I guess not...and also it must be that when you search for a vid (not advanced) it doesn't search the titles, just the tags, because your should have come up when I checked... sorry 'bout that!

In reply to this comment by Buttermaker:
BTW: I've noticed that this vid has the same YT-URL as mine - seems that embed code validation doesn't work properly... o0

I'm not ready to declare this a fake, but I'm not endorsing it as legit either. I just don't know. But I'm going to address a couple of the statements made here.

it would have hit a tree, especially since there were some that close

"The tallest objects in a storm don't always get struck by lightning. It's true that taller objects are closer to the clouds, but as discussed previously, lightning can strike the ground at a close distance to a tall object. Taller objects may have a higher possibility of a strike, but where lightning is concerned, the strike path is not predictable." from http://science.howstuffworks.com/lightning2.htm

and it certainly wouldn't have been 'caught' in at least 3 frames as it is in this video, it's a lot shorter than that.

I don't think you can really make that claim without more knowledge about the camera. Based on the quality of the video, it appears to be a fairly cheap camera, but that could just be the compression. We have no idea how many FPS they were recording at nor how many re-strikes made up this bolt, so we can't determine how many frames a bolt of lightning would appear in. If we assume it's a cheap camera, then we have to consider the possibility that the crappy sensor would not recover from such a high intensity light very quickly.

And as far as the "travels through the power lines" thing, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. Everyone knows that electricity is fucking lazy. It wants the easiest path to ground. Air is a terrible conductor, hence the reason you don't get zapped when you walk by a fucking outlet. If the lightning were indeed traveling through the lines, it would have stayed there, not just randomly jumped out in someone's back yard for him to videotape and put on youtube.

A power line is not going to be sufficient to contain a lightning bolt. I doubt it's possible for the core bolt to travel through a power line at all, but it's certainly possible for one of the smaller branches to. But these smaller branches are still seeking a path to the ground and I see no reason why they wouldn't arc to the earth rather than travel several miles to the transfer station, given the opportunity.

The comparison to household AC isn't of much use. Lightning may be electricity but a household circuit and the circuit of a lightning bolt are far, far different aside from sharing the basic properties.

I also don't see a single power line anywhere in this entire video.

I thought the gigantic power line strung just beyond the fence at the far end of the yard was pretty obvious.

Anyway, I doubt this is a video of a bolt of lightning striking anywhere near that dog. The shockwave at that range would be rather powerful. Even if nobody had a cognitive reaction to the strike, things would have moved. At best, I think we've got some "stray" voltage sparking in the yard. I went and found a few copies of this video and went frame by frame taking some screenshots into photoshop to evaluate. There's a bolt that comes down that I do not see when the video is playing normally, even now that I know it's there. I suspect this bolt is a ways off in the distance. The motion of the camera causes a streak that could give the impression that it's on the near side of the fence. After that are the 3 S-shaped bolts that are plainly seen in the video, and are all of identical shape and size. These definitely don't look real, but they also don't look like something someone who was trying to fake a lightning strike would put in either. I wonder if they are some sort of lens or sensor artifact? Maybe even some peculiar electrical interference?

I used to live in south Florida, and I know this bridge. There are three scaffold-like things up the side of the tallest pylon that we all used to jump off of when we were teenagers.

I've seen people jump of the highest scaffold (about 3/4 of the way up) and I remember at least one guy who broke some ribs, so I assume this guy could have been hurt as well. I only knew one guy who jumped from the top. He wasn't hurt, but his sandles were ripped off of his feet.

Not that it made it safe, but we always had a boat waiting under the bridge; this guy (presumably) had to swim to shore - which is a /long/ way if you're hurt.

Re: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Burj-Dubai-Worlds-Tallest-Building
Fyi, I modified the embed code to change autoplay from true to false. Please do the same if you embed from that host again as it seems they turn it on by default. Thanks.

Altho the Burj Dubai is in theory the tallest mand made building, its incomplete and off limits to most people. so as it stands the CN tower still is considered the tallest Viewing platform in the world.

If something like this ever happened for real (it didn't even have to be a meteor that big) I swear that if I did't get killed in the initial blast, and knew I coulnd't do anything to save myself, I would definitely go to the highest point around, maybe the tallest building in the city or so, go to the rooftop, and just enjoy a great view of the end of the world.

rationally and scientifically? state your science, theo!

You were taught in high school that gravity pulls things to the ground at 9.8 meters per second squared, correct?

9.8 meters is equal to 32.152231 feet

So, from the first second of a fall in a vacuum(no air to produce friction against, according to Newtonian Physics), a ball would have been traveling at 32.152231 feet per second, per second

In the First second - 0-32.152231 feet down from origin - 32.152231 feet per second
In the Second second - 32.152231 - 96.456693 feet down from origin - 64.304462 feet per second
In the Third second - 96.456693 - 192.913386 feet down from origin - 96.456693 feet per second
In the Fourth Second - 192.913386 - 289.370079 feet down from origin - 128.608924 feet per second
In the Fifth Second - 289.370079 - 421.131234 feet down from origin - 160.761155 feet per second
In the Sixth Second - 421.131234 - 614.04462 feet down from origin - 192.913386 feet per second
In the Seventh Second - 614.04462 - 839.110237 feet down from origin - 225.065617 feet per second
In the Eighth Second - 839.110237 - 1096.325085 feet down from origin - 257.214848 feet per second
In the Ninth Second - 1096.325085 - 1385.692164 feet down from origin - 289.367079 feet per second
In the Tenth Second - 1385.692164 - 1707.211474 feet down from origin - 321.51931 feet per second
(Tallest of the towers was around 1370 feet tall...thus, I stop here.)

Working FORWARDS - equation of a fall, based on the gravity of Earth IN A VACUUM.

Suffice it to say, it should have taken at least a minute and a half for those towers to fall, just by friction of the steel alone(even ASSUMING that all of the floor connectors gave way at the EXACT SAME MOMENT).

If you want, I can send you the blueprints - STATE YOUR RATIONALE!

"The problem here is that you don't believe the government would do such a thing."

Of course they wouldn't. Whatever they wanted to achieve could've been achieved much more simply and with much less risk. They could've exploded a truck bomb in the Lincoln Tunnel, for example. Or maybe the Washington Bridge. Maybe both. Hell, exploding a bomb in every tunnel and on every bridge to NYC would've been easier than what they did. How do you think the conversation between the accomplices went?

- We need to create panic. How can we do that?
- Let's explode a bomb somewhere in NYC? Maybe 2 or 3 bombs?
- No, we need something much much more complicated.
- Ok, let's take down a couple of planes.
- No, not complicated enough.
- Ok, 4 planes.
- No, still not enough.
- Ok, we'll fly them into the White House, the Pentagon, and the Twin Towers.
- That's still not enough. What if the planes don't damage the towers enough?
- Ok, so let's also secretly plant explosives all over the two tallest skyscrapers in New York without ANYONE figuring it out. Then we'll execute all the parts of the plan at the same time. And we'll just keep our fingers crossed that none of the hundreds of people that will have to be involved in this plan will talk.
- Ah, now THAT's a good plan! This is totally doable and totally necessary!

Seriously imstallar28, put down the crack pipe.

You make my point for me -- human beings are fragile things, their memories are unreliable, and their brains often work in mysterious ways to make the intolerable tolerable.

I was horrified watching it, myself - and I was in a high rise 23 stories up in the tallest building in town. People were leaving the building in the actual fear that it was happening everywhere. I'm not pretending my experience was worse than yours - but I certainly would never use emotional distress as an argument for an absurd thesis.

See, this is what I'm talking about when I referred to y'all being amateur scientists - it isn't necessary for the beams to melt, only weaken enough to no longer support the weight of one of the tallest buildings in the world. I'm absolutely certain your pancake theories don't hold up when referring to a building of that height and weight. Of course things are going to pulverize when dropped from that height with that much pressure.

The cores of the buildings are what were on fire, due to fucking jetliners full of fuel going through them at hundreds of miles an hour. I don't think your other examples of building fires quite set the same precedent. Not even close.

Multiple floors collapsing is going to sound like multiple explosions - duh. And buildings aren't allowed to exist, especially ones as big as the Towers, without being insured.

I didn't copy and paste any of the above from another site - because it's common fucking sense if you have half a brain.

See, this is why I hate debating this stuff at all - because I'm forced to deal with paranoid kooks who will believe anything an amateur will tell them and don't know the first thing about rational thought. Fuck!

"I was more impressed with Batman & Robin Mr. Freeze thingy, and that was what.. 1999? I've ridden Dragster, and it's about as exciting as any of those generic, at any amusement park type rides. Like a power tower, or whatever. The best rides are Raptor, Magnum XL, Beast, Millennium Force"

Nonsense. I've been on those coasters many many times and they're totally different. No comparison.

"And no, they ripped off a ride designed for Cedar Point to be the fastest/tallest. And just modified it 2 yrs later to be a clone to steal title of fastest/tallest. It clearly is an attempt buy some "coolness" to another park."

Whatever. Knowing that there's a similar coaster somewhere else doesn't make this one feel any less awesome.

I was more impressed with Batman & Robin Mr. Freeze thingy, and that was what.. 1999? I've ridden Dragster, and it's about as exciting as any of those generic, at any amusement park type rides. Like a power tower, or whatever. The best rides are Raptor, Magnum XL, Beast, Millennium Force

And no, they ripped off a ride designed for Cedar Point to be the fastest/tallest. And just modified it 2 yrs later to be a clone to steal title of fastest/tallest. It clearly is an attempt buy some "coolness" to another park.

Same designer, just newer tech and all the bugs worked out ON CEDAR POINT's development $$$. I'm glad Cedar Point quit investing in lame 20 second long rides just to go straight fast (fastest) and straight up in the air (tallest). How lame, just shoot people off the top of the Sears tower.

The new ride should be good, they're trying to revitalize the old ghost town of Frontier Land. http://maverick.cedarpoint.com/ride/video/?video_id=1
Nice and long, should be as good as Raptor (the best ride).

^ Who cares? The point is it's the fastest and tallest rollercoaster today. Also, it's not 8 feet taller but 36, which is pretty significant.

Do me a favor - play devil's advocate, and try Google-searching what else "pull it" could possibly mean in that circumstance.


In reply to your comment:
“Watch this - They admit to "pulling" WTC 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D-aO3zY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprisonplanet%2Ecom%2Farticles%2Ffebruary2007%2F260207building7%2Ehtm



In reply to your comment:
“Yeah, ren - that's because the experts themselves are having a hard time agreeing on how WTC7 went down - but I'm thinking being right next to two of the tallest buildings in the world as they came down in a pile of rubble might have something to do with it. See, that's how science really works - attempting to theorize what happened using the available facts, as opposed to christening yourself an expert on everything from construction to physics after watching a couple of Flash movies on the internets.

I'll take theories based on real knowledge of those subjects instead of baseless accusations out of a bad literary thriller. The towers were constructed with explosives in them? The fire was minor? Demonstrably false, and I don't know what about the last 7 years makes you think the Bush administration is competent enough to tie its own shoes, much less pull off the greatest conspiracy to ever happen, ever, ever.

Again, I can argue this from now until the end of time, but you and your brethren have the certainty of religious fervor, and there's nothing obvious or factual I can say that could shake your faith.””