9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

Originally posted by jfj123
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.

That's because all the videos you watched had a camera really close to the laser dot, and those cameras were probably full infrared vision, and not normal vision. Find a video that is a few miles away from the laser dot, and that is not fully infrared, then you can compare the videos.

Originally posted by jfj123
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).

Here you go:

Notice how small the laser is next to his arm when he burns his jacket. Then, when he shows the distance capabilities, look how large the dot looks when he zoom's in. Watch really carefully at 24 seconds count down when he zooms out, and crosses the laser over the tree, just like the laser crossed over WTC. You can see how large it looks to the camera.

If you want a laser beam diameter calculator, here you go:
www.pseudonomen.com...

Originally posted by ready4truth
CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES DO NOT RELEASE RADIATION OR CAUSE EMP.

Who says they used conventional explosives? Why else would they be flying around the Pentagon in the E-4B Jet, which is designed to withstand EMP?

en.wikipedia.org...

The E-4B offered a vast increase in communications capability than the previous model and was considered to be 'hardened' against the effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear blast. Hardening the aircraft meant that all equipment on board were shielded from EMP. Additional steps were taken to block radiation from the aircraft's cabin air management system.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a picture of the jet that flew around the Pentagon, undergoing EMP testing.





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

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually, a 767 200ER hit each building.
I believe the building was rated to take a hit from a 707.

Hmm, maybe you need to read this:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

ok lets say they didn't use conventional explosives. That means nuclear. That means radiation. What happened to all the radiation?

reply to post by jfj123


Just stay on subject, I will make a thread about that later...

So what do you think about the video I posted with the green laser? What do you think about the Laser Beam Diameter calculator I posted?



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

11 11,
thanks for posting the video.

Here are 2 concerns I have about the video.
1. It's impossible to determine any size variations with any degree of accuracy.
2. The person taking the video wrote on the video the following, "...the camera was going in and out of focus".

I'm not sure how helpful the video is for those 2 reasons. I do however appreciate you responding to that question and posting the video.

Ok...i cant read all the pages in this thread do to a massive A.D.D. attack in my head right now. So if what im going to type has already been discussed please tell me so i know and wont pursue it further.


Ok the laser on the plane. It was brought up that the mysterious hole in the Pentagon may have been made by the intense heat of the laser.

Could the mysterious flash, some have called it a missle, that accured right as both planes hit each tower be the result of a laser instantly flaring up steel? This laser was designed to heat metal of missles from long distances away. Up close im sure that it could almost instantly cause steel to melt.

PLEASE READ THIS!. Im not saying that the laser was in anyway use to cut the WTC steel, or that in all reality there was any purope in using a laser.

But what if someone decided to flip a switch that turned the laser on right before the planes hit...wether just playing around to see what it would do to the building, just a moment of stupidity, or maybe a small signal from someone on the inside to those on the outside that would look for evidence later of a inside job? What if it was done at the pentagon also to create that mysterious hole?

There is a reason behind the flashes at WTC just as the planes hit and the giaint hole at the Pentagon...just something to think about.

WTC Flashes


Edit for link to what i was refering to.

[edit on 31/8/07 by Pfeil]

Here are some questions that may have already been asked. I have looked around a bit but have not found any answers. I may have missed them however.

1. What make, model, year, etc. is the camera used to film the clip?
2. Who made the video?
3. Is there a way to definitively analyze the tape to prove weather it had IR assist mode at all or even on? For example, is there a barcode out of frame, etc. A slightly off green color in one section could mean IR assist or that the color messed up on the camera or the camera was too close to a magnetic source.
4. How many camera's (still and motion) took video of the WTC plane impacts?
5. Did any of other above mentioned camera's show anything similar to this?
5. Has this footage been inspected and analyzed by a professional, well respected, video analyst?

Finally, I'm not trying to be sarcastic but if this is definitive proof that is beyond reproach, why haven't you taken it to the NEWS companies ?

Originally posted by jfj123
Here are 2 concerns I have about the video.
1. It's impossible to determine any size variations with any degree of accuracy.

Not really, I can probably find out the the type of laser he is using. Then the spec's of the laser's beam divergence and diameter can be used to calculate how big the diameter would be at the distances the guy in the video claims.

www.wickedlasers.com...

Originally posted by jfj123
2. The person taking the video wrote on the video the following, "...the camera was going in and out of focus".

It's only going in and out of focus on the very last few seconds of the video when the camera tries auto focusing on the laser beam instead of the laser dot.

Originally posted by Pfeil
So if what im going to type has already been discussed please tell me so i know and wont pursue it further.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I mentioned it, but not much came of it. You can still discuss it if you wish, it very well could be plausible.

Originally posted by jfj123
1. What make, model, year, etc. is the camera used to film the clip?

Not sure, but I bet it was a cheap one. ICF's are expensive I hear.

Originally posted by jfj123
2. Who made the video?

Some random person. Read about the clip here:
www.cameraplanet.com...

Originally posted by jfj123
3. Is there a way to definitively analyze the tape to prove weather it had IR assist mode at all or even on? For example, is there a barcode out of frame, etc. A slightly off green color in one section could mean IR assist or that the color messed up on the camera or the camera was too close to a magnetic source.

It doesn't really need IR assist on, that was just one of the possibilities.

Also, magnets don't effect cameras, the do not work like Cathode Ray Tube televisions and monitors. I already posted a link about how the shadow mask of the CRT is sensitive to magnets.

Actually, here, if you want to fix your TV that you say is messed up because you left a speaker next to it, read the link:

woil.ws...

Originally posted by jfj123
4. How many camera's (still and motion) took video of the WTC plane impacts?

Good question, I guess you can start counting?

Originally posted by jfj123
5. Did any of other above mentioned camera's show anything similar to this?

I might have found another one, but I need to see if I can get a better resolution video of it. The one I have is compressed a lot.

Originally posted by jfj123
5. Has this footage been inspected and analyzed by a professional, well respected, video analyst?

Yes, lol. Of course the video analyst likes to remain anonymous.

Originally posted by jfj123
Finally, I'm not trying to be sarcastic but if this is definitive proof that is beyond reproach, why haven't you taken it to the NEWS companies ?

News companies, LOL. Like they would ever talk about the end of the world on the news LOL.

reply to post by jfj123


As I mentioned a couple pages back, I've emailed the host website's webmaster about acquiring a copy, but have yet to get a response. Makes me wonder if anyone's listening, or if they've sicked the feds on me, thinking I'm someone that I'm not.

If I can land a copy, I'll make sure to send it to a video analyst here, and have them take a peek to tell us what they feel is up. The person will have to be an unbiased person though, aka someone not already involved in this thread.

TheBorg

Sorry for the double post, but this is a separate thought, and I figured it merited a second post.

11 11,

I'd like to ask you one thing. I think you missed my question about the green tint in the film clip that I posted on the last page. Is there any reason that you can think of why that camera wouldn't have picked up anything? It looked very similar in quality to the one that you posted, but it was just in a more shaded location than the one you have.

Also, if you've found another vantage point showing this anomaly, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Again, thanks for staying here.

TheBorg

11 11, your last video of that 150 mW green laser has shifted my neutral observation to a more convinced position that this really could be a targeting laser dot, showing up in this footage.

Like you already defended, the path of the spot covers a far too long distance in a far too small time frame, to be anything else than with high probability, a laser dot.

The fact that it doesn't show up in that video from the Naudet brothers, could be :
a. because of the steep angle from below at street level that video was shot.
b. it was edited out, before being used at all big Media outlets.
c. that camera was a professional camera, thus filtering IR portions out.

Do remember at all times, that a good opposition keeps all discussions going.
No oppositions means no solid discussion, with questions and answers for all readers and participants.
Well done, by all of you, pro and contra.

We all agree, I hope, that any kind of proof of a laser dot occurring at that point in time, has devastating effects on the official explanation of events on that day.

So expect a LOT of opposition still to come.
FLAGGED!

LaBTop,

The question still remains though, why don't any of the other pieces of film show this dot? You mean to tell me that they ALL were edited out, filtered out, or the camera operator(s) weren't in the right position? I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem at all likely. Another angle with the same dot in the same locations would be enough to confirm for me that there may be something to this, but it's going to take a video to do that.

I'll keep looking if everyone else will?

11 11, did ya fall off the planet man? Or do you not have an answer for me? Or, do you think that you answered it sufficiently enough already?

I await any and all replies,

TheBorg

please keep in mind the following:
The video of the green laser is not a military targeting laser so comparing the 2 is problematic at best.

The dot on the building doesn't need to be a laser, it can be anything including any type of light as all light travels at the same speed.

Again, a targeting laser would not be that large on a building.
Yes I know lasers disperse over distance but focusing lenses counteract that.
11 11 has said that the laser expands and that is why it is approx. 12 ft across and it's because of dispersal ie the fact that laser light isn't completely parallel.
He also goes on to state that it's that large because it's fired at a distance.

Now to contradict that a laser would expand from approx the size of a silver dollar to 12 ft tall at a close distance, I have posted a number of items showing that lasers of military grade do not disperse that much over distance.

Lets take the Lunar Lander laser experiments.
A laser is fired from earth and reflected off a mirror on the moon to determine distance from earth to the moon within a few cm's.

Now if dispersal was as great as 11 11 thinks it is at a few miles distance, then you would see a massive laser dot by the time it hit the moon from earth.

As example:
Lets say the supposed targeting laser that hit the building was fired from 3 miles away and it started at about at about 1 inch and by the time it hit the WTC it was at 12 feet. that means it expands approximately 4 ft per mile. That means it increased in size 144 times.

Now lets take that idea and apply it to the moon.
Lets say the laser fired at the moon started out at the same 1 inch and the distance to the moon from earth is 238,857 miles. Lets assume the same 4 ft per mile which gives us a laser dot of 955428 feet or 180.95 miles in diameter when it hits the moon. The reflective mirror is only a few meters across.

I know all these numbers are approximations but they are all reasonable as 11 11 originally thought the "laser dot" may have come from the "white plane" flying close to the WTC.

My point is the dispersion of a tracking laser over a short distance would not allow for the large change in diameter from origin to target.

Regarding the 707 vs 767. The official reports presented the 707 as the following:
720 (707-020)
If you look at the specs of the above mentioned 707 vs the 767, you'll notice a large difference between the 2 planes.
These are the plane specs they had in mind when designing the WTC. Keep in mind there was no building code that said any skyscraper had to be rated for plane impact.

Well jfj, I must admit that I'm impressed with you're astute observations on these pertinent facts.

However, I think one thing may have escaped your theory. While the laser may in fact be military grade, and have a very minor dispersal ratio, what if the windows that it hit weren't even, like the mirror on the moon is? Those windows weren't designed to reflect light in a precise manner. As a matter of fact, they were designed to keep light OUT of the buildings, and to do just the one thing that we'd not want it to do for this theory to hold any water; to disperse light.

This would indicate that the window's reflective surface was actually uneven enough to kick the photons off in varying degrees of the original trajectory. This, in my very uneducated opinion, could very well explain the nature of the size of the "dot" by the time that it reaches the camera.

Bear in mind, however, that this is all assuming that the "dot" is, in fact, a dot, and not some other anomaly. Just for the record, I don't believe that it's a laser dot like 11 11, but I do believe that it merits further study.

11 11, where are you?

TheBorg

Originally posted by jfj123
The dot on the building doesn't need to be a laser, it can be anything including any type of light as all light travels at the same speed.

It can't be "any" type of light, it has to be infrared light. We have already been over this.

Originally posted by jfj123
Again, a targeting laser would not be that large on a building.

Show me the diameter and divergence of a military laser, and I will believe that.

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes I know lasers disperse over distance but focusing lenses counteract that.

If it is a targeting laser, I don't think it will try to focus, if it was a weapon laser, maybe it would have a reason to focus. I'm pretty sure the laser in the video is some type of tracking laser of some sort, or a designator.

Originally posted by jfj123
11 11 has said that the laser expands and that is why it is approx. 12 ft across and it's because of dispersal ie the fact that laser light isn't completely parallel.

The laser could be expanding 12ft because of its divergence and diameter ratings, or, the laser dot is a lot smaller than it looks in the camera, yet the reflection is creating a speckle pattern into the camera making appear 12ft.

Originally posted by jfj123
He also goes on to state that it's that large because it's fired at a distance.

No I state that it is a possibility. It's large because it may be out of focus. That means the laser is either to close, or to far. Like moving your hand up and down when you are burning something with a magnifying glass.

Originally posted by jfj123
Now to contradict that a laser would expand from approx the size of a silver dollar to 12 ft tall at a close distance, I have posted a number of items showing that lasers of military grade do not disperse that much over distance.

Please show me the diameter and divergence of a military laser beam. It would help this debate a lot.

Originally posted by jfj123
Lets take the Lunar Lander laser experiments.
A laser is fired from earth and reflected off a mirror on the moon to determine distance from earth to the moon within a few cm's.

Now if dispersal was as great as 11 11 thinks it is at a few miles distance, then you would see a massive laser dot by the time it hit the moon from earth.

No, LASER BEAMS ARE NOT A FIXED SIZE. I already showed you that the laser used for the moon experiments is shot through a telescope and expands out to the size of the mirror. they can change the size of the beam.

Originally posted by jfj123
That means it increased in size 144 times.
Now lets take that idea and apply it to the moon.
Lets say the laser fired at the moon started out at the same 1 inch and the distance to the moon from earth is 238,857 miles. Lets assume the same 4 ft per mile which gives us a laser dot of 955428 feet or 180.95 miles in diameter when it hits the moon. The reflective mirror is only a few meters across.

They use a telescope to focus the laser on the moon. I doubt they use a telescope for a targeting laser.

Originally posted by jfj123
My point is the dispersion of a tracking laser over a short distance would not allow for the large change in diameter from origin to target.

But you are forgetting another factor, and that is the reflection of speckle. It expands out and makes a small dot appear larger to the camera. I just showed you how speckle patterns are made when moving a laser over a surface with the video.

Originally posted by jfj123
Regarding the 707 vs 767. The official reports presented the 707 as the following:
720 (707-020)
If you look at the specs of the above mentioned 707 vs the 767, you'll notice a large difference between the 2 planes.
These are the plane specs they had in mind when designing the WTC. Keep in mind there was no building code that said any skyscraper had to be rated for plane impact.

jfj123 now you are trying to change facts. The WTC's were world known to be the first skyscrapers to do wind tunnel model testing and, the first to be designed to withstand a jet impact. Also both the 707 and 767 are similar aircraft, except one is heavier and the other is faster meaning if they hit the WTC they would both do the same damage.

Read the link: www.whatreallyhappened.com...


[edit on 4-9-2007 by 11 11]

I posted the 707 vs 767 specs and they are not similar. You are reading specs for a 707-120B and/or 707-320B.
I am referring to the 720 (707-020) which is the one the port authority is referring to.

I will respond to the rest of your comments later today.

11 11 wrote,

It can't be "any" type of light, it has to be infrared light. We have already been over this.

No offense but just because you think it is IR light, doesn't mean it is. You have mentioned the slight green tint means IR assist or something like that. That is your speculation. We need definitive proof that the object is only visible due to IR assist or whatever you want to call it.

Until then, it may or may not be in the IR spectrum. It could be visible light.

reply to post by jfj123


Do you like to go in circles or what? We already went over this. The camera does not need to have IR assist in order to see it. It just needs to be a crappy camera with a not-so-good ICF lens on it, and in the right spot.

So far we only see this laser beam on 1 video, there may be another video out there that caught it, but I'm willing to believe that the rest of the cameras had better ICF's.

You are correct I did speculate that the camera had a green tint, and that was a sign that more IR light is being let in. Not that it has "IR assist", just the simple fact that more IR light is reaching the image sensor.