Life After People - U.S. Bank Tower, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
Topic started on 11-5-2009 @ 06:26 AM by Valhall
Did anyone catch the third episode of the History Channel's series "Life After People" last night? Some one needs to get hold of the History Channel and inform them they are all a bunch of kooks who are rejecting the sound science presented by the unquestionable body of uber-brains called NIST. Some one needs to tell them they are causing unexplainable contradictions with the official statement of the 911 Commission report. Some one needs to stop these nuts.

The 3rd episode of this series centered on the decay of cities and monuments due to the lack of humans being present to keep a balance and to maintain the infrastructure. It included the rather rapid process of Washington D.C. flooding due to the lack of water use by the current population. And it also centered on the fate of L.A. with no one there to maintain the earthquake prevention mechanisms in buildings, or firefighters to put out the annual wildfires.

It presented the scenario of a wildfire, left unchecked, making its way into downtown LA. And while I'm getting too old to quote verbatim after a good night's sleep, I'll try my best...

"The U.S. Bank Tower reaches temperatures in excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, and while it's steel structure remains undegraded, it's interior contents burn away."

It is basically the last structure left standing in L.A. after the fires subside. The U.S. Bank Tower stands 1018 feet tall. In this episode the U.S. Bank Tower goes on to withstand the "big earthquake", losing only it's top floors, with the majority of the building still standing erect. For some kooky reason, the damage to the top of the building (which is caused by quake-action transmitted all the way up the height of the building), doesn't effect the integrity of the lower portion of the building. HOW CAN THIS BE! O_O I believe it takes 500 years in the episode (but I may be wrong on that one) of lack of maintenance on it's earthquake resistant foundation before a second huge earthquake brings it down. It falls sideways, btw.

I don't know how they can get away with showing junk science like this. It's just going to confuse the masses.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Valhall]


reply posted on 11-5-2009 @ 06:43 AM by SPreston
reply to post by Valhall



I don't see the problem. This scenario does not take place on 9-11-2001; so the magic of 9-11 does not apply. This building would have to abide by normal physics laws instead of the miraculous physics of 9-11. And I assume that the FBI, in this scenario, was not running around planting miraculous paper passports and unexplainable untraceable evidence; or am I mistaken?

Besides, how could the masses possibly be more confused?



[edit on 5/11/09 by SPreston]


reply posted on 11-5-2009 @ 07:36 AM by Nimrod
reply to post by Valhall




No problem Valhall,

M. Arlen Specter is on the good side now, so he will approve that standing building like to magic bullet theory




reply posted on 11-5-2009 @ 02:41 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Valhall



So, where did they discuss an airliner crashing into the US Bank Tower? Oh wait....they didnt........


reply posted on 11-5-2009 @ 05:43 PM by Valhall
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999



Nice try. I give you a zero.

The U.S. Bank Tower stands 1018 feet tall. In this episode the U.S. Bank Tower goes on to withstand the "big earthquake", losing only it's top floors, with the majority of the building still standing erect. For some kooky reason, the damage to the top of the building (which is caused by quake-action transmitted all the way up the height of the building), doesn't effect the integrity of the lower portion of the building. HOW CAN THIS BE! O_O



reply posted on 11-5-2009 @ 05:52 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Valhall



A zero for pointing out that you are comparing apples to oranges?

Or should I point out that, the show you watched was theoretical in nature?


reply posted on 11-5-2009 @ 06:56 PM by Valhall
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to
post by Valhall



A zero for pointing out that you are comparing apples to oranges?

Or should I point out that, the show you watched was theoretical in nature?


You're right, they are apples and oranges. But I didn't make the comparison. You did. And my money is on an 8.0 earthquake having far greater damage OVERALL to the building than a discrete impact 80 floors up.

Pursue it if you wish, I'm just telling you, you're the one that started the asinine comparison, so don't turn it back on me now.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 11 days ago with 14 member flags
In Depth Look At The Pentagon Witnessess On 9/11
  Posted 19 days ago with 12 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 4 days ago with 12 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 11 days ago with 6 member flags