also the issue of kinetic energy as floors collapse and beams snap. The forces will not be everywhere equal as they are designed.

Here is the other side to consider. The conspiracy theorists really get to have a lot of fun. They simply find one thing, anything that appears to be an anomaly and challenge you to disprove the negative of their theory.

The other side is to imagine the incredible coordination it would take for all these Arabs (mostly Saudi), planes, and timing with the building, undetected demolition crews, hitting the right floors and nothing to go wrong or at least nothing worse than UA 93 hitting the ground...and on and on to make this conspiracy work.  Thousands of people working for months or years would be necessary, all the way back to applying for half of flight school.

I suggest that conspiracy theories while fun and exciting are the very most improbable to the point of impossible...unless you want to believe. You have to want to believe it.

bookofenoch's picture

Yeah. Sure. Right.

At freefall speed all the way down, with pools of melted steel pouring out and burning for weeks.

That kinda stuff happens in the absence of thermite explosives in like uh NEVER. Well, OK. It happens when Marvin Bush guards your building.

And building 7 collapsed at freefall speed out of sympathy. The BBC preannounced it fell 20 min early because they're really smart British guys with deluxe accents.

RAT005's picture

BuddyEffed, I have an engineering degree, passed PE exam early and easily, plus more than 25 years experience.  Your nonsense is entirely ignorant! ! Explosives were used for both Twin Towers, and building 7.

For fun burn a half gallon of diesel on the biggest piece of structural steel you can find and tell everyone when you can change its shape.  Then try it with cement lined steel ;-)

How long did it take the burning Dubai skyscraper to collapse?  

BuddyEffed's picture

Angry Metal Worker Makes Video Debunking ‘Jet Fuel Can’t Melt Steel Beams’ 9/11 Meme

Your full of it RAT005 !

Dubai burned on outside is what I heard. Not inside.

Mr Pink's picture

Did you just say it burned on the outside? Idiot

jeff montanye's picture

yes.  yes he did.  

check out the address hotel in dubai from ten days ago; imagine if the wind had been from the opposite direction:

Element's picture



Brand new buildings are in fact burning on the outside, because the Chinese manufactured external cladding, normally designed specifically not to burn, is a massive fire risk as the Chinese stuff burns like it was designed to burn.

Same thing happened to a high rise in Melbourne, caused by cheap and out of Aust codes imported Chinese external cladding, which looks like it's the correct stuff, but it isn't - it's highly flammable.

There was another earlier external high rise fire in UAE, just a few months back as well;

Massive fire erupts at residential building in UAE’s Sharjah - Published October 1st, 2015

Same sort of thing is happening in Australia with non Aust standards conforming Chinese AC PVC insulated electrical wiring.  It breaks down in a few years then shorts-out and starts building fires, in new houses, and apartments.


Don't buy stuff manufactured in China if you can possibly avoid it.

Wile-E-Coyote's picture

I'll second that, Chinese electrical gear is downright dangerous. I have had a few bad experiences and never buy anything now unless I'm sure of its provenance.

Element's picture

My girl bought a cheap Chinese air blown heater, they were recalled as a fire hazard after causing a stack of house fires, the thermostats were junk and heated up until the plastic fan and chassis burned. Then there was the Chinese oscillating fan present given to me, where the plastic blade literally disintegrated into plastic frag, all over the room, at full speed. And then the ...

FreedomGuy's picture

I have family in China and even they know that.They buy foreign when they can.

I have explained it in other posts but simply put: In Communism you learn to lie to stay alive. You answer everything in the affirmative. Codes, regulations, specs? Yes! We will do it, can do it, etc.? They do not even know them. This is quite normal.

My family member was telling me how if you order concrete for construction in China, unless you put real guards on it, it will get diluted at least twice on the way to you. They will sell of the good stuff and keep diluting it until it gets to you. This is why so many of their Commie era buidlings absolutely crumble in earthquakes.

Do not buy anything of real importance from China if you can avoid it. A lousy shirt or shoes have few consequences. Your medicine, pet food or construction materials have huge consequences.

If I am not mistaken the Golden Gate Bridge repairs will be done with Chinese steel and even labor? Anyone remember? This is insane. Personally, I'd go with U.S even if the mafia is taking a cut and hiring 30 extra workers (Ever see the Sopranos?). It will get done right.


I'm a real Mechanical Engineering Technician and the P.Eng is right, BuddyEffed.

BuddyEffed's picture

Technician? Get your degree from Corinthian?


No, got my Diploma from an established College in CANADA. It was a two year full time course. Then, I worked in industry in a high production Tool & Die precision aerospace parts manufacturing company. After that I went into Particle Physics at Herzberg High Energy Physics for the ARGUS Microvertex Particle Detector build that is now part of the array of Particle Detectors in CERN's Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, BuckO.


Stick that in your Corinthian, and smoke it.



BuddyEffed's picture

2 year degree from a college you can't name?  I got a 4 year degree from the 3rd highest ranking engineering college in the country, and we specifically studied steel and its strength and phase changes in our dedicated Materials and Metallurgy class.


Algonquin College of Applied Arts & Technology Ottawa Ontario CANADA. And I did much more than 'study' Metallurgy, BuckO.

In fact, I had to heat treat all the tools I made via Case Hardening in an oven. Frankly, all of my Mechanical Engineering tools were Case Hardened to RockWell 'C' hardness testing, but I forget the number on the Specifications that we had to harden to. I think it was around 97 Rockwell C.


Question: What do you place in the Case Hardening Box when you are heat treating & Case Hardening your tool steel, YuppyEffed? And what Degree Mill did you pay to give you your fake degree, YuppyEffed?

detached.amusement's picture

but it sounds like you totally and completely failed stoichiometry


I have never even heard of Stoichiometry, detached.amusement. And I can assure you that I was never tested on 'Stoichiometry'.


Please explain it to me?