'What about building 7'?

[TJM]

THE NAPA EARTHQUAKE: 8/24 was an inside job.

One set of eyes awakend:

In researching the events of Sunday, August 24 2014 in Napa California, I am now convinced that this was indeed some kind of attack on America and I'm now compiling evidence is this thread to be presented along with any further WTC7 evidence because most people will see a direct tie between the two distant, yet eerily similar, tragedies.

WITNESS TESTIMONY:

Peg Marzo:

I thought it was the rapture and I was left behind," Marzo said. "It felt like a bomb went off and then Godzilla came and shook everything up."

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/br...ear-epicenter-amcan-fared-better-than-napa-or

Israel Villalpondas:

"We were scared. It was big," Villalpondas said. "It was like a bomb - boom."

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Northern-California-quake-Child-in-chimney-5708941.php

Jeanine, a homeless woman:

"It felt like a tidal wave. The sky lit up like a bomb went off"

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/br...on-army-serves-homeless-meal-at-first-baptist

Chris Mariano:

"felt like a bomb went off"

http://www.aviationpros.com/news/11...re-than-100-hurt-in-northern-california-quake

Andre (Surname not given):

"It's like a bomb went off"

http://www.cw7michigan.com/news/fea...y-declared-after-California-earthquake-.shtml

These witnesses must be taken at their word because, after all, they were there and you weren't and even if you were, I don't believe you.

Remember also that California's coastal mountains are home to several "de-activated" Cold War era Nike missile batteries. It would be nothing for the US Military to refurbish and upgrade theses missile sites at a moments notice. The missile sites may have been modified to support drone aircraft as well. I was awake during the "earthquake" and remember quite a bit of aircraft activity after the "event" My guess is these were the drones returning to the missile sites after completing their missions.

So the facts are there and you sheep need to come to terms with:

WhY would they stage a false flag earthquake on the heart of California's wine country?

Who would gain from it? The French? The Italians? The Argentinians??

Or is it more likely it was staged by Ernest & Julio Gallo to reap massive profits from an insurance scam?

Why was Obama seen chugging Napa Merlot at 2:20 AM EST on 24 AUG 2014?

I'm afraid it's too late for most of you but if just one of you swallows your pride and wakes up, I'll take it as a small victory and lord knows and can't ask much more from you ********.

AJM

 

[pgimeno]

NEW WTC 7 Investigation Witness to Flashes and Explosions.mp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqUOebz22c

5 minutes after WTC7 collapse.

Radio Anchor: "Let's go to 1010 reporter Eileen Lapalmer (sp). Eileen?"
00:01:34 Reporter Eileen Laplamer: "Alright, Ralph I'm here on Hudson St.

As you've been hearing 7 WTC just collapsed about 5 minutes ago.....

I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there. He was trying to help people. His name is Daryl."

Daryl: Yeah..ahh. I was just standing there.

We were watching the building actually [WTC7] because it was on fire.

The bottom floors of this building were on fire and we heard this sound. It sounded like a clap of thunder.

We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was..it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building.

The windows all busted out and it was horrifying.

Then ahh..about a second later, the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that. And uhm..we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground.

We were in shock..."

So, you are saying that the severing of 57 columns simultaneously with explosives for 8 floors wasn't recorded in audio from many miles away, and it sounded like a clap of thunder audible only to someone very close to the building?

Nonsense. What was your second best guess?

 

[pgimeno]

Can you provide a link to where it was proved that the deviations are not a statistical anomaly, and does that include them definitely not being a possible effect of one of the mathematical 'smoothing' processes? Could someone who is convinced that the deviations cannot be due to the smoothing process explain their reasoning in non-mathematical terminology? I couldn't even begin to understand the 'discussion of femr's video analysis' thread.

No. It requires math.

 

[ProBonoShill]

One set of eyes awakend:

In researching the events of Sunday, August 24 2014 in Napa California, I am now convinced that this was indeed some kind of attack on America and I'm now compiling evidence is this thread to be presented along with any further WTC7 evidence because most people will see a direct tie between the two distant, yet eerily similar, tragedies.

SNIPPED>>>>>

Brilliant!

 

[000063]

Seconded.

 

[JayUtah]

What I was getting at was that a lot of the conspiracy nuts read those quote mined bits and believe those without skepticism. It's a fair point though... the quote mining is rampant as you point out.. probably as badly as the literal take on them. But even then, putting it into context usually doesn't change the person's position an iota.

I find it most telling that these various witnesses whose testimonies are quoted aren't themselves Truthers. It's hard to argue that a witness supports your case when he -- you know -- doesn't support your case.

 

[000063]

It's quite easy, once you stop letting all that pesky reality hinder you.

 

[Miragememories]

I don't have a problem with it getting to free fall either.

I already showed MM how it could do that, and even go over free fall acceleration.

Which it very well could have done, if you look at Pgimeno's graphs on the Femr2 thread.

I have a big problem with a 47 storey modern office tower completely dropping to the ground in several seconds.

Especially when it is claimed that it was not caused by a controlled demolition but was blamed on office furnishing's fires.

Meanwhile you quibble over the importance of whether the rate of acceleration for the collapse showed a minuscule deviation on a graph made from plot points generated from standard definition NTSC camera footage.

When asked to show how these minuscule deviations are in any way significant, you clam up.

When it is pointed out to you that even the NIST does not dispute freefall and what it means, you still remain silent.

"Stage 2 [of WTC7's global collapse] (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

"...a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it..."

Even if a few of data points on the the graph are right in showing that high speed collapse had micro variations here and there, they had to have been insignificant.

After the roofline 'kinked' and global collapse ensued, the dropping WTC7 remained effectively level during that 8 storey freefall.

Even if JSander's hypothesis was valid, it would take time for the heavy steel truss support to fail from the east side to west side, (or vice versa). Enough time that WTC7's collapsing roofline would never have remained so level.

 

[jaydeehess]

I find it most telling that these various witnesses whose testimonies are quoted aren't themselves Truthers. It's hard to argue that a witness supports your case when he -- you know -- doesn't support your case.

Oh, Like Sean Boger who's witness report apparently supports the CiT version of the Pentagon event.

 

[Miragememories]

NEW WTC 7 Investigation Witness to Flashes and Explosions.mp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqUOebz22c

5 minutes after WTC7 collapse.

Radio Anchor: "Let's go to 1010 reporter Eileen Lapalmer (sp). Eileen?"
00:01:34 Reporter Eileen Laplamer: "Alright, Ralph I'm here on Hudson St.

As you've been hearing 7 WTC just collapsed about 5 minutes ago.....

I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there. He was trying to help people. His name is Daryl."

Daryl: Yeah..ahh. I was just standing there.

We were watching the building actually [WTC7] because it was on fire.

The bottom floors of this building were on fire and we heard this sound. It sounded like a clap of thunder.

We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was..it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building.

The windows all busted out and it was horrifying.

Then ahh..about a second later, the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that. And uhm..we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground.

We were in shock..."

So, you are saying that the severing of 57 columns simultaneously with explosives for 8 floors wasn't recorded in audio from many miles away, and it sounded like a clap of thunder audible only to someone very close to the building?

Nonsense. What was your second best guess?

What "many miles away"?

I am saying that sound recording devices failed as a reliable means of determining what was occurring at the World Trade Center site on 9/11.

Time after time the FOIA dubs of the recordings made by professional network news gatherers, failed to accurately convey the sound we know was generated.

In many recordings, while local sounds are clearly heard, that of the more distant collapsing towers is almost non-existent.

The human ear does not have such difficulty and there are many eyewitnesses such as the one cited above who were there and heard what the cameras clearly did not.

 

[JayUtah]

I have a big problem with a 47 storey modern office tower completely dropping to the ground in several seconds.

But since you don't have the training or qualifications to properly inform your expectations, your "big problem" amounts to nothing more than your uninformed personal opinion -- a begged question. However, the professional opinion of the relevant qualified experts is that there's nothing especially problematic with the WTC 7 collapse speed.

Especially when it is claimed that it was not caused by a controlled demolition but was blamed on office furnishing's fires.

I have a big problem with claims of controlled demolition that have to spend so much time trying to invent speculative reasons for why there's no direct evidence of controlled demolition. Hence we have to endure farfetched claims of cameras that all suddenly and selectively failed to record the detonations, seismographs that somehow missed the thing they were designed to measure, and magical paint-on explosives that don't actually explode.

The whole controlled-demolition belief arises not because there's evidence of explosives, but instead from an unsupported inference that in turn arises from a layman's misconception of what should occur. This is why it has no traction in the real world.

When asked to show how these minuscule deviations are in any way significant, you clam up.

The deviations are right there in the data, and there is no dispute about that from either party. However, you're the one claiming they're "miniscule" and "in [no] way significant." That conclusion would normally be drawn only on the basis of an error analysis, which you have not done. Hence once again you beg the question.

When it is pointed out to you that even the NIST does not dispute freefall and what it means, you still remain silent.

When it is pointed out that you are cherry-picking NIST's data and conclusions, you simply restate your beliefs and try to blame others for the repetition. If the response to your dishonesty resembles silence, it's probably because you're ignoring quite a number of your critics.

Again, we're not really refuting you -- we're just explaining why, after 13 years, no one believes you.

 

[JayUtah]

The human ear does not have such difficulty...

You were invited to present your otology and neurology findings to support this claim. So far, silence from you.

...eyewitnesses such as the one cited above...

I discussed your witness at length. So far, silence from you.

 

[JayUtah]

Even if JSander's hypothesis was valid, it would take time for the heavy steel truss support to fail from the east side to west side, (or vice versa). Enough time that WTC7's collapsing roofline would never have remained so level.

Your expert structural analysis supporting this prediction and claim are missing. I remind you that you have specifically disclaimed any expert knowledge of engineering.

 

[thedopefishlives]

MM, you are being dishonest in the following quote:

When it is pointed out to you that even the NIST does not dispute freefall and what it means, you still remain silent.

Your implication is that "what it means" is that freefall equates to controlled demolition. NIST has made no such statement and to imply as much is dishonest. The only people making that assertion are Truthers. NIST merely states the existence of a period of approximate freefall acceleration and makes no attempt to derive any conclusions from this fact.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oddly enough the "kink" is obvious in the third picture(bottom left) AND it is more pronounced in the last picture. This indicates a not so level roofline, nor a uniform descent.

BUT

There is still the utter and complete lack of of any sounds of explosives on any audio track from any professional OR consumer grade equipment recording. Your excuses for this lack of evidence are ridiculous. Perhaps, just perhaps, they might apply to one set of explosives or one type of audio track, but to claim that they are universal when you know for absolute certain that these sounds do get captured well in known explosive use demolitions is where you enter the realm of improbable fantasy.

In addition you have been witness to several people explaining the collapse sequence in whole yet you continue to parse the collapse to only a 2.25 second snippet of a 16-20 second sequence. In this you completely ignore the fact that internal destruction of the preceding fourteen seconds must have an effect on the structure that must affect the following 2.25 seconds.
Even your above post you are seemingly attempting to tell us that the building was whole when the final global collapse began, it simply wasn't and that fact is patently obvious.

 

[JayUtah]

NIST merely states the existence of a period of approximate freefall acceleration and makes no attempt to derive any conclusions from this fact.

But Miragememories does try to derive a conclusion from it, which by his logic means he must think he's smarter than NIST.

 

[LSSBB]

Meanwhile you quibble over the importance of whether the rate of acceleration for the collapse showed a minuscule deviation on a graph made from plot points generated from standard definition NTSC camera footage.

I asked for your evidence to back up YOUR claim of "100 ft. of free fall". If asking you to back up YOUR claim is quibbling, then I, sir, am a master Quibbler.

By the way, tapping my feet while you avoid providing evidence is NOT clamming up.

Run away, run away! Now approaching light speed!

 

[jaydeehess]

I asked for your evidence to back up YOUR claim of "100 ft. of free fall". If asking you to back up YOUR claim is quibbling, then I, sir, am a master Quibbler.

By the way, tapping my feet while you avoid providing evidence is NOT clamming up.

Run away, run away! Now approaching light speed!

I am willing to accept a period of (+/-)free fall and even the characterization of it being for (+/- X)100 feet of drop.

Its significance is however, not demonstrated.
The entire free fall=CD idea is a complete handwave argument from AE911T that a bunch of people simply bought into.
nitpickery though
sqrt(100X2/32)=2.5 not 2.25
Apparently its 100(+/-20) feet
OR perhaps its not 'g'.

 

[DGM]

I have a big problem with a 47 storey modern office tower completely dropping to the ground in several seconds.

It was about 17+ seconds (I think femr2 detected movement around 20 seconds before it disappeared from view).

How long should it have taken? You say it was too fast, you must know what is correct. Or is this a guess that you claim you don't like taking?

 

[Redwood]

Two more photos

Here's two more photos; one of the Salomon Brothers double-height trading floor on the 46th-47th floor, showing the exposed columns supporting the East Penthouse; and one of WTC 7 under construction, showing the cross-bracing at the bottom of the east side perimeter columns, done to handle the extra load added by the transfer trusses.