26 minutes of RAW recently released 9-11 footage from 500 yd

#1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... vver&hl=en

no demolitions took this building down. no doubt.

NOT FAKED FOOTAGE - NO WAY ALL THIS COULD BE FAKE

#2

Thanks for the footage. I will watch it later.

Bot · #3

I kind of wish they hadn't edited out the part with the plane crashing into the second tower. I would've liked to see it for myself. I doubt it was a military plane...

#4

Both hits are out, and both collapses are out. This is conspiracy theorists' porn. /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />

#5

conspiracy or not... it is still amazing to note how the structure collapsed in only 10 seconds (very near free fall). if the underlying layers were not damaged, then they should've broken the fall slightly with (almost) each floor suffering the weight before collapsing, thus increasing the seconds it took to fall. how is this explained?

and two: with previous fires in other skyscraper buildings raging for hours on end without these structures collapsing, how could a relatively cold burn in a more moder building damage the metal to the extend of collapsing? the huge fireballs indicated most of the kerosine burned in seconds with the smoke indicative of an extinguished fire. not a lot of heat there. how is that explained?

oh well... the implications of this being set up are just too huge. I want to believe the official story. I do. Really do.

#6

QUOTE(Brains @ Oct 11 2006, 10:39 AM) conspiracy or not... it is still amazing to note how the structure collapsed in only 10 seconds (very near free fall). if the underlying layers were not damaged, then they should've broken the fall slightly with (almost) each floor suffering the weight before collapsing, thus increasing the seconds it took to fall. how is this explained?

and two: with previous fires in other skyscraper buildings raging for hours on end without these structures collapsing, how could a relatively cold burn in a more moder building damage the metal to the extend of collapsing? the huge fireballs indicated most of the kerosine burned in seconds with the smoke indicative of an extinguished fire. not a lot of heat there. how is that explained?

oh well... the implications of this being set up are just too huge. I want to believe the official story. I do. Really do.

Brains,

I don't know if you are a scientist but I study the heat content of jet fuel all the time. A standard 5.67 MMBTU per barrel is not unreasonable a suggestion for the typical heat content. That's about 88 barrels, so, we get about 500,000,000 MMBTU, or 500 MILLION units needed to heat the temperature of 453.59237 grams of water (about 16 ounces) one degree farenheit.

that is a tremendous energy content, just from the fuel. That's 146.5 Megawatt Hours, in just fuel alone. That's enough energy to light 146,500,000 lightbulbs, each one being a 100 watt bulb, for a full hour.

We use jet fuel in some of our ancillary heat processes for the plants. Did you know this much heat generated in 10-15 minutes (a standard black start fuel cycle to get the boiler up to temperature) causes the suspended boiler to buck and twist if you don't do it in stages. could you imagine if it just came though, snapped the girder, and immediately heated up.

Our [...] plant would take out a port in Staten Island if that happened.

to be honest, anyone who looks at a piece of paper and tries to "math out" what would happen will find that their calculations are deficient in some way.

go walk on top of a boiler that is burning jet fuel (JP5 standard) even with internal regulation, drop a piece of steel on it, and see if that is hot enough to melt steel. by paper, its not,.. so go on and try to pick up that piece of metal...

#7

thanks. not a scientist, so a bit overly technical to me. say it in layman's terms please.

but I do understand that kerosine burns at high temperature or emits a high temperature when the burn is sustained. it was not in the towers. the kerosine burned in an instant. lots of air around to fuel the burn... so, how did mere seconds of it damage the steel so much from top to bottom that all of it was weakened? that question is not answered. neither was the first one. or am i misunderstanding you?

#8

I just wanna know why those bits aren't there. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just a question.