9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
In all honesty, if it be as you claim, a laser, wouldn't it appear even more prominently in the video above? ... from a more head-on angle/vantage point. (?)

I am ashamed by your actions.

During the lifetime of this thread, I have been explaining how there are 2 different types of lasers. Visible Light lasers and Infrared lasers. I have been explaining how ICF lenses work to block IR light on cameras, and how some cameras don't have ICF's, and some cheap cameras have cheap ICF', and I even explained what they are for.

PLEASE, I BEG YOU TO READ THIS ENTIRE THREAD!

The reason you only see it on the CameraPlanet video is because the video camera was a CHEAP ONE. It was letting more IR light into the camera than normal cameras.

I have to say, it's much more fun to watch the drama without commenting, but it's frustrating. I cannot wait to hear 12m8keall2c's reaction to the infrared assist/night mode/icf theory. Maybe we can get a laser expert in here and take care of this once and for all.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Maybe we can get a laser expert in here and take care of this once and for all.

I am a laser expert. I have shown you examples of a regular crappy camera taking pictures of infrared lights. I can also show you cameras that don't take pictures of infrared lights, because they have a powerful ICF. It's fact.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Maybe we can get a laser expert in here and take care of this once and for all.

I am a laser expert. I have shown you examples of a regular crappy camera taking pictures of infrared lights. I can also show you cameras that don't take pictures of infrared lights, because they have a powerful ICF. It's fact.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by 11 11]

You may be a laser expert, I mean't someone less emotionally attached to your theory. Can you provide some reference as to your qualifications for the sake of credibility?

I hear you about the icfs, and although I disagree that you've shown any video that even closely resembles the one in question, I've seen your evidence. I think what everyone's been saying is: You can link to as many explanations of lenses and cameras as you want, but you're still missing the point. You just have a theory, no proof. You keep confusing the two.

You have no evidence the camera is what you say it is. You expect people to believe that one white dot is a laser beam reflection, when there are numerous identical white dots that are obviously debris from the tower. Furthermore, I don't see a 'speckle pattern' at all. I think people here are agitated because you are very loose with the words 'truth' and 'fact.'

Do you think your statements would hold up in a trial?

Would you be willing to submit your theory to a 3rd party laser expert?

I have video evidence of a laser on the WTC. It IS a laser.

You guys can forget about the "ABL", and the "targeting laser", you can forget about every single theory, and the FACT STILL STANDS THAT THE VIDEO IS SHOWING A LASER.

I'm not going to lie, the ABL, Laser Guided Jet, or Beam weapon theory are all speculative and very hard to believe, yes those are THEORIES.

But what I hold in front of you RIGHT NOW, is PROOF of a LASER on the WTC.

Lethal, Non-Lethal, Friendly, Civilian, Gov., on purpose or on accident, it doesn't matter. There IS a laser in this video.

Google Video Link

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Do you think your statements would hold up in a trial?

My statements about a laser dot being visible in the video yes. My statements about what and why that laser is there, no. Although, I do have evidence that the path of the "object" is a mirror path of the jets flight path.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Would you be willing to submit your theory to a 3rd party laser expert?

My "theory" of the video showing a laser, YES. My "theory" of what that laser is doing there, NO.

11 11,

Isn't it equally plausible that someone tampered with the video that you found? I would think that it would be easier to "alter" one video than it would be to alter every other single video, now don't you?

And again, I want to reiterate that there are no FACTS here, other than 2 planes hit two buildings on 9/11. All of this other stuff is just semantics. To be fair though, I haven't given up on the idea of there being a laser used in the attacks, but at the same time I'm kind of shying away from it, as I'm seeing nothing in any other videos to substantiate what you claim. Maybe you just got someone's tampered video.

In an update, I did email them about the video that they host, and have yet to get a reply. This doesn't bode well for the theory either. It's been almost a week, and they should have responded by now if they were going to.

TheBorg

reply to post by 11 11

Leslie Robertson who had participated in the design of the towers has specifically stated many times, that the towers were designed to take an impact of a 707-320 at 180 knots with a weight of 119 tons.

Flight 11 was travelling at 440mph while 175 hit at 540mph.

See this is lie number 1 that you believed from your failing theory. It is FACT that the WTC's were designed to have a fully loaded Boeing 707 crash into it. You see, I have proof, you don't.

My theory? Fo' shizzle. Bro, you don't even know what my theory is.

707-320B has a Max weight of 151 tons while the towers were designed for 119 tons at 180 knots. How much were the 767s again and at what speed did they hit at? And how does that compare with a 707 at 180?

Your "low on fuel", "lost in fog", "on approach" BULL CRAP is just a lie, and you don't have proof to back it up.

I am not going to be lowered to a primary school student asked to back up everything I say when it is infact easy to find. Google it.

That all is besided the point anyway because THAT FACT STILL STANDS THAT THE WTC'S SURVIVED THE IMPACTS OF THE JETS. Remember they stood standing for about an hour after impacts.

That's getting silly.

Discounting other theories, the towers took significantly more force than they were designed from the impact and with the added effect of the prevailing fires are what brought them down.

You also state the 767 was full of fuel???? This totally tells me you know NOTHING. It is a FACT the jets that hit the WTC's were only carrying 10,000 lbs of jet fuel. That is LESS THAN HALF EMPTY, meaning it was lighter in weight.

Bullcrap.

The jets were flying from Boston to Los Angeles. What's what? 3500 miles? Yet the hijacked planes didn't even get past Lake Ontario before turning around, only a pinprick of that 3500 miles.... yet you say they somehow hit with 10000 pounds of jet fuel?

I'll go ring up Boeing to tell them there fuel burn calculations are way off.

Only straw men with ZERO arguments debate semantics. Get real, I am talking about a "laser dot" that you see in the video, you want to ignore that FACT too?

The fact of what? Some white thing where a plane hits that shows a limited resemblance to a laser point?

• There are hundreds of videos of things like that in the sky.
  
• The dot did not get bigger when it hit the building infront of the towers.
  
• The dot did not change in appearance when it hit surfaces at an angle.
  
• The dot did not shine between the buildings if it were at the angle the plane hit.
  
• If you pause at :01 and :02 it looks like the thing was to the left of the WTC in the sky.
  
• No weapons systems that I know of have a massive size of the point.
  
• A 12 foot wide point would require a massive laser or a laser like a torch which would only inhibit the capabilities of the laser.
  

Video resolution and quality is horrible though, so it's hard to tell... Is there a better copy?

Originally posted by C0bzz
The jets were flying from Boston to Los Angeles. What's what? 3500 miles? Yet the hijacked planes didn't even get past Lake Ontario before turning around, only a pinprick of that 3500 miles.... yet you say they somehow hit with 10000 pounds of jet fuel?

I'll go ring up Boeing to tell them there fuel burn calculations are way off.

Yes NIST, and many other resources including Wikipedia have stated multiple times that there was only 10,000lbs of jet fuel on board both flights when they impacted.

That simple FACT that you didn't know shows me exactly how much you really know about 911.

You then proceed to bring up arguments that I have already debunked, so that is a sign that I will put you on ignore now.

B.T.W. I hear fuel is expensive.



[edit on 6-9-2007 by 11 11]

Yes NIST, and many other resources including Wikipedia have stated multiple times that there was only 10,000lbs of jet fuel on board both flights when they impacted.

Wikipedia has stated 10000 gallons as has NIST.

You then proceed to bring up arguments that I have already debunked, so that is a sign that I will put you on ignore now.

So you're plugging your ears and yelling LALALALALA because I disagree?

10 000 gallons is a FACT.

The planes were not designed to be hit by 707 sized aircraft at 500 knots. FACT.

There are hundreds of videos of things like that in the sky is a FACT.

No weapons systems use massive dots to designate targets. That's a FACT.

The laser dot to the left of the building is very real though it's hard to tell with such a low res video.

.

LALALALALA indeed.


[edit on 6/9/2007 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


Oops, yeah, Gallons. lol. Thats what I meant, 10000 gallons. My point still stands, the gas tanks were half empty.

Sorry for the typo.

Originally posted by 11 11

PLEASE, I BEG YOU TO READ THIS ENTIRE THREAD!

Now that I have ...

Originally posted by 11 11
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??
...

**note** I am not claiming the ABL did ALL the work, but it did help the aircraft's do more damage. Possibly helped "weaken the steel" of the WTC's with heat.

Given the area that the laser debris crosses in front of, I would have to say they were way off target, as the point of impact should have been much higher to take advantage of the "heat softened" exterior.

Originally posted by 11 11
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.

How can you possibly know this when you have absolutely No idea whatsoever with regards to the make, model, or capabilities of the camera used to take the video.

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by jfj123
I find your attitude absurd. You're condescending and insulting to many people simply asking questions.

Because I don't debate anything unless it has an element of truth in it. You people are walking all over the truth with false information, so you might see how I get uncomfortable. The truth is, there IS a laser on the building. The part that I don't know about, is the rest of 911, just like millions of others.

* bold emphasis mine
Actually, the only truth IS that you are of the opinion that it's a laser.

Originally posted by 11 11
All I know is, that video DOES have a laser in it.

A more accurate statement would be,
"In my opinion, that video DOES have a laser in it.

The reason you only see it on the CameraPlanet video is because the video camera was a CHEAP ONE. It was letting more IR light into the camera than normal cameras.

You have NO possible means whatsoever of proving that, and yet you defend said assumption claiming it as fact.

Originally posted by 11 11
I am ashamed by your actions.

After having read thru this entire thread, I can assure you that makes two of us.

Here's a slow-mo and enhanced segment of the Camera Planet video which in my opinion clearly shows it does not move in a straight line, but it in fact floats and or bobs about somewhat just as a piece of falling debris/paper/etc. would be expected to ... especially as it gets about halfway across the face of the building.

207.44.246.82...
The video is in .avi format (720X480   :25) and is approximately 91Mb
* you'll need to right-click and save-as


[edit: strike right-click and save-as]
It streams fine.


 


[edit on 6-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Here's a slow-mo and enhanced segment of the Camera Planet video which in my opinion clearly shows it does not move in a straight line, but it in fact floats and or bobs about somewhat just as a piece of falling debris/paper/etc. would be expected to ... especially as it gets about halfway across the face of the building.

207.44.246.82...
The video is in .avi format (720X480 :25) and is approximately 91Mb
* you'll need to right-click and save-as


[edit: strike right-click and save-as]
It streams fine.





[edit on 6-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

The problem is, your video doesnt show that this "debris" continues on and can be seen on the explosion cloud and then continues on to be seen on the building next to the WTC. Not to mention you dont account for what would cause debris to fall like that. If you say wind then I would say look at the smoke cloud and see which way it was blowing. In other words, if you look, the "wind" isnt strong enough to even blow the smoke in the other tower one way or the other, much less this "debris" with a constant light source. Was the debris jet powered?

[edit on 6-9-2007 by shug7272]

Originally posted by shug7272

[edit on 6-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

The problem is, your video doesnt show that this "debris" continues on and can be seen on the explosion cloud and then continues on to be seen on the building next to the WTC. Not to mention you dont account for what would cause debris to fall like that. If you say wind then I would say look at the smoke cloud and see which way it was blowing. In other words, if you look, the "wind" isnt strong enough to even blow the smoke in the other tower one way or the other, much less this "debris" with a constant light source. Was the debris jet powered?

[edit on 6-9-2007 by shug7272]

This is a picture of the smoke at the time of the attack. Looks like the smoke is being blown towards the other tower to me.

reply to post by InnocentBystander


Yup your right, I didnt look close enough. I like this place, if something is to be found you guys find it. That is a very good thing. I am still not convinced it is a piece of debris, but who knows.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by shug7272]

reply to post by InnocentBystander


Not only that, but the flames and heat from the first tower would have certainly contributed to increased air turbulence in and around the vicinity of both buildings.

In response to shug7272,
The purpose of the video clip was simply to show the debris-like (aloft) characterisitics displayed by that which has been purported as a laser targetting/guidance/heating element. Nothing more, hence the cutoff time being as it is.

 

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


It is NOT my "opinion" that tells me that is a laser in the video. It is an educated investigation that tells me this, something that has been lacking from 911 since day 1.

First off, I already showed you how I know the camera is letting in extra IR light. You can just look around the edges of the image, and you will see this green shading around the edge of the lens. This green shading is IR light that is being let in, hence the reason why the camera can see the laser.


Your "logic" that it is just "debris" is flawed. First off, the video is from an angle showing the UNDAMAGED WTC2. Behind it, on the far side, is WTC1 and the impact zone.

Please tell me how this "12 foot piece of debris" fell all the way from WTC1 all the way past and across WTC2, and then 1000+ feet over in front of another building, all at the same time keeping the same angled flight path??

Seriously, I didnt finish downloading your video yet. But I am pretty sure I know what I will see. When researching this video with the laser, I came across a LOT of copies of it that have been chopped and edited so that you can not see the complete path of the laser. All the videos ended when the laser gets harder to see in the fire. Hence the reason why everyone passed it off as "debris" or "a bird".

Serisouly, if you watch the object closely through its entire flight path you will see it is a LASER.

I will come back later with more images of the laser during is path, and I will even come back with calculations of the speed of the object, and the "rate of fall". Then, I will prove to you it can NOT be "debris" or a "bird".

In the mean time, I will explain 1 more time, why the laser appears to be "12 feet".

Watch this video, or any video of a laser..



...look at this image below:



As you can see the actual size of the laser dot is hidden in the middle of the speckle reflection from the laser, and makes it appear to be one large laser dot.

When you move the laser over a surface, the speckle reflection will change random size's. This is why the laser appears to be a "tumbling, free falling, debris shining light at various angles", or a "bird flapping wings", or whatever. Because, as the laser moves over the WTC surface, it is creating a speckle reflection in millions of different angles, and strengths. It is an illusion that can only be done with lasers.



[edit on 6-9-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Here's a slow-mo and enhanced segment of the Camera Planet video which in my opinion clearly shows it does not move in a straight line, but it in fact floats and or bobs about somewhat just as a piece of falling debris/paper/etc. would be expected to ... especially as it gets about halfway across the face of the building.

I just got done watching the video, and it IS exactly what I expected. If you can find a video that follows the entire path of the object, I bet anything you would agree it is a laser.

You can tell it is a laser when it passes over the smoke and fire. The smoke has a small dent in it, and you can clearly watch the laser light sink into that smoke dent and come back out, just before it reaches the other building..


Also note this debris starts out on the DARK SIDE of WTC meaning it is some how got light from no where. If this was truly debris it would not be lit of up like that while it is in the shade.


You claim that it "clearly shows it does not move in a straight line"....

...are you claiming that this following image is in accurate??



I guarantee you that the image above is 100% accurate and this object follows a STRAIGHT FLIGHT PATH.



[edit on 6-9-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 6-9-2007 by 11 11]

I do have to say, with the positioning of the "debris" upon the planes impact, it doesnt appear to have had its path altered by the violent explosion. Thats odd.

Originally posted by 11 11
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

 

It is NOT my "opinion" that tells me that is a laser in the video. It is an educated investigation that tells me this, something that has been lacking from 911 since day 1.

Educated (guess) opinion = hypothesis = opinion based on educated knowledge/understanding. Paint the horse any color you wish, but it is still just that ... a horse. In the case, an opinion.

First off, I already showed you how I know the camera is letting in extra IR light. You can just look around the edges of the image, and you will see this green shading around the edge of the lens. This green shading is IR light that is being let in, hence the reason why the camera can see the laser.

Personally, I'd say that Any coloration around the edges or individual objects is more a result of compression artifacts, distance, and lighting than anything else. Though, your mileage may vary with regards to individual perception.

Your "logic" that it is just "debris" is flawed. First off, the video is from an angle showing the UNDAMAGED WTC2. Behind it, on the far side, is WTC1 and the impact zone.

Please tell me how this "12 foot piece of debris" fell all the way from WTC1 all the way past and across WTC2, and then 1000+ feet over in front of another building, all at the same time keeping the same angled flight path??

The only Flaw I see is perception, perspective, and vantage point. The same Angle that you claim to be the "flaw" in it simply being debris is the same angle that you're using to Proclaim it to be a laser. (?)

Seriously, I did finish downloading your video yet. But I am pretty sure I know what I will see.

Load you head, before ... comes to mind.

Serisouly, if you watch the object closely through its entire flight path you will see it is a LASER.

If that's what you Want to see, perhaps. Me? I see falling debris being misconstrued as something more that it actually is, mostly due to camera angle, vantage point and overall perspective.

I will come back later with more images of the laser during is path, and I will even come back with calculations of the speed of the object, and the "rate of fall". Then, I will prove to you it can NOT be "debris" or a "bird".

Please by All means feel free to do so, as I certainly wouldn't attempt to hinder your endeavors. Though, until you can document the make, model, and capabilities of the camera used to capture said video, the "laser theory" remains just that ... a theory, yours.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11 11,
I can certainly appreciate and respect your "hell or high water" determination in getting to the bottom of it all. Honestly, I Do. Though, in my opinion, the suggestion that "They" used a laser technology seemingly visible to only a single camera out of hundreds is a bit of a stretch.

Again ... until you're able to nail down the Actual make, model and IR capabilities for the camera used to obtain this footage, the rest is nothing more than an opinion ... regardless of how educated, informed, or knowledgeable that opinion may be.