My opinion here is that when you want to deal with the work of Laptop please do it scientifically and with some real facts rather then assertions and opinions. That way the conversation will stay on course and everyone can check out the claims against the numbers and the work provided. In my opinion the skeptics need some explanation for what he has uncovered and I haven't seen anything meaningful by anyone to-date on the subject.

MikeVet, are you seriously trying to tell me that I made timelines for all 3 of the ones you indicated :

You : And these sounds coincide with the timeline you have laid out?
Nope.
Me : WHICH timeline I have laid out, and you'd better be very specific!
You : in the time period immediately preceeding the collapse of 1 and 2. and the time period coinciding 7's drop.
nothing there.

Come on, you can do it if you really want.
Again, WHICH timeline of mine, and be specific. Not 3, but 1.

EDIT:
His ""nothing there"" remark will be dealt with subsequently in one of the next steps.
I have to be patient with him, dissecting his problems with understanding my work one by one.




[edit on 6/1/08 by LaBTop]

Well, let's not wait, and take the short road to wisdom.

You did not even look carefully at the sounds-timeline of seconds before that collapse initiated, in which these low frequency sounds were recorded. When you so quickly made that ""nothing there"" remark :

1. -17.0 s massive Low-Freq explosion sound.
2. -13.4 s medium
3. -7.4 s large
4. -3.5 s medium
Start of Fall,(0.0s), Internal series START.
5. +2.6 s massive
External cascade START.

Here is the LDEO collapse graph of WTC 1 north tower, the second collapse, which is shown in the 9/11Eyewitness short video clip :



So you really don't see no seismic disturbances in the first 20 seconds of this graph?

I don't believe it, but, then blow up this graph in Windows-Paint to the same 10 nm/s scale as the others, and now you see suddenly that packs of huge peaks pre-run the massive peak packet of the global collapse.
( My Paint does not allow me to fill in 1000% in the Vertical Stretch window, so I have to insert 2x a value of 499%. I guess Paint-Pro will allow you to insert 1000% at once.)

Those 10 nm/s peaks are higher than the plane impact peaks.
So do you now understand that the sounds you hear on the Rick Siegel video from 9/11Eyewitness are very well comparable to the sound of a 767 flying at 500 miles per hour head-on into a WTC tower, at about 1000 feet high.

And don't try to place the seconds from the sound table from the 9/11Eyewitness link I gave above, directly on that graph.

You first have to convert its start time of 14:28:30 to EDT time, then you must find the official NIST time for that collapse in their time table (see my thesis), and then you perhaps can tell where exactly those 5 low frequency sounds belong in the first 20 seconds of that WTC 1 collapse graph.
Perhaps, because we have to look into the timelines from Rick Siegel too.
But it is very obvious that there are groups of distinctive seismic signals present in the 20 seconds before the main peaks turn up.

You and others keep derailing your questions to the Twin Tower collapses, but I added only a few lines on that subject in my thesis.
My thesis concentrates on the WTC 7 collapse, but you critics keep avoiding that subject as the plague.

Be brave, confront me on the WTC 7 collapse.

Originally posted by LaBTop

Be brave, confront me on the WTC 7 collapse.

Fine.

You find nothing contradictory to your theory in the fact that the separation of those 2 seismic events are exactly the separation observed in the pre and global collapse?

Originally posted by MikeVet

You find nothing contradictory to your theory in the fact that the separation of those 2 seismic events are exactly the separation observed in the pre and global collapse?

No. You know why?
Because your calculus skills are not at par with reality.

I have to say I was one that mis-interpreted that and thought the whole building took 10 seconds to collapse.

So you have audio recordings and/or eyewitness accounts of MASSIVE explosions, capable of moving the needle, in the beginning portion of those graphs?

I know LaBTop answered above, and can fight his own battles, but this question is just absurd. You're bordering on trolling, IMHO. I see you already have a warn. Another post like that will get you referenced to the Admin here by me.

What LaBTop is trying to get you to understand is this: understand the collapse of WTC7, and you'll see why WTC1 and WTC2 could not possibly be natural collapses.

To know 2+2=4, you first have to understand the "Add" operator. It's the same thing with the WTC collapse. Understand 7, understand 1 and 2.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I know LaBTop answered above, and can fight his own battles, but this question is just absurd. You're bordering on trolling, IMHO. I see you already have a warn. Another post like that will get you referenced to the Admin here by me.

What LaBTop is trying to get you to understand is this: understand the collapse of WTC7, and you'll see why WTC1 and WTC2 could not possibly be natural collapses.

To know 2+2=4, you first have to understand the "Add" operator. It's the same thing with the WTC collapse. Understand 7, understand 1 and 2.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Go ahead then. Make my day.

Here's the point where he's trapped himself. He provides ONE audio recording, which he asserts with no evidence other than he says it's proof, and through obfuscation on the various difficulties in establishing a true timeline for seismic events, is the sound of explosives. He says there was 3 events of similar energy. So where are the other 2?

THAT is proof that his theory needs work. All 3 should be able to be heard if he's right. Since only one is heard, it is logical to assume that noise in the film is NOT explosives either.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Originally posted by MikeVet

You find nothing contradictory to your theory in the fact that the separation of those 2 seismic events are exactly the separation observed in the pre and global collapse?

No.

Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.

You've put a lot of time into this. I commend you for that.

But if you're going to set yourself up as an authority, you better think about what challengers have to your theory. Avoiding even THINKING about it is a sign that you know you're wrong.

A worthy opponent ads data to his words.
You provided not a single piece of data in that opinion.
Show your calculations. And where you based them on. On which data.

Originally posted by LaBTop
A worthy opponent ads data to his words.
You provided not a single piece of data in that opinion.
Show your calculations. And where you based them on. On which data.

YOU need to provide the data.

YOU say that the noise in the Siegel video is the explosives going off. YOU say that all 3 events involved similar amounts of explosives since they moved the needle similarly.

Therefore YOU need to supply audio evidence for all 3 events, since it was easily heard.

YOU cannot, because it never happened like you believe. YOU do not know what the noise in the Siegel video, YOU are guessing.

MikeVet, you know what?
It was you, farting so loud, that Ricks audio equipment had to register it.

There are idiot ideas, and there are ideas based on the best guess one can come up with listening to these sounds. A guess combined with visual proof of dust and white smoke ejecting from the base of that tower, seconds after these sounds were recorded.

WTC 7.
It's your turn to try to prove me wrong, and you know perfectly well.
I have proved with extensive data support, that what YOU propose now, can not be true.

So it's your turn now, to prove to us, that what you propose is right.
But you are not, for a very simple reason.
Homework : go find that reason.
If you can't or won't use extensive data, stay away from scientifically organized threads based on numbers and facts, go have fun with opinionated threads.

===================================

OrionStars, did you miss that I addressed the South tower collapse?

LT : The region from 18s to 40s is the global collapse energy field.
If you stopwatch the BBC video I posted of the south tower collapse, where the camera man is running away after first filming the first half of the collapse, and by sheer luck pointed his camera back to the building when running for his life, you will see that when that first big chunk of exterior panel hits the ground, your stopwatch stops at about 12 seconds.

If I understand your argument right, then you try to prove to me that the FIRST seconds of the collapses were all running at free fall speed, or very near to that.
I do agree to a certain extend, the very fast first stage of the collapses indicate foul play, i.ex. demolition charges to erase the natural resistance of a steel high rise, so the top portion can gain momentum and develop so much impact energy, that the men made first stage changes to a naturally gravity driven collapse, after a few seconds.
Your measurement of the radio mast fall has been done much earlier already by many more, that is one of the reasons bsbray11 also saw foul play, I think.

This is btw the exact modus operandi of a demolition company, or the army.

You had the same kind of discussion with bsbray11 in another thread, and I think he basically agrees with you on the initiating event and first stage collapse theory.

I still have to tell you, that also the North tower collapse lasted much longer than your 10 seconds.
In the seismograms, you can not dismiss the peaks trailing behind the really huge peaks, they are still depictions of the bottom part of the buildings still coming down

There IS evidence for sounds for both WTC1 and WTC2 collapses. Rick Siegal probably has the best overall footage of this.

There are numerous other fixed camera shots that clearly show the effects from seismic disturbance. Google Video has plenty of footage there. I also recommend a search of this forum. I won't prove the footage for you here as you're the one doubting US on OUR word - prove us wrong (of course, you won't be able to).

I'm becoming of the opinion that you're just trying to waste our time. Why won't you go look at the footage for yourself?? It seems you'd rather argue about the existence of evidence, rather than actually watching it (because it does exist).