It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

page: 14
28
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
11 11 wrote,


LOL, wow, reading is not your best asset. Here let me point out what you missed. "almost-perfectly parallel beam". You want to know why it is NOT perfect? Because of the lenses used to create the beam. No matter what lens setup you use, you will ALWAYS have "focal length" issues.


I didn't miss anything. You completely missed almost all of my points. I completely understand how lasers work thank you.
Let me try to make this simple for you.
You think the tracking laser is 12 ft in diameter APPROXIMATELY due to dispersion of the ALMOST PARALLEL laser.
I have shown you a number of examples showing that at distance, high powered lasers don't disperse that much.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT.

If lasers dispersed as much as you think they do, the laser would be the size of the moon by the time it got to the moon.



1. Almost perfectly = not perfectly parallel beam.

Once again, I actually read what I post and I know this.



2. Yes, laser lights CAN be focused down to a tiny spot as small as a single wavelength, because lasers have "photons" traveling in one direction like Direct Current. Flashlights however, are Alternating Current streams of "photons". If you used lenses to focus a laser, the "focal point" of the laser could be smaller than a flashlights "focal point" just because the laser "photons" are in a single file line.
No matter what though, you have to manipulate the glass lenses in order to get this tiny stream of light. Not only that but you have to know the distance you are away from the target to find that focal point. If you are to close, the laser will be bigger, if you are to far, the laser will also be bigger.


This is funny. Your own answer above contradicts your big dot theory.
You don't need to know a distance you are away from the target to get a fine point. If the pinpoint focal point is known you get a sharper point. Think of an inverse cone getting smaller the farther it gets with a dispersion offset by the ALMOST PARALLEL laser.



Thats a good question, and I will tell you. The TRACKING LASER can be used to measure distance. How? Simply by determining the size of the laser when it hits an object. If you have a not perfectly parallel beam of laser, you can use that to your advantage to find the distance of an object with an equation. If for instance the TRACKING LASER made a "1 story tall" laser circle, you can use that measurement to find out how far or how close you are to the object the laser is hitting.
If the "focal point" made a laser dot that is known to be 1 inch in diameter, at 100 feet. Then what would that mean if the laser was 2 inches in diameter when it hits the object? That would probably mean the laser is 100 feet away from the focal point. Meaning you are 200 feet away from the object.
So you can see why you wouldn't want the tracking laser to be focused, it will help determine the distance of an object.
The weapon laser though, that's the one we DON'T see in the video. That is the one you would want to focus, depending on how close you are.

So once again you're saying that the further from an object, the larger the laser dot gets. Well then why isn't there a giant laser dot on the moon?

Why wouldn't they start with a 1mm dot at distance and work up to a 50mm dot instead of a 12 ft dot?
Oh and by your own posts, you mention that when the dot hits the building, it turns visible. Why have a 12 ft tall SPOT LIGHT on the side of a building surrounding by thousands of witnesses when you could have a 50 millimeter tall dot.

Also, here's how you use lasers to measure at long distances.
Time-of-flight measurements (or pulse measurements) are based on measuring the time of flight of a laser pulse from the measurement device to some target and back again. Such methods are typically used for large distances like hundreds of meters or many kilometers. Using advanced techniques, the time-of-flight method allows to measure the distance between earth and the moon with an accuracy of a few centimeters. Typical accuracies of simple devices for short distances are a few millimeters or centimeters.

Do you notice anywhere where it says they measure the size of the laser dot?




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
11 11 wrote


Oh yeah, they could have used remote piloting, but theoretically that is the biggest mistake anyone would make. Of course, when you remotely pilot an aircraft, you have multiple electronic signals traveling over the airways.

Actually, the biggest mistake they could make would be to have a 12 ft tall VISIBLE (your words) light reflective off the giant skyscraper.

Also, ever hear of encryption? Signals are encrypted all the time.


In order to fly the jet you need a video feed coming from the jet. This video feed can be picked up by ANYONE with the right equipment, especially the News Media equipment. Also, flight controls, and other signals are over the airways too, all of these could be detected and picked up by other sources on accident. Just like how Russia and other radio experts were able to listen in during the entire "moon landing" of NASA.


Again, ever hear of encryption? How about Quantum Point to Point encryption??

The moon landing happened when? We have advanced since then. The signals weren't encrypted so anyone could see them. So what?


A laser guided jet though, all the risk you take is someone having the right camera in the right place. There is no electronic signals that could possibly be recorded. The jet sees the red dot, the jet flies to the red dot. The whole "you don't need to paint the target' is a moot point, because jet's don't fly the same as Hellfire missiles, they need to be guided differently, and the best bet would be manual laser designating, instead of automatic laser designating.


Please provide evidence that a jet cannot fly the same way a hellfire missile does and why they would need to be guided differently.

Also, keep in mind a manually targeted laser would need to be on a line of sight and at close range so the "designator" could "manually" adjust the laser based on visual cues. That means "SHORT RANGE". Explain why a short range military grade targeting laser would end up showing a 12 ft. visible laser dot.


It is however still possible that the jet WAS remotely piloted, hence the reason the government lies to us about the "flight recorders" from the jets that hit the WTC's. That would mean the laser is something else, a new type of weapon perhaps.

NOPE. You said it was a targeting laser.
Also, you just gave me a bunch of reasons why it can't be remotely piloted. You just contradicted yourself again. Remember... you said it would be the biggest mistake they could make???????


All I know is, that video DOES have a laser in it.

No, you don't know that. You speculate that it is a laser without any solid evidence. The only evidence you have presented is that, on your word, the video camera was in IR mode in the daytime.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
11 11 wrote,


Once again, its all about how you focus the laser. Since NASA know's how far away the moon is, they can actually find the "focal point" of the laser and point it at the mirror. However, if they didn't know the distance, it would be really hard to focus the laser on that object.


Please explain how nasa knows the distance from the earth to the moon down to the mm???

Well, they used the laser. And if they used the laser and didn't know the exact distance, it wouldn't have worked right??? thats what you said right????


Laser's do not travel in a perfect parallel line no matter what your imagination thinks.

My imagination doesn't think that. My imagination thinks you simply don't pay attention.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
11 11 says he reads every post. Then why doesn't he answer all questions respectfully put to him???

Please answer my questions as I am trying to be patient and try to help you learn.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
11 11,
You mentioned that unless you know the distance of something, you can't accurately use a laser.

Here is a clip of the article you posted.

'We also have strong evidence that the Moon has a liquid core, and laser ranging has allowed us to determine with great accuracy the rate at which the Moon is gradually receding from the Earth."

Notice they're saying that the laser is helping them find the distance that is constantly changing????

Finally, please show me an example of a close range military targeting laser has a laser dot of 12 ft in diameter on a target. Please do not include a picture of your imaginary laser on the WTC building.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
11 11 wrote,


The TRACKING LASER can be used to measure distance. How? Simply by determining the size of the laser when it hits an object. If you have a not perfectly parallel beam of laser, you can use that to your advantage to find the distance of an object with an equation. If for instance the TRACKING LASER made a "1 story tall" laser circle, you can use that measurement to find out how far or how close you are to the object the laser is hitting.


Here is a snippet from a NASA article, posted by 11 11.

By beaming laser pulses at the reflector from Earth, scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters.

Notice once again, it says nothing about measuring the size of the laser when it hits the object??? This is from your post, not mine.

And you make jokes about everyone not paying attention???



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The ABL tracking laser is described as follows

The ABL is the first airborne megawatt-class laser weapon system. The ABL is a specially configured 747-400F aircraft, designed to autonomously detect, track and destroy hostile ballistic missiles during the boost phase.
The high-power laser is coupled with a revolutionary optical system capable of focusing a basketball-sized spot of heat that can destroy a boosting missile from hundreds of miles away.
The laser and optical systems are controlled by a sophisticated computer system that can simultaneously track and prioritize potential targets.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Notice the key points:
BASKETBALL-SIZED SPOT
HUNDREDS OF MILES AWAY.


The problem once again, is that you don't read correctly. First you say "The ABL tracking laser is described as follows", then you proceed to tell use that the weapon lazer is basketball-sized.

Do you know the difference between the tracking laser and the weapon laser?? If it wasn't already obvious in my first post, I have claimed that the video of the "orb" is the tracking laser, and NOT the weapon laser.

So, you are either not reading things correctly, or purposely fogging information to make people believe you.


Let me clarify for you. My whole and only point was to show you a laser not expanding but contracting to a smaller point after leaving and at destination. You have claimed that the tracking laser fired at the building expanding as it got further from the source. I'm showing you an example of just the opposite of how you think it works. Yes I know you are referring to a tracking laser and I'm referring to a weapon but the principle is the same.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I have shown you a number of examples showing that at distance, high powered lasers don't disperse that much.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT.


WTH? This entire time you were claiming that lasers are perfectly parallel. Now you are changing your claim that they don't disperse "that much"???????

Moderators can you see how frustrating this is for the topic owner?? I find myself debating with people that lie.


Originally posted by jfj123
If lasers dispersed as much as you think they do, the laser would be the size of the moon by the time it got to the moon.



You seriously think thats what I think?? I just got done explaining to you WITH GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS on how the lenses control the laser beam.

So your quote above is 100% wrong. Let me correct it.

"If lasers dispersed as much as I think they do, that laser would be ANY SIZE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE simply by adjusting the focus on the lenses."

The lenses of the laser are what create the laser. You can have any size laser you want, simply by changing the lens. You can have different size cone's of light as well. You can have a beam that disperses 1 inch for every foot. Or you can have a beam that disperses 1 thousandth of an inch every foot.

Lasers can change shape and size, they ARE NOT A FIXED SIZE.


Originally posted by jfj123
This is funny. Your own answer above contradicts your big dot theory.
You don't need to know a distance you are away from the target to get a fine point. If the pinpoint focal point is known you get a sharper point. Think of an inverse cone getting smaller the farther it gets with a dispersion offset by the ALMOST PARALLEL laser.


Actually no, nothing I say contradicts myself, I make sure of it. Actually, you DO need to know the distance you are away from the target to get the perfect focal point. Other wise, you are just using visual clues to get the guesstimated focal point.

Thats why cameras, have distances printed on their manual focus rings. If you know the distance of the object, you can set the focus perfectly. If you don't know the distance, you can "estimate" it by trying to find the "focal point" visually. The first method is more accurate.


Originally posted by jfj123
So once again you're saying that the further from an object, the larger the laser dot gets. Well then why isn't there a giant laser dot on the moon?


I told you already, for the 5th time, it is because they can change the focus of the lens!


Originally posted by jfj123
Why wouldn't they start with a 1mm dot at distance and work up to a 50mm dot instead of a 12 ft dot?


Once again, LENSES! You can have any side laser you want, and any size cone of light you want. You are debating a moot point, and at the same time you have been wrong about it.



Originally posted by jfj123
Oh and by your own posts, you mention that when the dot hits the building, it turns visible. Why have a 12 ft tall SPOT LIGHT on the side of a building surrounding by thousands of witnesses when you could have a 50 millimeter tall dot.


No I said it turns MORE VISIBLE. It is STILL and infrared light, it is just at another wavelength. I already explained that and If i have to repeeat myself 1000 times, I simply will not debate with you as you are running in circles.



Originally posted by jfj123
Also, here's how you use lasers to measure at long distances.
Time-of-flight measurements (or pulse measurements) are based on measuring the time of flight of a laser pulse from the measurement device to some target and back again. Such methods are typically used for large distances like hundreds of meters or many kilometers. Using advanced techniques, the time-of-flight method allows to measure the distance between earth and the moon with an accuracy of a few centimeters. Typical accuracies of simple devices for short distances are a few millimeters or centimeters.

Do you notice anywhere where it says they measure the size of the laser dot?


Thats because there are 1000000000 different things a laser can do. There are MANY different ways to measure distance with light. You posted ONE of them, not all of them.


RESEARCH!!!!!! READ!!!! COMPREHEND!!!!



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
11 11 wrote,


Once again if you had read anything in this thread, you would know that you don't need "night shot" or "infrared mode" to see the infrared with a normal camera. Heck I even posted a link about "infrared" and it even shows a normal camera picking up infrared.


OK lets clear this up right now. Anyone here have a "normal camera" they can use to take pictures/video of their infrared remote beam? If you could and post them, that would be great. That way we'll know one way or the other for sure and be able to completely end that portion of the debate.

Thanks in advance



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You have claimed that the tracking laser fired at the building expanding as it got further from the source. I'm showing you an example of just the opposite of how you think it works.



I can't believe even after I made graphical illustrations so you don't have to read, you still think I'm wrong. Here let me show you another picture, maybe you will see it this time...



Do you not see the light expanding do to the lens? Do you understand when something is beyond the focal point, it expands?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
OK lets clear this up right now. Anyone here have a "normal camera" they can use to take pictures/video of their infrared remote beam? If you could and post them, that would be great. That way we'll know one way or the other for sure and be able to completely end that portion of the debate.

Thanks in advance



Here I took a picture of my cable tv remote with my cell phone camera.

Phone = www.mobiletechreview.com...



I assure you I am not misleading anyone about lasers, and infrared, and cameras.



[edit on 29-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
11 11 wrote,

You see, I never once said the laser in the video was the weapon laser. The laser in the video is the tracking laser. You confusion is what messes up your reality.


Actually, yes you did.
Here is the quote below


posted on 21-8-2007 @ 05:53 PM

DID THE AIRBORNE LASER HEAT UP THE SIDE OF THE WTC'S SO THE JETS CAN SIMPLY SLICE THROUGH THE EXTERIOR STEEL LIKE A COLD KNIFE THROUGH WARM BUTTER??

then there's this one

DID THEY USE THE AIRBORNE LASER TO "SHOOT DOWN" FLIGHT 93??

Here he is again talking about the laser weapon

A solder gun, and solder, is basic physics. A welder welding metal, thats basic physics. Neither of those devices need much time to heat up a metal on direct contact. Besides, I don't think a laser of this size acts in any way close to "basic physics".

oops, here he is again talking about the laser weapon

Thats because you are a civilian and do not have the full information. When you can prove that it has not passed research stage, then maybe your thoughts hold water. At this current day, I have video of working laser weapons. They are real. I actually have video proof of Rumsfeld talking about direct energy weapons, and how "normal" procedure for new weapons is to develop, test, employ. Yet he also says sometimes they use things even if they are only in "test" stage.

By the way, there are alot of other instances of 11 11 talking about the laser weapon.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBorg
 


TheBorg, I want to congratulate you on doing research. That's all I wanted anyone to do on this forum. Once everyone has done what you did in the post above, my job has been completed.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
11 11,
again, you are completely missing my point again and again and again.....

There is NO NEED for a 12 ft diameter tracking laser dot.

Show me an example of a targeting laser, targeting an object with a 12 ft diameter laser dot and why it would be useful. I don't want to hear about the dot size helping to find distance because its completely unnecessary as time from source to distance is used for targeting and distance measurement.

Also, if you read the definition I posted regarding lasers, it said "almost parallel. So before you go shooting your mouth off about me being a lier, you may want to reread it. I have never lied about anything I have posted here.
I have at times not been as clear as I would have liked and have more then happily restated myself when unclear.

Frankly I am tired of your childish, obnoxious, arrogant attitude.
I really don't understand why the Mods haven't said something to you about how you are treating people so I am.
If you can't act like an adult and have reasonable discourse, go away. You don't have to agree with what other people are saying but showing them respect is whats expected in civilized countries.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually, yes you did.
Here is the quote below


Seriously, I never said the laser that is shinning on the building is the weapon laser. I have always said the laser that we see in the video is a tracking laser.

You then post my "QUESTIONS"? Can't you see those are all QUESTIONS, not something I am saying is FACT?

Can you not see that?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
11 11 wrote,

TheBorg, I want to congratulate you on doing research. That's all I wanted anyone to do on this forum. Once everyone has done what you did in the post above, my job has been completed.


Thats funny because what I have posted has been backed up with evidence from reliable sources. Also, alot of other people here have done the same.
Some of my sources include:
NASA
Boeing
Northrop Grumman
US Airforce



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
11 11,
Here's where you finally admit that the "laser" on the building isn't a weapon.

Ok, so it wasn't the ABL. Spicing up theory is always fun. But still, look at the evidence of a laser light on the WTC. It disappears when the jet hits the WTC, and comes back. Maybe the laser was blocked by the jet, and with that information we could find an approximate angle of the light source.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
11 11,
again, you are completely missing my point again and again and again.....


No again YOU are missing THE point, over and over and over.


Originally posted by jfj123
There is NO NEED for a 12 ft diameter tracking laser dot.


I already told you different reasons why it may appear to be 12 feet. One reason is the "cone" of light is different when it is reflecting back at the camera.

Here is an example..




THIS IS ONE OF MANY POSSIBILITIES FOR THE SIZE OF THE LASER



[edit on 29-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
11 11,
Here's where you finally admit that the "laser" on the building isn't a weapon.





Ok, so it wasn't the ABL. Spicing up theory is always fun. But still, look at the evidence of a laser light on the WTC. It disappears when the jet hits the WTC, and comes back. Maybe the laser was blocked by the jet, and with that information we could find an approximate angle of the light source.



See you are trying to manipulate my words, just like how you thought my questions were facts.

I NEVER said the "laser" isn't a weapon. I merely said the Pentagon jet is not the ABL.

How the heck do you mix that up????? There is only one possibility and that is you are having trouble reading. Don't take that as an insult but it is clear as day that you are reading one thing, and comprehending something different. This is why I have become uncivil with you, because you have been doing that this entire thread.






[edit on 29-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Thats funny because what I have posted has been backed up with evidence from reliable sources. Also, alot of other people here have done the same.
Some of my sources include:
NASA
Boeing
Northrop Grumman
US Airforce


That is funny, because you have posted links to factual data, except everything that came from your mind was not factual. You copy and paste things that are correct, yet when you try to explain them you are incorrect.




top topics



 
28
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join