Originally posted by Speakeasy1981
This should better illustrate what deltaboy is trying to say:

The circled building is the one we see in the video, in which the 'targeting laser' flashes across the front of. You'll see that it's a bit of a distance from the south tower (where the 'targeting laser' begins).

The yellow line illustrates the path the targeting laser would've had to take to fit with your theory.

I would like to add that due to the angle of the 'targeting laser', the source would have to be to the south or west, which would make it out of view in the video, which was shot to the north (unless, of course, the laser could break from it's 'straight line shackles' and bend around the towers, which is impossible).

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Speakeasy1981]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Speakeasy1981]

This here is very interesting to me, and pretty much puts an end to that object being a "contineous" laser beam. I am not ruling out the possibility of an ABL or a laser, but since lasers only travel in straight lines, unless deflected of course, theres no way the point of a laser beam, could be seen on the side of TWC and on the side of the building it finally ends up at. Think of the tower angled like this /

With the beam coming in on a downward angle from 11 oclock down toward 5 oclock. As shown in the yellow line in speakeasy's picture.

It could not then continue, and hit the face of a build that is angled like this \

It's just not possible.

I think the theory of an ABL heating up the building is debunked, as well as it causing an explosion on the underside of the plane.

HOWEVER! 11 11's post DOES bring up some major concerns about the possibility of an ABL being used to paint a target for the plane to hit. To guide it remotely to it's destination.

But again I still see no clear pictures of an ABL in the ait around the Trade Center complex, like there is around the Pentagon.

But they can fly at very high range, and thier lasers are capable of being used from many miles away so, the ABL could easily just not have been captured flying around Manhatten.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by Nola213]

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
I'm well aware that camcorders have a 'night mode' option. This link speaks of modifications that can be done, but makes no mention of the 5% blend mode you speak of. It does, however, say this:

The 5% number I gave you was an example, and it really upsets me that you people take it literally. I was simply giving you a comparison, from 100% to 5%. It was a wild guess of the amount of IR light being let into the camera.

Also, you are reading the NEW camera model. If you read the old camera model, it tells you it can use NightShot in clear day. Although, I don't believe the camera used was the ones I linked too, but I was merely showing you how nightshot works, and that the ICF controls the amount of IR wavelengths you see. The point of it was to show you that IR can be visible with a hand held camera. It all depends on the lenses used in the camera. Obviously ALL the cameras that filmed this side of the WTC had ICF lenses, and the camera that filmed the evidence in my O.P. didn't have the same strength ICF lenses. Basically it call comes down to the type of ICF lenses that is on the camera. I can not tell you exactly what type was in the camera, I can only tell you that it was much different then all the other cameras that filmed the 2nd jet impact.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
I disagree. I see nothing in the video that suggests 'night mode,' blended or otherwise. If you can provide video shot in night mode that looks anything like this, I will be very surprised. I guess it's possible, but now the theory requires camera modifications replacing lenses and image sensors, making it all the more unlikely in my opinion.

I don't think you understand. If you watch the video evidence in the top left corner you will see a slight tint of green. This is because the ICF on that camera is letting in more IR wavelength lights then a normal camera. If you can't see that in the video, then I can't help you. That is even irrelevant to the point, because now you are avoiding the mere fact that there is a laser beam in the video. I don't care what IR wavelength it was, or what type of camera it was, I care that the laser beam is there and visible.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
The plane is flying left to right from the perspective of this camera.

Correct.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Left to right means nothing without a positional reference.

My positional reference has ALWAYS been the video camera perspective, thanks.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
The white jet is on the other side, so Flight 175 would be flying right to left from it's perspective.

Forget about that white aircraft. There were multiple aircraft in the sky, including another white jet directly in the direction the impact jet came from. So, you can stop talking about that jet only, as I just showed you a video with another white jet in it.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
it doesn't sound like a theory you're still working out. Maybe if you were a litte more humble with your opinions (that's what they are), people wouldn't respond so harshly.

This is where you are confused with the rest of them. The theory isn't the smoking gun, THE VIDEO EVIDENCE OF A LASER IS THE SMOKING GUN.

Originally posted by Nola213
HOWEVER! 11 11's post DOES bring up some major concerns about the possibility of an ABL being used to paint a target for the plane to hit. To guide it remotely to it's destination.

But since a single man with a laser designator can do the same thing and as we are assuming that the military has technology massively ahead of what they show us, why bother with the massive 747? I mean one guy with a laser is so much harder to spot than a 747, and even if we assume it can only be detected by UA175 (or whatever) for the last 7 miles or so (which a freefall bomb can), why use the ABL? 7 miles, even at 200+ m/s is a lot of time to maneuver with something computer guided.

Unless it's just a bird or something a lot closer to the camera, showing why it doesn't react to the explosion, since it's so far away from it.

a remote controlled 747. Obviously this is possible however, this would be a bit of an undertaking and would involve a number of personnel.
Aviation experts
Electronic experts
guidance experts
computer experts
etc.

Thats alot of people to keep quiet.

Also, since the inception of "paint and forget" technology, the US no longer needs to continuously paint a target for tracking. This would eliminate the need for a continuous beam.

Also, GPS could guide the aircraft there without the need for painting at all. If my phone can guide me to a house down to 3 meters, I'm guessing more advanced systems would have NO problem guiding a plane into a building. Again, if a GPS type system were used, it would eliminate the risk of seeing the painted area on a target with a laser.

Finally,
11 11 has stated a laser beam was seen in the footage. No beam is visible anywhere in the footage. At most the termination point of the laser where it hits a solid object may theoretically be visible depending on what you think you see.

Smoking Gun?

How do I know this isn't some Defense Intelligence Agency operative trying to lead off the track?

I can tell you, it is the Defense Intelligence Agency.

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY...

I am the victim of the anti-christ/jesus christ conspiracy. I am the one in Denver right now.

My name is:

James Bernard Schumacher III

I just found out about the murals at Denver International Airport and I have been here since late January.

The truth in the conspiracy against me?

God was trapped by people being extremely cruel. And had to do things in order to get me to see how cruel people were... I can begin to tell you the cruelties of people.

I saw a light from the sun on January 15th, 2006... God knighted me that day.

He raised the fire from the ground, and put some influence to make me look to the left to see fire raise from the ground, trying to scare me.

God was telling me... It's the people, James. You must see this.

JamesSchumacher,
ummm.... yeah.... so james, do you know what this thread as about ? Not at all, in any way, shape or form what you are talking about.

And by the way, I have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about although I did not see the words LASER or WTC anywhere in your incoherent rambling.

You might want to move you post to another more appropriate thread.

What are you talking about now? The jets that hit the WTC's were 767's, those would be the remote controlled ones. B.T.W. the military has many of these remote controlled aircraft ready for use. I think they use the systems in crash tests all the time.

First, if they were 767's, then I made a minor mistake, unlike your major mistakes. You might want to work on getting that chip off your shoulder.
Show me the remote controlled 767's that the military uses please.

Also, it would be a lot of people to keep quiet. Who says none of them were drugged to forget everything they did? Its possible. I think thats why Bob Lazar quite working at Area 51, because they started to drug him to forget, and he didn't like that.

RIGHT... I can wildly speculate that blue footed baboons kidnapped the workers also. Wow, this is fun


Originally posted by jfj123
Also, since the inception of "paint and forget" technology, the US no longer needs to continuously paint a target for tracking. This would eliminate the need for a continuous beam.

I don't think thats how "paint and forget" works. I think once you "paint" the target, the "paint" will track itself on the moving target with no user input. The "paint" will always need to stay on the target until the ordinance hits its target. The ordinance is what is tracking the laser beam dot, if that laser dot isn't there it won't have anything to track. The jet in this case, is the ordinance.

NOPE. Paint and forget means exactly how it sounds.

But now we are debating the type of weapons they could have used, when the main point of it all is that they used weapons.

No, the main point is whether or not they used any weapon or if there is any conspiracy at all. There is no evidence of any laser. Your own posts contradict themselves.

Originally posted by jfj123
Also, GPS could guide the aircraft there without the need for painting at all. If my phone can guide me to a house down to 3 meters, I'm guessing more advanced systems would have NO problem guiding a plane into a building. Again, if a GPS type system were used, it would eliminate the risk of seeing the painted area on a target with a laser.

Not sure GPS can control the flight controls of the jet. You would need something actually flying the jet like a pilot. It would be to risky to just program it and press Go. If for any reason you get turbulence, or a "stand down", or birds sucked into the engines, you would have to reprogram the GPS? You would need a human controlling the jet (even remotely) to have full control of the aileron an elevator controls, especially on the Pentagon flight. Unless GPS knows how to make up for "ground effect", and other various in flight effects.

I would say they would use a similar system to the DARPA driverless car challenge. THEORETICALLY.

Originally posted by jfj123
Finally,
11 11 has stated a laser beam was seen in the footage. No beam is visible anywhere in the footage. At most the termination point of the laser where it hits a solid object may theoretically be visible depending on what you think you see.

The reason I call it a laser "beam" is because the light is so small and bright that is could only come from a "beam" of light. If it wasn't a "beam" then the entire building would be lit up.
I don't see why you say there is "no beam visible" then you say there may be a laser dot visible. You can not have a laser dot without a laser beam, your are conflicting with yourself right now.

Because there is a difference between a dot and a line. The dot could be the termination point of the laser. The beam would be the space between the source and the termination. For the record, in the photos, I see no beam or dot. I believe you can see what you want to see.

Originally posted by FredT
The white jet aka "the smoking gun" outside of the Pentagon, could just as easliy have been and far more likely the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center which also has the same hump behind the cockpit area.

The History channel is rerunning the same show they ran the other night on 911 conspriacies and at approix 45 minutes into the program that portion is cleared up in an interview of a AF pilot of a C130 who had been asked to shadow the aircraft because it had turned off the transponders and the pilot says he was flying the C130 and there were no other planes except him and the AA airliner in the immediate area so there is no smoking gun at the pentagon as claimed.

I just wanted to say i saw 4 of those "abl" planes flying really low and really close together by the mall here in indianapolis the other day... they turned really quickly almost 180 degrees which tells me that they were most likely remote controlled... especially how close they where together...
i have no proof other than two witnesses,
but i just wanted to throw what i saw that in this forum...
kinda scared me because i saw this post about those kind of planes ive never seen before
and then i see them really close up, almost thought they where going to melt something!

But since a single man with a laser designator can do the same thing and as we are assuming that the military has technology massively ahead of what they show us, why bother with the massive 747? I mean one guy with a laser is so much harder to spot than a 747, and even if we assume it can only be detected by UA175 (or whatever) for the last 7 miles or so (which a freefall bomb can), why use the ABL? 7 miles, even at 200+ m/s is a lot of time to maneuver with something computer guided.

Unless it's just a bird or something a lot closer to the camera, showing why it doesn't react to the explosion, since it's so far away from it.

Bingo. I'm glad I'm not the only one here that doesn't get it. The whole theory is about the ABL, winglets, hump, and all. Now we're supposed to forget about the white jet, the laser may have even been shot from a boat. My problem is, I don't see a laser, and there is absolutely no proof the camera had any sort of night mode on. I have cameras with night shot mode, and I know it looks nothing like that. The direction of the laser is reversed, and the buildings dont line up as pointed out by speakeasy and nola.

In my opinion, it just doesn't make any sense.

Look its quite simple:

This is video evidence that shows a laser dot.

Google Video Link

This is the path of the laser dot.



Thats your smoking gun, debunk that.

Originally posted by 11 11
I don't think you understand. If you watch the video evidence in the top left corner you will see a slight tint of green. This is because the ICF on that camera is letting in more IR wavelength lights then a normal camera. If you can't see that in the video, then I can't help you. That is even irrelevant to the point, because now you are avoiding the mere fact that there is a laser beam in the video. I don't care what IR wavelength it was, or what type of camera it was, I care that the laser beam is there and visible.

Well, all that I'm seeing there is a reflection of light from the airplane on the building as it makes it's approach to it. The thing that passes in front of the other building appears to be debris, as it wavers back and forth, as if it were spinning through the air. Remember now, they've found bodies of people blown out of the WTC towers over 1/4 mile from the buildings. It would be no stretch of the imagination for a piece of debris to be flying that fast, nor that far.

This is where you are confused with the rest of them. The theory isn't the smoking gun, THE VIDEO EVIDENCE OF A LASER IS THE SMOKING GUN.

Again, as I and others have pointed out, there IS no "smoking gun" there. The only things smoking in this video are the buildings.

As for the laser's presence, perhaps you would be so kind as to address my inquiries on that very subject a page back. I'd be honored if you could elaborate on how the purported IR pictures that you showed us could possibly show that the airplane above the 767 was responsible for "painting" the building for the hit. I would greatly appreciate a response. Thank you for your time.

TheBorg

OK,
I watched the video 10 more time. Here is what I noticed

1. That dot is about the size of the nose of the plane about to strike the tower. Thats one big laser dot !

2. Why is the supposed laser dot moving? When painting a target, it would need to remain fixed.

3. I still see no evidence that the nightshot mode was on.

4. Here's a good way to debunk the nightshot myth. Does anyone have an older camera that still allows nighthshot activation in the daytime? If so, could you please take some outdoor video and post it for comparison?

5. Finally, does anyone know when nightshot was redesigned so it could not be activated in the day?


Technological night vision works on one of two principles. The first is by detecting infrared radiation, which is a form of energy emitted by all objects regardless of the ambient light conditions. A device based on this principle is called an infrared camera. The second is by intensifying the small amount of light present even at night, from the stars and the moon.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.