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: 15
28
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Actually you have been uncivil to everyone who disagrees with you since the beginning of the thread. Would you like me to post examples of you insulting almost everyone here???

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.




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

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.


VISIBLE LASER???? MY WORDS!?!?!?! INFRARED = NOT VISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYES. HOLY HELL THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS.


Originally posted by jfj123
Also, ever hear of encryption? Signals are encrypted all the time.



Yes I have heard of encryption, I used to have a job that designed them. Actually I never herd of an encryption that has never been hacked. Not even MD5.


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.


I already did, please reread the topic. thanks.


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.


Everything you post about is opinion. Targeting lasers do NOT need to be manually adjusted. Hence why it may appear so large.


Originally posted by jfj123
NOPE. You said it was a targeting laser.


Yes the video evidence I have is of a laser. Can't deny that no matter what you say.


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???????


I never contradicted myself, that is your imagination. The biggest mistake they would make is radio flying a jet when all radio signals can be found and recorded. A laser designator though, thats different. WAY DIFFERENT.





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.


I even showed you PROOF AND EVIDENCE of a cameras seeing infrared. NOW YOU ARE IGNORING THAT??

You asked for a picture of infrared with a normal camera. I give you 2 examples. One from wiki, and one from my personal cell phone camera.

NOW YOU ARE IGNORING PURE EVIDENCE.

This is getting sickening.

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



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

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.


Now you are claiming the lasers don't expand again?!?!!?!?

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!

Put that mirror a few MILES away from you and try again.

The camera that filmed the laser on WTC was VERY far away. Also, the WTC is NOT a mirror.


You know what happens when you spray a high power stream of water at a brick wall?? Once the water hits the wall, it reflects into different directions, and makes a larger cone than it was.

Same thing happens with light. When you shine light on a surface other than a mirror, the light will reflect off in different directions simply because of the microscopic angles of the rough texture that makes the material.

--edit---

I wish I could close this thread, and start over. Right now I only wish for people to debunk the video with the laser in it, and stop discussing the other parts of the theory. If you can not debunk the video, then you shouldn't try with the rest of the theory.

If I had my way, I would make a new thread based only on the light object in the WTC and what is could possibly be.

Right now, it can only possibly be an infrared laser. As "bird" and "debris" are pretty much ruled out simply because of the size, and the entrance and exit of the object itself in the video.



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



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I'm going to email the publishers of this video, and ask them if they can track down the person(s) that captured it. I want to know if they can tell us what make and model the camera was, and if it had any modifications done to it anytime before the filming.

And jfj, I just wanted to confirm something that 11 11 said. It is TRUE that current cameras can and do pick up IR light. I just tried with my own camera phone with my tv remote, and it worked like a charm. I couldn't see it with my naked eyes, but I could see it on my camera. Might be some truth to this after all.

I'm still gonna email the makers of the video though. I want a full copy to send to a video analyst here to have a look at.

TheBorg

EDIT:

11 11: Why is it that none of the other cameras there at that time that day recorded the same dot? Doesn't that seem a little strange to anyone but me?

[edit on 30-8-2007 by TheBorg]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Er, aren't you forgetting something in this image?


All the light coming from the WTC is expanding out, thats why the camera lens focuses it. So it would get refocused to a dot. And anyway, why did no other cameras get this image, only the one in this video?



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Okay 11 11, I got something for ya.

Upon doing some of my own research, I've ran across the following video:



Now, you'll notice that first off, the cameramen are below the tower that's about to be hit. They're filming the burning of the other tower, when at about 46 seconds, you hear the roar of the other plane drown out everything else and watch helplessly as it smashes into the second tower.

The thing with this video that strikes me as funny is that it also has the tell-tale green tint that you said would tell us that IR was being used, and yet we don't see the "laser" being projected onto the building. How can this be possible, when the laser SHOULD show up, no matter what?

I just don't see how what you showed in your OP could have been anything other than a piece of debris. Perhaps I'm wrong, but now we have a second video to debunk the first.

Good luck man,

TheBorg



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Here is some information about TARGETING LASERS.

TARGETING
Ranging
A laser range-finder is a device consisting of a pulsed laser and a light detector. By measuring the time taken for light to reflect off a far object, and knowing the speed of light, the range to the object can be found. A laser rangefinder is thus a simple form of LIDAR. The distance to the target can then be used to aim a weapon such as a tank's main gun.

Target designator
Another military use of lasers is as a laser target designator. This is a low-power laser pointer used to indicate a target for a precision-guided munition, typically launched from an aircraft. The guided munition adjusts its flight-path to home in to the laser light reflected by the target, enabling a great precision in aiming. The beam of the laser target designator is set to a pulse rate that matches that set on the guided munition to ensure munitions strike their designated targets and do not follow other laser beams which may be in use in the area. The laser designator can be shone onto the target by an aircraft or nearby infantry. Lasers used for this purpose are usually infrared lasers, so the enemy cannot easily detect the guiding laser light.

Information obtained from Wikipedia.

This is just some info regarding how laser targeting works.

Also,
11 11 since you maintain you have absolute proof of a laser in the video, when will you be taking your immutable evidence to CNN and other news agencies? I want to know when to start looking on the news for you, "the man who blew open the worlds largest conspiracy".



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I think the biggest obstacle in this debate now for 11 11 is trying to find out why nothing shows up in any of the other films of that event. It's striking to me that this ONE video is the only one that shows something like this. Then again, they are at a unique vantage point. This would elude to it being a piece of debris though, and not a laser. The laser would show up in all of the videos regardless.

If he can explain this missing dot, then we may be onto something. Otherwise, the debate will die right here.

TheBorg



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   
11 11:

Before you get angry with me in regards to my last post directed at you, I've reread some of the posts back on page 11, and found the following:


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.


I know that this is just your theory, but I feel as though it merited mentioning for the sake of the rest of this post. While I believe I have an elementary understanding of ICF technology, I'm still kind of having a hard time at figuring out why this camera was the only one that could see the "IR laser" in the video posted by yourself. It would actually be possible for every other camera BUT this one to not be set up with the correct NIR blocking efficiency? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that. The pure likelihood of this is astronomical.

Now, I know that there can be different ICFs for different cameras. But seriously, what would be the odds that this one would be the ONLY one that would have both the correct ICF, as well as having the advantage of being in a good vantage point to view it? There's way too many factors that would have to have come together for this to be an accidental thing.

I guess what I'm wondering, more than anything else right now, is how could so many unfathomably random circumstances have come together in such a way as to allow these people to be in possession of the camera that would catch the very thing that those truly behind 9/11 don't want us to see?

That would not be a coincidence. If anything, it would be more of a suspicious piece of film, as it implicates the government with involvement in the largest attack on our soil in our nation's history. And we all know that if they really did this that they surely wouldn't allow some New Yorker to keep film that spells doom to their keeping it a secret. Not only that, but they wouldn't allow the hosting sites to keep it up either. It would be damning evidence against them.

Something just doesn't add up here is all that I know.

TheBorg



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Theborg,
Very interesting points !!!
I still don't believe that a government that could theoretically put together a conspiracy of this magnitude would make a mistake where any camera could expose the conspiracy.

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.

Below is a YOUTUBE link showing a laser painted target.
The portion in particular I'm referring to is at 54 seconds in. You can see the laser dot painting the building prior to missile impact.

Notice how its a very small precise dot???

If the dot on the WTC building were a targeting laser, it would be approx. the same size. Obviously it's not.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Here is the YOU TUBE video mentioned above.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
SMOKING GUN? THIS IS IT?
-----
I disagree...(re-look at the 1st laser spot video posted)
-----
can you admit you might be wrong and that the laser spot, is actually a piece of debris (looks like paper or something)???

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?

Yes, laser targeting could have been used...but is this it? i dont think so...

They might as well have planted a 'homing device' in the towers, on the upper floors that were struck? right?

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!
---

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.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
TheBorg,

Lots of cameras are different. The main point of cameras is to make all VISIBLE LIGHT more clear, so they use ICF's to filter out the INFRARED LIGHT. The better the camera the better the ICF, the clearer the image.

The ICF plays a major role in whether or not a camera sees the laser. But another major factor is the type of image sensor the camera has. This ALSO plays a major role on how it handles IR light. Also another major difference would be analog vs. digital. Analog cameras, depending on the type of film used, and type of ICF, and type of image sensor, you could either see or not see infrared light. For better pictures at dark settings you need a special film that will capture the infrared light to a certain extent.

All in all, cheap cameras like cell phone cameras will see infrared. Expensive production cameras, or high end cameras, usually block out a LOT of IR light, simply because it distorts the picture to a certain extent.


So you got three factors that decide if a camera will see or not see the IR light.

1: ICF strength
2: image sensor type
3: film type (if analog)




[edit on 31-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

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.



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.

Read this about "speckle pattern".

en.wikipedia.org...



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.



The camera is seeing something different than is actually there.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

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)???


No because I already explained why it can't possibly be debris or a bird. If you watch the entrance of the object in the video it appears the object comes from behind that WTC on the upper left. Then flies in an almost perfect angle across the "city block length" of the WTC, and even continues to fly a good 1000 feet to another large building.
There is no possible object in this world other than a laser light, that could travel like that.

I have been studying the video in such great detail lately, that I know why the laser "disappears" and comes back right during the impact. If you look closely, the only reason the laser disappears is because it gets hidden by the immediate debris that plume out when the jet hits. Then it instantly reappears after the debris have fallen, and is instantly visible before it reaches the edge of the WTC. This means the object is actually ON THE BUILDING. It then moves onto the smoke, and fire, and it shapes itself to the shape of the smoke and fire. Then when it reaches near the other building, there is a jolt of speed, and it hops onto the other building, and continues its path.

This can NOT be debris or a bird, no matter what.



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?


This is very common in "bomb runs" on jets. When the gunner is manually adjusting the aim of bombs, he will sometimes "time it" or "sync it" with the movement of the jet itself. If the jet is moving forward, so is the reticule (aim) of the weapon. What they do is, they position the aim so that it's heading or direction of movement is moving toward the target. They will then continue to fly in the direction and wait until the reticule passes over their target, then they fire. After they fire the weapon, the reticules are still moving with the targeting jet, in the direction they set for the original bomb run.

Or, they will fire the bomb or missile before their aim is on the target. By the time the aiming jet reaches a certain point, and by the time the fired weapon gets near the target, the aiming laser would pass over the target, and you have a hit. This way the aiming laser is only on the target object for a short period of time. After the hit, the aiming reticule is still aiming and still moving with the jet. They just didn't turn it off fast enough. It probably is procedure to leave the weapons system on just in case you miss.




Originally posted by ready4truth
Yes, laser targeting could have been used...but is this it? i dont think so...


Your opinion is only different because of the knowledge you do and don't have.


Originally posted by ready4truth
They might as well have planted a 'homing device' in the towers, on the upper floors that were struck? right?


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.

Also the chance of this beacon or homing device being detected or found is much more great.




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!



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.

2: The jets had LESS THAN HALF fuel in their tanks.

3: The jet has a carbon fiber nose tip (or it should).

4: The jet is made of aluminum, and other light weight metal.

There is a very very high chance the jet did very little damage to the building. Simply because of the fact the towers were still standing after the impacts, means the WTC's withstood the impact from the jets.

As you can see with this F-4 Phantom crashing into to a concrete block a 480mph, the aluminum moving at high speeds will disintegrate into nothing.
www.youtube.com...

You can even watch MythBusters when they shoot guns into a pool of water. The higher power the gun, the more the water shatters the bullet into tiny worthless pieces upon impact.

If people knew the true physics of high impact's they would know the light weight material jet didn't stand a chance against the concrete and steel building.

You can deny all this all you want, but the FACT is, BOTH the WTC's stood tall after both jet impacts.



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.


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.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 31-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

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.



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.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

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.


I already have been proving it since I started this thread. The problem though is your "opinion" of what "proof" is.

I already proved it can't be a piece of paper, or debris, so whats left?



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
If you watch the video closely, and concentrate on the "orb", you will see it "flicker" or "change intensity" as it moves over the WTC, the fire, the smoke, and the other building.


Google Video Link


This "flicker" or these "changes" are the speckle pattern from the laser and the buildings surface texture. This is EXACTLY how Compact Disk players work.

en.wikipedia.org...


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.



This CLEARLY explains the light source, better than a "bird" or "debris" does. It is all the proof I need. But there is more about this video that proves its a laser....

[edit on 31-8-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 31-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
11 11 wrote,

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.


OK well I have looked at a number of videos utilizing tracking lasers and none of them show this "illusion". They show a precise, small dot.
I have also asked you a number of times to post a video showing the 12 ft. illusion (aside from the video you posted which is under contention).

Yes, you are right that there are many factors that determine the size of a laser but I still haven't seen any footage of a 12 ft tall illusion, only footage of small laser dots from various angles, on a number of different surfaces, under a number of different conditions. The one constant is the small, precise laser dot.

I understand that you are saying the camera is causing an illusion however all the other camera's showing laser dots didn't have that same illusion.


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.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
11 11 wrote,

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.


Actually, a 767 200ER hit each building.
I believe the building was rated to take a hit from a 707.


The Buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden commercial airliners. While documents from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicate that the impact of a Boeing 707 flying at 600 miles per hour, possibly crashing into the 80th floor, was analyzed during the design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964, the effect of subsequent fires was not considered.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


(information obtained from wikipedia)
BOEING 707 SPECS
Length 136 ft 2 in
Span 130 ft 10 in
Plane Weight, empty 103,145 lb
Max take-off weight 222,000 lb
Max Seating capacity 140

BOEING 767 200ER SPECS (plane type that hit both buildings)
Length 159 ft 2 in
span 156 ft 1 in
Plane Weight, empty 181,610 lb
Max take-off weight 395,000 lb
Passengers 181 (3 class), 224 (2 class), 255 (1 class)




top topics



 
28
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join