9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by TheBorg
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.

Wrong! I already told you, it can't be a reflection from the jet, as it was INFRARED. I have never seen anything in my life reflect only INFRARED, unless it was reflecting an infrared laser. The video is the only video that can see this infrared light, because it just happens to be a camera with a weak ICF lense.

It couldn't possibly be anything so normal as a seagull in front of this camera, no it must be infrared.

I mean, the only camera like it on the day, out of all those cameras?

[edit on 26-8-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by jfj123
1. That dot is about the size of the nose of the plane about to strike the tower. Thats one big laser dot !

Yes I already did measurements of the laser, it is 1 story tall. Why did you ignore that? I wrote about it, AND, I made an illustration for people that can't read:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...so...why did you ignore that?

Originally posted by jfj123
2. Why is the supposed laser dot moving? When painting a target, it would need to remain fixed.

Because it was trying to paint the jet and the jet is moving.

Originally posted by jfj123
3. I still see no evidence that the nightshot mode was on.

You don't even need a "NightShot" to see this, the camera just has to have an ICF that lets through that range of IR. ICF's come different on almost every camera.

Originally posted by jfj123
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?

Find a camera with an ICF that matchs the on in the video, and you have yourself a laser dot finder! ICF is the key NOT NIGHTSHOT. I only liked to that NightShot webpage because it describes perfectly how the IR filter (ICF) works.

Originally posted by jfj123
5. Finally, does anyone know when nightshot was redesigned so it could not be activated in the day?

Once agian, you don't even need nightshot, just find a camera with the correct ICF lense.

Originally posted by jfj123
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.

A previous post of mine (that you didn't read) explains perfectly well with 3 different links how Laser, and Infrared (night vision, and thermal vision) work.

Night vision cameras usually swap the ICF lense with a weaker one, or with one, upon activation. This will allow ALL light into the camera, instead of only visible light like a normal camera. Then adjusting shutter speed and other settings, you can get a good infrared picture.

Thermal imaging is different, thermal imaging creates its own images of all thermal energy. The images you see are not reality (like night vision is), it is just a render of thermal energy.

It is my theory that the ICF lense in the camera that took the picture of the laser, is a different ICF than those cameras that filmed the same side of the building. This ICF lense made it possible for the camera to see the laser dot.

Originally posted by apex
It couldn't possibly be anything so normal as a seagull in front of this camera, no it must be infrared.

Nope its not a seagull, because last i herd seagulls can just disapear and reapear like the laser dot did on the impact of the jet. Also, last I herd there is no such thing as a 12+ foot seagull. ITS NOT A BIRD JUST LOOK AT IT Bird's DO NOT GLOW, especially in front of fire!

Originally posted by apex
I mean, the only camera like it on the day, out of all those cameras?

Yes, the only camera with that type of ICF lense, or that type of Night Assist, or that type of contrast setting, hitting that angle, yes. It's far more believable then simply passing this off as a bird.

IF it was a bird, why did it only just appear on the top left of the WTC? Your telling me the bird is 12+ feet and can fly from WTC to the other building that fast? In a perfect straight line? It can also become invisible for a few seconds, and then come back, flying the same flight path??


Saying it is a bird or piece of debris is so unbelievable I just can't even bother trying to fit the rest of the clues together when trying to "open my mind" to that possibility.

When I stop and say ok "lets think this is a bird". My mind won't stop with contradicting accurances that make this thing NOT a bird. There are so many reason this is not a bird, I find it mind boggling that you can simply call it that and move on!

No wonder 911 is still unsolved, its people like you who too easily pass things off as "normal" when the entire 911 itself was NOT NORMAL.

This is ridiculous if you ask me. Whats the point of debating people that will choose their opinion over advanced research of evidence!??!?!

Originally posted by apex

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.

You mean like a guy on the ground with a hand held laser the size of a rocket launcher? I don't know what type of technology is out there for a single man(on the ground or a rooftop) to paint a target. I'd imagine it'd be quite big. IMO--alot more risky than a white plane flying just below the cloud line, on a day where the sky was filled with helicopters and possible other "white planes".

As far as a seagull....

Well it is Manhatten Bay Area basically and there are seagulls there, or pidgeons or what have you, but this object (laser/bird/paper ect) is travelling in an extremely straight line, and very fast.

I don't like the heating or cutting the building with a laser scenario, but painting a target i could see. If they had a large amount of explosives inside the WTC, they'd need the plane to hit that exact spot to sell it as the plane doing all that damage.

But again the lazer wouldn't be seen moveing across the screen, no need for it. After impact, the person painting the target would immediately turn it off, unless it was from a diving plane, then I could maybe see the laser dot used to paint the target continuing on it's course for 1 second or so like in the film. But the angle of buildings in the picture i posted, that was posted by (sorry forget the posters name), it refutes that scanario.

So really, I have no conclusive stance on what that anomoly is. But I have a few things I don't think it is..., like a bird, or a piece of paper.

Here is a video, of a laser guided bomb test run.. As you can see the actual "reticule" of the weapon is where the laser is pointing. This "reticule" is operated by a man. Even when the bomb is not falling, that laser is still "painting" and "moving". Although it is possible to lock the laser onto the moving object, that "lock position" has to be chosen by the missile operator, if the operator needs it.




Now look at this old test of a laser weapon tracking an aircraft. In the video you can see the laser "leading the target" when it is turning, or banking.




[edit on 26-8-2007 by 11 11]

11 11,
So what you're saying is that the tracking laser is 1 story (approx 10-12 ft) in diameter? That is one hell of a huge tracking laser.

By the way, I didn't IGNORE what you posted before. I am trying to show you that the "supposed laser" DOT is enormous. A tracking laser would not need to be 1 story tall to paint an object. Remember, a laser doesn't act like a flashlight at distance.

Why would the "supposed laser" track the jet and not the building?
11 11 wrote

Because it was trying to paint the jet and the jet is moving.

The WHITE dot was on the building prior to the plane coming into view and as it hit the building the dot was above the plane so if it was trying to "paint" the plane, it was the worst job ever as it never painted the plane.

Maybe you already answered this but why would ICF be on in the daytime? All new Nightshot cameras cannot activate in the daytime. Does anyone know if this is the same with the ICF type camera?

Also, maybe you ignored one of my posts where I mentioned that there should be a beam visible. You said there wouldn't be a visible beam because it didn't hit anything solid prior to the building. I then mentioned that the beam would have encountered solid particulates from the debris as seen in YOUR posted video.

The "supposed laser" on the building is white. What color are infrared lasers?

Finally, don't give me crap about me ignoring your posts when mine haven't been answered multiple times. I have done my best to read all posts but there are alot of posts and I assume everyone hasn't had time to read them all. There is going to be a few questions asked multiple times and it's not because anyone is being a jerk.
So ease up with the attitude.

11 11 wrote,

Here is a video, of a laser guided bomb test run.. As you can see the actual "reticule" of the weapon is where the laser is pointing. This "reticule" is operated by a man. Even when the bomb is not falling, that laser is still "painting" and "moving". Although it is possible to lock the laser onto the moving object, that "lock position" has to be chosen by the missile operator, if the operator needs it.

The camera was operated by a man. I don't see a laser on the object anywhere. I know the laser is there but I don't see it. The camera with cross hairs are moving but I don't see any light dot, moving or not.

Now look at this old test of a laser weapon tracking an aircraft. In the video you can see the laser "leading the target" when it is turning, or banking.

It's not trying to lead the aircraft, it's targeting the aircraft itself. You see that the aircraft blows apart when the laser hits it.
Keep in mind this is OLD footage and there have been advances in both military grade lasers and tracking since then.
Also, how old is the footage?
Why is it not in english?

Originally posted by shots
As for the pilot being a liar I doubt it, watching his demeaner he appeared to be telling the truth, you really should not go around acussing people of lying either, you could get your self into a big law suit for slandering people

I didn't call the pilot a liar, I called the producer of the show a liar. But seeing as I believe it was an in-side job I also believe there would be people planted to tell lies to confuse the situation. Show me proof there was a C-130 over the pentagon and I'll believe the story.

He appears to be telling the truth? That's good enough for you? Wow you guys are so quick to believe people. We always need to show proof in triplicate and even then you all blow it off . Trust NO ONE, especially when they are involved in a situation that could possibly rip the country apart if the truth is known. Did you do any research on this guy making this claim? If there really was a C-130 at the pentagoon shouldn't there be lots of other people that can verify this, yet we only have the pilots say-so? How do you know he's even a real pilot?

Law suit? What about when you guys call 'truthers' liars everyday here. Sry but your guilt trip won't work on me. Let him try to sue me, he won't get much...lol

the plane in the picture looks big because its blownup so much but i think it look alot like the predator wich has started carryin hellfire missiles

Originally posted by jfj123
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.

Actually, you do know what I am talking about I would bet. It relates to the backwardness since the military due to the Defense Intelligence Agency faked Roswell.

I think you know what I am getting at. How the conspiracy of the anti-christ/jesus christ, the putting me through hell, and having some sort of reasoning to put me through more hell in order of 'paying dues' to expose WTC.

It's a conspiracy in the sense people did sh*t to me, and then left clues as for me to expose the World Trade Center.

Like I said, it's the anti-christ/jesus christ conspiracy. And that relates to why 9/11 happened.

They conspired against the people that died on 9/11...

Although, by leaving me clues along the way, such as 'airplane fingers', etc... Which they tried to get me to remember, which I have now... And other things...

They put me through more hell however, in the sense that they conspired against me, left the clues to expose it, and now they act as if they will not let me expose them because of that fact. :rolleyes:

[edit on 26-8-2007 by JamesSchumacher]

[edit on 26-8-2007 by JamesSchumacher]

Originally posted by ANOK
Show me proof there was a C-130 over the pentagon and I'll believe the story.

I stated I could have mistated when I said a c-130 did you miss that part??

How do you know he's even a real pilot?

Because they interviewed him in uniform, both in front of and inside of the aircraft and while on base thats how

What about when you guys call 'truthers' liars everyday here.

There in lies the big difference everyone knows truthers as you put it are lying,because conspiracies like this are nothing but a big game to theorists. Take the most outrageous incident then make an outlandish claim that the government did it and spread it all over the internet without one shred of concrete evidence to back it up as true. All the tuthers as you put it have are theories that can and do get shot down by a bunch of students

Stand by for release three of loose change they are going to shoot more holes in your garbage lies/theories.

JamesSchumacher wrote,

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.

THEN HE WROTE,

Actually, you do know what I am talking about I would bet. It relates to the backwardness since the military due to the Defense Intelligence Agency faked Roswell.
I think you know what I am getting at. How the conspiracy of the anti-christ/jesus christ, the putting me through hell, and having some sort of reasoning to put me through more hell in order of 'paying dues' to expose WTC.
It's a conspiracy in the sense people did sh*t to me, and then left clues as for me to expose the World Trade Center.
Like I said, it's the anti-christ/jesus christ conspiracy. And that relates to why 9/11 happened.
They conspired against the people that died on 9/11...
Although, by leaving me clues along the way, such as 'airplane fingers', etc... Which they tried to get me to remember, which I have now... And other things...
They put me through more hell however, in the sense that they conspired against me, left the clues to expose it, and now they act as if they will not let me expose them because of that fact. :rolleyes:

I have NO idea what you're talking about. Sorry I really can't make any sense of what you're saying.

well why so complicated? why laser guided?

the planes were remote controlled military planes.

Originally posted by shots
I stated I could have mistated when I said a c-130 did you miss that part??

Maybe you should watch your video again then? But the claim is that there was a C-130 the at the pentagoon, and then somehow managed to fly all the way to Shankville in time to witness the crash there. How convenient?
If you are really researching this you should know that, it's pretty common knowledge.

A big game? How do you figure that out? Sry but this is not a game buddy this is real freakin life. Your government killed 3000 people, by at least negligence. No one has been held accountable, does that make sense to you? Does it not make you think something is not right? Take the blinders off. It's not un-patriotic to question your government, in fact it's the opposite.

Loose change? What has that got to do with anything. I don't quote loose change, or use it as a basis for my opinion. I can see by just looking at the vids that the official story is bunk. And seeing as I know the official story cannot be the truth (impossible physics) I also doubt pretty much anything else we're told happened that day. Nobody is lying to me, I can see with my own eyes and come to my own conclusions, thank you.

You are being lied to by your government on a daily basis!

No concrete evidence? Where's the concrete evidence that fire can cause 110 story buildings to explode all the way down to their foundations? Oh damn there isn't any. Sry but no one can convince me that fire and gravity can do that.

Why do people buy into the official story so easily? Hardly any of you bring any personal research to the table, just repeats of what the government claims. Are you scared of the consequences of the possibility that your own government did this? Are you really doing any unbiased research, or do you just look for what seems to fit? Never underestimate what governments will do. We are just commodities to them. They don't give a crap about us. Billions spent on illegal wars in foreign nations while our bridges collapse from lack of funding. Saving us from 'terrorists' while the country falls apart.
Yeah that makes so much sense. There's more chance a bridge will collapse as you drive over it than getting killed by a 'terrorist'. It's all bullcrap to keep you in fear.

One simple question, how do you explain how the towers fell with no resistance from undamaged floors? And I don't want a link to some government sponsored BS, I want to hear it from your own research. This has yet to be explained sufficiently by any government report. Don't believe me? Check out the physics for yourself.

[edit on 26/8/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
Maybe you should watch your video again then? But the claim is that there was a C-130 the at the pentagoon, and then somehow managed to fly all the way to Shankville in time to witness the crash there. How convenient?

First, I said I could be wrong about the C-130. Second, the pilot they interviewed was very confident in what he said so I feel you are wrong in insisting there was a C-130 there because he said there was none and I would believe him before you.

I really to not give a darn about physics and your insistence our government did it, because I do not believe that for one minute. If you and others want to play conspiracy games fine go at it, but be rest assured I will be there to debunk any phony/suspect statements when I can because that is all part of the game you are on the side of the (cough) so called truthers and I am on the side of loose change.

Originally posted by shots
...so I feel you are wrong in insisting there was a C-130 there because he said there was none and I would believe him before you....

I really to not give a darn about physics and your insistence our government did it, because I do not believe that for one minute.

Now wait a minute, you are the one insisting there was a C-130 there.
Are you confusing your self again?

You don't give a darn about physics? No wonder you believe the official story...

So what are you doing here if you hate conspiracies so much? Why is this making you so angry? If you think we're just a bunch of conspiracy kooks why are you waisting your time arguing with us? You are offering nothing to the discussion other than your opinion about 'conspiracy theories' and what you saw on a silly History channel fictional program.

IMO it is not a theory, the official version of events is a fairy tale that falls apart as soon as you look at the physics. Maybe you should start giving a darn. Innocent bystander you're the biggest problem.

Do me a favor and do some research on government, and I don't mean just looking at web sites. I was researching government long before the internet was even available. Familiarize yourself with the big picture. Maybe you're just scared of what you'll find? Fear is our biggest obstacle in getting people to realize the truth.

Originally posted by 11 11
Wrong! I already told you, it can't be a reflection from the jet, as it was INFRARED. I have never seen anything in my life reflect only INFRARED, unless it was reflecting an infrared laser. The video is the only video that can see this infrared light, because it just happens to be a camera with a weak ICF lense.

Ok, I'll play along for a few. Lets say that you're right; that it is in fact an IR laser being used. The question has been posed several times already, and perhaps I've missed the answer, or you just felt it unnecessary to provide one: How do you know that there is an IR filter on while the filming is going on? The green in the top corner could be from anything. Why does it have to be from an IR filter?

Nope, the thing that passes in front of the other building is the exact same light!. I even outlined the flight path it takes, and you still deny it's the same thing? CRAZY! If you are going to just deny without evidence, then you might was well just stop posting here...

Remember, these are your opinions, not mine. I don't share the same self-assuredness that you do when it comes to something as intangible as this "laser".

Originally posted by TheBorg
Remember now, they've found bodies of people blown out of the WTC towers over 1/4 mile from the buildings.

They did? That's horrible. Show me your proof of that?

Well, I must admit that it wasn't 1/4 mile after all. I thought that the Deutsche Bank Building was further away than it really was. According to FOXNEWS.com, the building was found to have several bodies from the site on it's roof. I thought it was much further away than that. It's actually within approximately 600 ft of the site. My apologies.

O.M.G. yes it would be one wild stretch of imagination to think this infrared "piece of debris" can only be seen on 1 camera angle. G WIZ. Not only that put flying in a straight path?? BEFORE THE SECOND EXPLOSION? You have one wild imagination.

And that's our main point of contention I'm afraid. You've failed to prove to me that this is in fact an IR piece of film. You base everything you see off of a green tint in the upper corner of the picture, which could have been there as a result of accidentally leaving a magnet next to it for a bit too long overnight once. My TV, for instance, has a big yellow spot in the upper right corner because I left one of my stereo speakers there for a few years, not knowing what it was doing to it. There are other explanations for this, my friend. Please try to remain open-minded. What would you have said had there not been a green tint in the video?

If you are going to ignore the infrared laser dot, then please, leave this thread, and go join the military.

I'm seeking the truth, just as everyone here is. When I see something that looks suspicious, I'm going to go looking for an answer. If that makes you feel queasy, perhaps it's you that should reconsider you're tenure here. Now, just so everyone knows, I'm not suggesting that you should leave. I think you may be onto something, but I'm going to go through whatever I have to to prove this right or wrong. If my constantly questioning you're apparent omniscience upsets you, then I humbly apologize. I'm just doing what's required to rout out the truth. Please, try to have some decorum.

Maybe you would be so kind TO READ MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS.

I have, and you failed to answer me, which is why I directly asked you again.

Ive already told you, there is a VERY HIGH CHANCE that the first white aircraft in the video was NOT the jet with the laser designator. If you would have read this thread, you would know that there were MULTIPLE AIRCRAFT in the area when the 2nd plane hit, you need to debunk ALL of them.

You do know that you're talking about a busy NYC morning, just like any other, correct? Why would it be out of the ordinary for there to be LOTS of airplanes in the area at the time of the attacks? They'd be coming in for landings. There's nothing odd about the presence of these planes at the time that this film was taken.

Besides, you started by saying that that WAS the plane, and then backed out when it was shown that that couldn't possibly have been the one. In your first post, you say, and I quote:

In the same video, near the end, you see this white jet pass by in the sky. This same white jet was filmed over the Pentagon on 9/11.
...
That's not an ordinary jet, nope, not at all. Take a closer look...
...
That jet, is the ABL.
...
The small "bump" on top of the jet is a tracking laser, this is the laser we saw in the video above. It was tracking the jet that hit the WTC.

You sure seemed sure of yourself that this was the culprit of the attacks. What changed your mind? It was when FredT chimed in with the following statement:

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.

Then you went about pointing at other airplanes, suggesting that they could be the culprit, as was mentioned in the following quote:

You are right, it very well could be. Although, what about the jet that was next to the WTC in the first video I posted?

So, with that in mind, and the number of airplanes in NYC skies that fateful morning, you left yourself a wide open opportunity to prevent any further debunking of your theory by being able to pick any of the airplanes in the area. This is often a tactic used by people with no argument left. They try to distract by pointing at other things that could be the culprit, while they make a hasty retreat.

Now, just so you know, I mean no offense by this, as it's simply an observation on the tactics used in this debate, which I have read very thoroughly by the way. It's disturbing to me that you would resort to such measures as this, as well as insulting other member's equally poignant theories, when you feel as if your view is being threatened.

Might I recommend some moderation in your ATS diet? Take some time off, like a day or so, to relax, and refresh yourself. I think you can be a wonderful member here, but you've got to be able to handle yourself with a modest amount of decorum when hit with resounding ridicule. I've had my fair share, and it was hard to work through, but I did it. And so can you. One step at a time.

--edit--
It's one thing to look at a video and acknowledge the laser dot, but to come here and with your wildest imagination of thoughts, and straight out ignore it, thats beyond anything I can even help with. If you people want 911 disclosure you will surely have to educate everyone in the world about EVERYTHING.

And you, my friend, will have to provide more proof than a mere dot. What you've provided doesn't prove anything other than there's yet another anomaly at the site of the worst terrorist attack in American history. Tell me something that's NOT anomalous about it?

I really do wish you the best here 11 11, so if you ever need to talk, U2U me. I'll do whatever I can to help you out here with anything that you may need.

Best regards,

TheBorg

Originally posted by ANOK
Now wait a minute, you are the one insisting there was a C-130 there.

Are you confusing your self again?

Huh? Can't you read? Perhaps an appointment with an eye doctor is needed. I have never insisted there was a C130 and I clearly stated I may have been mistaken when I used the term C130

Now read my previous post again

So what are you doing here if you hate conspiracies so much? Why is this making you so angry?

Show me where I sated I hated conpiracies and you are wrong when you think I am angry because I enjoy shooting down outlandish theories

If you think we're just a bunch of conspiracy kooks why are you waisting your time arguing with us? You are offering nothing to the discussion other than your opinion about 'conspiracy theories' and what you saw on a silly History channel fictional program.

Just what part of "its all part of the game do you not understand?" In order to play the conpiracy game you need two sides one for sane people and one for kooks (your term not mine)



[edit on 8/27/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by 11 11

IF it was a bird, why did it only just appear on the top left of the WTC? Your telling me the bird is 12+ feet and can fly from WTC to the other building that fast? In a perfect straight line? It can also become invisible for a few seconds, and then come back, flying the same flight path??


Saying it is a bird or piece of debris is so unbelievable I just can't even bother trying to fit the rest of the clues together when trying to "open my mind" to that possibility.

OK, I've tried to remain patient with you, but it's getting harder and harder. You claim people are ignoring evidence, LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

Your entire theory was proven impossible by Speakeasy on page 6.

You repeatedly call the object a 'laser' with absolutely NO PROOF.

Your entire theory relies on the camera being over 8 years old, modified with a special IR lens, and on night mode, however you can't provide one example of a still shot or video that is even close.

You've gone from being 100% positive about the model of the plane and the type of weapon, to suggesting boats may now be involved. Anytime someone mentions a point that doesn't jive with your theory, you either ignore it, or become childish and insulting. Stop telling people to do their research, THAT'S WHY THEY ARE HERE.

Let's see if you can ignore this one: How can the laser be 12 feet tall? Lasers don't have divergence like this. A 12 foot tall laser dot at that distance would have to come from a HUGE laser. The picture of the ABL lens is big, but not even close to 12 feet.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think for one second that I can change your mind. It's just hard to sit here and watch you disrespect people over and over while presenting your half-baked opinions as facts.

SMOKING GUN - THIS AIN'T IT !
This isn't even a a pop gun...So sorry to say that this is the same old , same old , same old .If you want the truth , find the program -
""The 911 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction "" This is the only " Truth " there is . Here's ways to find it. Plus i'll tryto embed it ..

Google Video Link

1- video.google.com...

2 - video.google.com... 0

3 - video.google.com... 1



Open your eyes and see the truth. The real truth .Not the fiction , just the Facts !
See how you are manipulated by the one's who say they know the truth.
ENJOY AND LEARN !

[edit on 27-8-2007 by gen.disaray]