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.
Originally posted by jfj123
Actually, the biggest mistake they could make would be to have a 12 ft tall VISIBLE (your words) light reflective off the giant skyscraper.
Originally posted by jfj123
Also, ever hear of encryption? Signals are encrypted all the time.
Originally posted by jfj123
Please provide evidence that a jet cannot fly the same way a hellfire missile does and why they would need to be guided differently.
Originally posted by jfj123
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.
Originally posted by jfj123
NOPE. You said it was a targeting laser.
Originally posted by jfj123
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???????
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.
Originally posted by jfj123
Regarding the size of the laser. You said it was 1 story tall.
If I take a small pen laser and reflect it off a mirror from a distance, it doesn't get huge. I just did it by the way.
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 jfj123
Regarding the object size on the building. 11 11 has stated that it is 1 story tall which equates to approximately 12 ft. in diameter.
My contention is that a targeting laser will not be 12 ft in diameter and I have shown examples of why it wouldn't be.
A speckle pattern is a random intensity pattern produced by the mutual interference of coherent wavefronts that are subject to phase differences and/or intensity fluctuations. Prominent examples include the seemingly random pattern created when a coherent laser beam is reflected off a rough surface, and the highly magnified image of a star through imperfect optics or through the atmosphere (see speckle imaging).
An object with a rough surface, when illuminated with light from laser, exhibits a speckled appearance. This salt-and-peppery appearance is not observed when the object is illuminated with ordinary light. The formation of such a speckle pattern is due to the high coherence of the laser light. Since variations in the surface are greater than the wavelength, coherent light scattered by the individual elements of the surface interferes to form a stationary pattern. The speckle pattern appears to scintillate or sparkle when there is any relative movement of the surface and the observer.
Originally posted by ready4truth
can you admit you might be wrong and that the laser spot, is actually a piece of debris (looks like paper or something)???
Originally posted by ready4truth
The 'spot' continues down well after the plane has hit...why would they drag that laser all the way down, well past the targetted area?
Originally posted by ready4truth
Yes, laser targeting could have been used...but is this it? i dont think so...
Originally posted by ready4truth
They might as well have planted a 'homing device' in the towers, on the upper floors that were struck? right?
Originally posted by ready4truth
As for the laser being used for pre-slicing the towers...no, i dont think so. The towers didnt have to be pre-sliced in order to smashing into the building. come on!
Originally posted by ready4truth
There is already a mountain of evidence that 9/11 was covered up and flase; and yet...inventing new theories seems to be a funner hobby for some.
Originally posted by 11 11
I didn't invent the video evidence of the laser dot on the building, so you have no point at all. Denying the theory is ok, but denying the video evidence is another really bad thing for someone to do.
Originally posted by shots
Ok if that is the case I would like you to prove that what you claim is a laser is in fact a laser and not a piece of paper or debris from the aircraft or whatever flying through the air. Until you can prove it is not debris or paper your theory is just that a theory and no smoking gun at all.
Google Video Link |
The laser reads information by focusing a beam on the CD, which is reflected back to sensor. The sensor detects changes in the beam, and interprets these changes to read the data.
I have told you numerous times that the size of the laser very well may be just an illusion, because of the perspective of the camera. I already explained to you how light bounces off of objects, and how a camera from a few miles away would see it differently than it is. There are many factors that determine the size of a laser.
Originally posted by ready4truth
They might as well have planted a 'homing device' in the towers, on the upper floors that were struck? right?
11 11 wrote,
Seriously, I'm not trying to speculate how they could have done it. I am trying to explain the laser dot in the video. There are millions of better ways to accomplish what was done on 911. Although, a "homing device" is not a very good idea.
A "homing device" would require some type of radio signal, or beacon. This is NOT a good idea when you are messing with explosions. If for instance there were bombs on the jets (which I'm sure there was), the explosive force from the first jet impact would create an EMP which can fry the OTHER "homing device's" electronics in the other WTC building, resulting in a failed second jet impact.
Effects of Nuclear Weapons
There are several ways in which the energy released by nuclear explosions cause mass destruction, including the physical destruction of buildings and infrastructure and immense numbers of human casualties. The destructive effects of nuclear weapons include blast, heat, radiation, fallout, and electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The scale and/or nature of these effects are unique to nuclear weapons. Conventional explosives can cause damage through blast and heat, but at levels thousands or millions of times less severe than those caused by nuclear weapons. Conventional explosives also do not release radiation or cause electromagnetic pulse.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
to repeat,
CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES DO NOT RELEASE RADIATION OR CAUSE EMP.
I don't quite understand this with your typo, but I'm guessing you mean they didn't need to pre-slice the tower when they are just going to run a jet through it. Well, you are wrong.
1: The buildings were designed to have a simular size jet crash into it.