Life After People - U.S. Bank Tower

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 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 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 to post by Valhall


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

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 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?

double post removed

[edit on 11-5-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

funny you should mention this Valhall, I watched the same show you did last night and both me and the husband did a double take and when we saw the bank tower survive a 8.0 quake and centuries of rust even after a fire.

Even after all of that the entire building didn't disintegrate into rubble as I would expect to since seeing what happen to high rises during 9/11.

fascinating show and very interesting contradictions, makes you wonder which theory of science one should follow.

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.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
funny you should mention this Valhall, I watched the same show you did last night and both me and the husband did a double take and

when we saw the bank tower survive a 8.0 quake and centuries of rust even after a fire.

Even after all of that the entire building didn't disintegrate into rubble as I would expect to since seeing what happen to high rises during 9/11.

fascinating show and very interesting contradictions, makes you wonder which theory of science one should follow.

I'm going to try to catch all the rest of episodes...I'm hooked now. It's awesome.

Your words...

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.

Looks like you are trying to compare what was on TV to what happened on 9/11

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Your words...


Looks like you are trying to compare what was on TV to what happened on 9/11

Yes, I am. You claimed earlier that the scientifically based projection of what would happen was just theoretical. There is nothing different between that and what NIST did. So, yes, I am comparing the two.

You are trying to compare two different modes of damage. You are errant in your comparison, as the one you want to promote as more damaging is not the more damaging.

I am comparing theoretical models - two, in fact. One that is less damaging (that would be the one NIST used, manipulated and presented).

So what's your point?

ah heck you beat me to it... yea, strong resemblance to WTC collapse al la pan cake ... total collapse... what all that steel just rust away or what...~

What kind of structure is the US bank tower? Is the main structure internal like most buildings or the external walls like the wtc ? Then crash a 757 at around 570 mph into it and see how long it stands.

Originally posted by ridgeback
What kind of structure is the US bank tower? Is the main structure internal like most buildings or the external walls like the wtc ?

Wrong, the internal 47 columns was the WTC main weight bearing structure, just like a normal building. The outer mesh column structure was designed to take the lateral loads, when the building swayed in the wind.

So why don't you explain to us what would be different if a plane flew into the US bank tower?

And having it backwards doesn't that put a kink in your thinking? The big hole the plane made in the outer facade made no difference to the buildings integrity. Damage to the central columns cannot be proved, and complete failure is very unlikely, considering the materials and physics involved. NIST just had to say the central columns were damaged, along with other unprovable assumption, to make their hypothesis make some sense (even though it doesn't if you really read it and understand it).

See this pic...


Why doesn't the fence collapse?

The same reason this structure would not collapse if it had a hole in it...



[edit on 15-5-2009 by CityIndian]

I did not see the show - but great observance of what they said, compared to what happened on 9/11. Whoever put the show together, obviously didn't speak with the govt. first, so "facts and stories" could be the same.

I had started to watch the show either last year or the year before when they came out with it. It was too much for me to watch though - It seemed so morbid to have the Earth cleansed of humans.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Looks like you are trying to compare what was on TV to what happened on 9/11

Well...9/11 was on TV as well!

Originally posted by worldwatcher
Even after all of that the entire building didn't disintegrate into rubble as I would expect to since seeing what happen to high rises during 9/11.

Now, I prefer to subscribe to the 'inside job' school of thought regarding 9/11.
I'm just wondering what the earthquake engineering requirements are in New York seeing as it's on the East Coast/New Jersey Coastal Plain/ Passive Margin compared to the earthquake engineering requirements of Las Angeles due to its postion straddling a major plate boundary?
These could also have potentially different effects upon the collapse of a building.

You can currently watch this documentary at google video. I started watching this morning, will get back to it soon.

Google Video Link

History channel is usually full of propaganda though, I am not surprised by the posters frustration at one of their shows.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by ridgeback]