9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

Another perspective, angle, vantage point:



paper ... debris ... Laser (?)

You decide.

 

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
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.

No, I highly suggest you figure out the difference between an opinion, and an educated answer.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
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.

I think you are very wrong, and you need to study a bit more about infrared lights and cameras.

Compression does not add colors, nor does distance. Lighting, yes, the light from the sun is emitting infrared rays, these are what we see as "green" in the laser video.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
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.

No thats what YOU want to see. You come here and provide a video that is cut in half and doesnt show the entire flight of the object an d you base your OPINION on that.

I on the other hand, have studied every single second and frame of the object, and I can tell you it is NOT debris, it is a laser, and I have PROOF.

Look at these images closely.... in sequence.

img233.imageshack.us...
img68.imageshack.us...
img231.imageshack.us...
img231.imageshack.us...
img69.imageshack.us...
img231.imageshack.us...
img68.imageshack.us...
img233.imageshack.us...
img411.imageshack.us...
img67.imageshack.us...
img230.imageshack.us...
img235.imageshack.us...
img63.imageshack.us...


If image shack is having problems you can download the sequence here:

lolproxys.com...




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

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
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.

Then please do some research on cameras and their visible and invisible range of detectable light, it would help your opinion become correct.

I guarantee you that a LOT of cameras are different and they all display a different range of light.

I have proven to you that a simple cheap cell phone camera can see IR light... try it yourself.




Please, read about IR Filters:

www.maxmax.com...


You will see that cheap cameras have crappy IR filters, and expensive cameras do not have crappy IR filters. Hence the reason why only 1 camera see it, because only 1 camera was cheap enough and at the right angle.

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

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


In your video, to the absolute left, you can clearly see VERY SMALL PIECES of paper flying erratically. This camera is very close to the buildings, compared to the camera that captured the laser in it.

You are trying to compare a camera angle that is right next to the building, with a camera angle that is probably 2+ miles away???

How on Earth can you explain "debris" appearing 12 feet tall from a camera that is 2+ miles away? The only way that would be possible is if the debris were closer.. if that is the case were did it come from?

WHY DID IT FALL IN A STRAIGHT PATH!?!?!?



What ever it is, it is CONTROLLED, it is NOT "free falling".

The "debris" and "bird" theory DO NOT HOLD WATER.

Just look at the video and watch the laser until it disappears, NOT until the movie is cut off.

It is CLEARLY a laser.


Also, why can't you see all those little pieces of paper in your video from the camera that shows the laser huh????





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

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
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.

...

I guarantee you that a LOT of cameras are different and they all display a different range of light.

...

EXACTLY

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.

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to discover/document the make and model of camera that captured the Camera Planet footage.
*teasing*

Though, without knowing such, any Conclusions drawn from said "video" are most certainly open to individual perception and error.

Void the camera's specs, HOW can you possibly ascertain it's capabilities? ... or lack thereof, for that matter. (?)


 

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Void the camera's specs, HOW can you possibly ascertain it's capabilities? ... or lack thereof, for that matter. (?)

www.maxmax.com...

My camera can see a blinking IR remote when I point the remote control directly into the camera. Doesn't that mean it is IR sensitive?


No, not really. IR remotes pulse infrared LED's at very high power levels. When you point the remote at a color digital camera or camcorder, some of the IR light leaks through the cameras IR Cut Filter (ICF). All color cameras and camcorders must have an ICF because the color mosaic filter that lets the camera see color lets in IR light at certain wavelengths. If the cameras didn't have an ICF, colors would look very odd when you went outside. However, the ICF is not 100% effective. A little bit of IR light can leak through. Because the IR LED is being pulsed at a high level, the camera can see the IR light. If you try to take an IR picture with a stock camera, you can sometimes do so, but you will have to use a low cut IR filter (like a 715nm one) and you will need very long exposure times (like 1 minute or more). In contrast, a modified camera can take pictures at about the same speeds in outdoor sunlight with a 715nm filter as a stock camera can take a visible picture.

The quote above is straight from ICF makers themselves.... Notice the words I underlined. Especially the "pulsed at a high level" part.

Now read this:

en.wikipedia.org...

Instead, a series of coded pulses of laser-light are fired.

Another reason we see the laser, is because it was "pulsed" probably at a "high level" in order for the munitions to find it. This pulse was just enough to force its way through a not-so-powerfull ICF.


Anyway, I will try my best to find the make and model of the camera. I hope that I will not be the only one trying.

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

Maybe we should recap what we know and what we don't know.

KNOWN
There is an object in the video that is clearly visable.

UNKNOWN (unproven)
Is it a reflected light?
What spectrum does the light fall in if it is indeed a light?
If it is a light, what is the source?
Has the video been tampered with?

There has been interesting speculation about the unknowns but nobody has presented evidence to answer any of these unknowns.

Would anyone else like to post their idea's of KNOWNS and UNKNOWNS ? It may help organize others thoughts.

Just an observation.
In the video posted by 11 11, the object in contention travels slowly from left to right at a downward angle across a VERY large area. Would a targeting laser follow this same arc?
A targeting laser, to be accurate, it must be as still as possible. The object follows a pretty straight line as 11 11 has shown in a number of enhanced photos. This straight line and fairly steady speed shows CONTROL. Now if this object was under control and could be run in a very straight line at a fairly constant speed, it could also be held very still, preventing it from running across 2 entire buildings. Again, a military targeting laser needs to stay as still as possible to get the best accuracy and moving across the face of 2 large buildings is far from being accurate.

I tried to write this as clear as possible but if this doesn't make sense, please let me know and I'll rephrase it.

Consider the following in the context of your quoted external source:

When you point the remote at a color digital camera or camcorder ...

What was pointed at the camera in question? Nothing.

Because the IR LED is being pulsed at a high level, the camera can see the IR light.

Apples and Oranges. A TV Remote versus that which you're claiming in this thread. (also, refer to the above regarding source)

If you try to take an IR picture with a stock camera, you can sometimes do so, but you will have to use a low cut IR filter (like a 715nm one) and you will need very long exposure times (like 1 minute or more).

11 11,

You might want to add a low cut IR filter and long exposure times to the jovial list that I posted previously.

Originally posted by 11 11
Another reason we see the laser, is because it was "pulsed" probably at a "high level" in order for the munitions to find it.

* bold emphasis mine

"probably" being the "horse" here, the painting of which has apparently resulted in numerous variations thereof.


... Probably.


 

Originally posted by jfj123
Just an observation.
In the video posted by 11 11, the object in contention travels slowly from left to right at a downward angle across a VERY large area.

Yes, very true.

Originally posted by jfj123
A targeting laser, to be accurate, it must be as still as possible.

NO, NOT TRUE. A targeting laser, to be accurate, needs only be on the target when the munitions have been shot, and are in range. You CAN adjust to a different target while the munitions are in flight. There are tactics called "strafing" that will keep a fixed laser position, and only make adjustments flight controls to aim the laser.

Originally posted by jfj123
The object follows a pretty straight line as 11 11 has shown in a number of enhanced photos. This straight line and fairly steady speed shows CONTROL.

Yes, very true, it certainly does show CONTROL.

Originally posted by jfj123
Now if this object was under control and could be run in a very straight line at a fairly constant speed, it could also be held very still, preventing it from running across 2 entire buildings. Again, a military targeting laser needs to stay as still as possible to get the best accuracy and moving across the face of 2 large buildings is far from being accurate.

See you are wrong.. the laser does not need to stay still. Don't you remember the video you posted? Couldn't you see the laser bouncing and moving around like crazy??

www.youtube.com...

In this video above, in the very beginning you see various bomb strafing. The infrared camera's you see have a + in the middle, and that is where the laser is pointing. As you can see on some of the runs, the jet is moving very fast, and the angle at which the laser is pointing is constantly changing, and moving. It may not look like much from the camera view, but if you were waiting at the target point with an IR capable camera, you would see the laser moving around, probably following the same movement as the jet.

There is a bomb run on the video above that shows the laser pointed and "locked" onto nothing but road, and the vehicles are passing right through the targeting laser. Then, at the right moment when the final vehicle reaches the laser beam, the bomb hits it's target. They let this target cross their laser, without really moving the laser.

Same thing with the WTC laser, thats why I think the laser is coming from a jet, or moving aircraft. I believe they just waited for the WTC building to pass in front of their fixed laser designator.

Although the laser was in CONTROL, it was not exactly in someones hands, it was probably fixed to a jet, and the jet was in control.


I do understand ALL available technology the military has, but, I truly can't explain why they would use this type of older style method. Maybe they were on a low budget.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
What was pointed at the camera in question? Nothing.

The REFLECTION. Wow, that was easy.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Apples and Oranges. A TV Remote versus that which you're claiming in this thread. (also, refer to the above regarding source)

No they are not "apples and oranges". We are talking about powerful infrared lights. A TV remote is one, an infrared laser is the other. While you are stuck thinking about the function of the device's and how different they are. Try getting stuck on thinking about the actual light they emit.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
You might want to add a low cut IR filter and long exposure times to the jovial list that I posted previously.

Keep in mind, the source was talking about a 100% fully infrared camera. The entire web site I linked to was about turning all normal cameras into a 100% infrared camera. The camera in question, is not even close to 100% infrared, nor does it need to be 100% in order to see an infrared laser reflection.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
"probably" being the "horse" here, the painting of which has apparently resulted in numerous variations thereof.

You see, your problem is that you are debunking words, and not the theory. PLEASE stay on topic.

Now, when I said "probably" it was used loosely. Because what I said is FACT. They DO pulse it at a high rate, so the infrared sensors can see them from a long distance.

B.T.W. lasers naturally pulse at a super high rate, so it confirms even more that this "probably" was only used loosely.



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

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


I forgot to mention this video disproves your theory of "debris". As we would see a 12 foot piece of debris in the video it if it WERE debris.

Since it is a laser, and the camera is facing the wrong direction, and the camera surely has a powerful ICF (hence the clear picture), we don't see the laser in the video.

you're still missing the point. When you are targeting a building with a continuous targeting laser, the laser needs to stay as still as possible not fly across the length of 2 buildings.

And yes I see the cross hairs moving. I never said they didn't. No, I'm not wrong.
I don't see it slowly flying across the equivalent of 2 buildings in a controlled manner with a fairly consistent speed though. You yourself mentioned that you see the dot "bouncing around" not slowly moving in a controlled manner.
Again, they attempt to keep it as close to still as possible. Every time the laser dot moves, the targeting object has to adjust it's flight path. This seems really obvious.

Now if you're referring to "target and forget", "fire and forget" or "paint and forget" (all the same thing), you only need to paint a target once then you can immediately turn off the laser. This would also debunk the almost continuous laser theory. I have seen video demos of this so please don't tell me it doesn't exist or something like that.

11 11 wrote,

Although the laser was in CONTROL, it was not exactly in someones hands, it was probably fixed to a jet, and the jet was in control.

A laser on a jet would have the ability to self correct and could take into account it's own motion as well as the motion or lack thereof, of it's target. If you don't believe me, read about the ABL.

I do understand ALL available technology the military has, but, I truly can't explain why they would use this type of older style method. Maybe they were on a low budget.

I hope you're being sarcastic because no single individual knows about ALL available technology the military has. Especially since you don't have a top level clearance to even know what some of the "top secret" weapons in development are ! You may want to bring it down a notch with comments like that.

Originally posted by jfj123
11 11 wrote,

I do understand ALL available technology the military has, but, I truly can't explain why they would use this type of older style method. Maybe they were on a low budget.

I hope you're being sarcastic because no single individual knows about ALL available technology the military has. Especially since you don't have a top level clearance to even know what some of the "top secret" weapons in development are ! You may want to bring it down a notch with comments like that.

Or, in his own words from the beginning of the thread, : "Are you claiming to know the capabilities of this CLASSIFIED WEAPON?"

Same thing with the WTC laser, thats why I think the laser is coming from a jet, or moving aircraft. I believe they just waited for the WTC building to pass in front of their fixed laser designator.
Although the laser was in CONTROL, it was not exactly in someones hands, it was probably fixed to a jet, and the jet was in control.
Maybe they were on a low budget.

You are talking about two opposites, a moving target vs. a stationary one. Are you suggesting the laser is fixed in position on the jet? If so, this is getting even more unlikely.

I must have missed the smiley face next to the 'low budget' comment. We are still talking about the theory where the government slaughters 3,000 of it's own citizens in a situation they know will be recorded and televised, right? They would probably want to use their 'A team' in this situation dont you think?

By the way 11:11, you never replied about the laser expert credentials.

Originally posted by 11 11
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

 

I forgot to mention this video disproves your theory of "debris". As we would see a 12 foot piece of debris in the video it if it WERE debris.

Since it is a laser, and the camera is facing the wrong direction, and the camera surely has a powerful ICF (hence the clear picture), we don't see the laser in the video.

No, it only shows the area right in front of the bulding, and even in that area we can see all kinds of debris. Following your logic, the debris could be reflecting light and appearing much bigger than it is. Also, the video you've posted is from miles away, it could be anywhere in there. Video cameras do weird things with extreme depth of field.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by InnocentBystander]

[edit on 7-9-2007 by InnocentBystander]

Originally posted by 11 11
You will see that cheap cameras have crappy IR filters, and expensive cameras do not have crappy IR filters. Hence the reason why only 1 camera see it, because only 1 camera was cheap enough and at the right angle.

Well 11 11, I'm curious to see your answer to the following video. This one was taken from a similar vantage point to your's, with what appears to be a similar-quality camera. The only differences are that they zoom in more, and they are lower than the one you show.

If you would sir, could you be so kind as to show us why this one doesn't show any laser, as it should be there, based on the givens that you've put out? There's a green tint around the building, which suggests to me that this video has a low ICF, which would be good for seeing this "IR laser", if what you've said is correct.



So, what do you think? The laser should be above the right wingtip, but I don't see it anywhere. Where is it?

I await your reply with anxious trepidation.

TheBorg

reply to post by TheBorg


TheBorg I am sorry, I believe that camera is not a similar quality, it actually looks like a professional camera. It must have a good ICF, and blocks out infrared light. You can't mistake all green as infrared light.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
I hope you're being sarcastic because no single individual knows about ALL available technology the military has. Especially since you don't have a top level clearance to even know what some of the "top secret" weapons in development are ! You may want to bring it down a notch with comments like that.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. I know how everything in the entire universe works. It all is based on the same things, attraction and repulsion. You can test me if you wish.

As I don't know exactly WHAT the military has, I still know how everything they have works, even if they come out with some "new" technology, I will tell you exactly how it works.

From alchemy, to electronics, if you know how these two key things are similar you will know The Secret of the Universe.

p.s. nothing is real but light itself. I know everything about light.

Originally posted by 11 11
I know how everything in the entire universe works.

As with your claims regarding the Camera Planet video, I think that statement would be better received and more accurate if prefaced with, "In my opinion". Not that doing so would lend any further credibility to such an all-encompassing assertion, but at least it would afford others the knowledge and or understanding of it being an opinion and nothing more.

You're still claiming that the camera in question was the One and Only that was able to record the supposed laser, yet without knowing for certain the make, model, capabilities, or lack thereof there is absolutely No means by which to prove that whatsoever. Therefore, until said information is acquired, confirmed or documented, your theory remains just that a theory ... an opinion, your's.

To claim something as fact without having acquired and examined all pertinent data or information is quite foolhardy, in my opinion.

Personally, I'm seeing more and more a situation of, "I thee 11 11 take you 911 laser as my lawful wife theory", but perhaps that's just me.




 

[edit on 7-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
As with your claims regarding the Camera Planet video, I think that statement would be better received and more accurate if prefaced with, "In my opinion". Not that doing so would lend any further credibility to such an all-encompassing assertion, but at least it would afford others the knowledge and or understanding of it being an opinion and nothing more.

Once again, the line between "opinion" and "truth" is very small, and I admit I walk the line very often, but the only way to see the "truth" part is to know everything that I know, which would mean telling you everything about the entire universe.

I think the problem is that it is YOUR OPINION, that what I say is "just an opinion". It's going to be a never ending cycle, until you learn what I know.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
You're still claiming that the camera in question was the One and Only that was able to record the supposed laser, yet without knowing for certain the make, model, capabilities, or lack thereof there is absolutely No means by which to prove that whatsoever. Therefore, until said information is acquired, confirmed or documented, your theory remains just that a theory ... an opinion, your's.

I don't need proof that the CameraPlanet video is using a totally different make and model camera than every other camera that filmed the WTC2 impact. Just by vision alone, I am 95% positive the camera is not like any other camera used to film the 2nd impact. You, and I, and ANYONE, could research the make and model of every camera used on 911 to film the 2nd impact, and I am certain the camera used to film the laser was different than all others.

I don't understand how that is hard to believe, there are so many different types of cameras out there. Only very few non-professional cameras caught this angle of the 2nd impact, and a lot of professional ones as well.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
To claim something as fact without having acquired and examined all pertinent data or information is quite foolhardy, in my opinion.

I did examine all the data. All that is needed for me to know the camera is different then all others, is simply by looking at the video footage. Some people without the correct skills will need exact make and model to carry on. I, do not, as all that is needed is the footage from the camera.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Personally, I'm seeing more and more a situation of, "I thee 11 11 take you 911 laser as my lawful wife theory", but perhaps that's just me.

Thats funny, because I had the same impression from you. The impression was that you, no matter what, will never believe the object in the video is a laser and that you are completely wasting yours, and my time on this thread because your mind is made up and that is that.

I however, KNOW, that it is a laser in the video. Hence the reason why it would seem like I am "married" to it.

The funniest thing about you though, is that you used HALF of the video to make your decision, and not the FULL video. It's like someone purposely edited out the rest of the video so they wouldn't see it is a laser..

I highly suggest you download this pack of images and look closely.

www.lolproxys.com...

--edit--

Maybe perhaps you can find a better place to host the pack as well?

[edit on 7-9-2007 by 11 11]