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: 20
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Interesting debate, though this caught me eye.
reply to post by 11 11
 


No, you do not know how everything in the Universe works. You said it yourself, "It all is based on the same things, attraction and repulsion.".

Do you also believe you're Jesus?

[edit on 7/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]




posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
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.

As is it your's ... OPINION, that is.

With regards to your self-proclaimed knowledge of the universe, I'd have to remind you that in certain professional circles those types of assertions are more commonly referred to as delusions of grandeur.



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.
* bold emphasis mine
The needle camera in the haystack amongst which? The very few non-professional cameras or a lot of professional ones? Based on Your own words, it certainly can't be both. (?)




I did examine all the data.

No, you haven't. You've filled in your blanks with that which you feel to be sufficient knowledge and or understanding. That's all.


All that is needed for me to know the camera is different then all others, is simply by looking at the video footage.

If that works for you, Have at it.


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.

Which you don't have, nor do I ... in it's entirety nor original format



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.

When you can demonstrate to me that it is in fact a laser and back said claims with documented evidence which supports such, then I will gladly eat crow and my words to boot.



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

In a factual sense you're assuming that it is, and yes it would seem that you are ... married to it, that is.



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..

Why? I clipped a sufficient segment to demonstrate that the "object" does not move in the straight line which you suggest. (?)



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

I have, but what's the purpose when I've viewed the entire video time and again. Not pulling representative stills from various points throughout to support said claims, but by following the object from start to finish. No straight line, and in fact we can't even ascertain that it is in fact the same object from start to finish... considering that it disappears repeatedly throughout, from start to finish.


 



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
img68.imageshack.us...

OK so how in the world does light (which is what a laser is LightAmplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) "hide" behind smoke??

If you know your light physics (or have seen a laser light show) you know that smoke will show the entire beam of laser (I rember watching the laser show on top of the WTC on a cloady day) or the dot of laser. At teh very least the laser beam that appeared on the face of the building would be on the face of the smoke.

It is a physical impossibility for light (especially a "high" powered laser) to hide behind smoke.



[edit on 7-9-2007 by Torlough]

[edit on 7-9-2007 by Torlough]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   
11 11 wrote,

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.


Well you just blew any credibility you may have had. This is simply an untrue statement. The best minds on the planet would not make these claims. I am not interested in testing you as I know the type of knowledge you claim is simple not possible at our current stage of human evolution.

For you to know how everything works, you must first have knowledge of everything that has every and will ever exist in the universe. You must know the exact location of of every bit of matter at every moment in time. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say YOU DON'T.

Your statements make everything you say now suspect in my opinion.
Your claim is simply outlandish.




posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
considering that it disappears repeatedly throughout, from start to finish.


Repeatedly huh? So you agree it disappears repeatedly. WELL, HOW THE HECK DOES DEBRIS DISAPPEAR REPEATEDLY?

Nice one, you cornered yourself.

Answer this:

According to your logic, the object we see over the WTC2 building is 1 piece of debris, and the object that flies over the smoke/fire/other building is ANOTHER piece of debris.

What are the chances that 2 completely separate pieces of debris, have the same size, and same FLIGHT SLOPE??




Once again, are you claiming this picture above is inaccurate??

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



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

I have said this before, and I will say it again. I know how everything in the entire universe works.


Gawk.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Cornered? hah! ORLY?

Light, reflection ... that which you claim to be all-knowing of.




posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Torlough
OK so how in the world does light (which is what a laser is LightAmplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) "hide" behind smoke??


Quite simple, the angle of the camera, makes the "plume" cover the position of the laser dot. Just like how these clouds block the Sun:



b.t.w its not smoke, smoke isn't that solid. When I said "plume" i meant of plume of debris.

Anyway, the laser is to the LEFT of the plume in that image. Only later does the laser move to the right and appear ON the plume.




posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
No, you do not know how everything in the Universe works. You said it yourself, "It all is based on the same things, attraction and repulsion.".

Do you also believe you're Jesus?



Actually I DO know how everything in the entire Universe Works. It IS all based on attraction and repulsion. Now, I HIGHLY SUGGEST you learn about alchemy. Then learn about magnetism.

Then learn how Jesus used alchemy and magnetism to perform his "miracles".



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well you just blew any credibility you may have had.


For one, I don't care about creditability, because that is all YOUR OPINION.



Originally posted by jfj123
This is simply an untrue statement. The best minds on the planet would not make these claims.


It is not "untrue" actually it is so true that you will never believe it until the future comes.

The reason the "best minds" don't talk about it, is because every single thing they have learned was from someone else's research. I must say, science started ALL WRONG. Everything they know is 100000 times more complex than it really is. I can explain all scientific phenomena with simple basic rules of magnetism. lol




Originally posted by jfj123
I am not interested in testing you as I know the type of knowledge you claim is simple not possible at our current stage of human evolution.



Thats to bad, I was really looking forward to showing you PROOF from ancient writings, ancient symbols, and lots of todays scientific discoveries.



Originally posted by jfj123
For you to know how everything works, you must first have knowledge of everything that has every and will ever exist in the universe.


But I do have knowledge of everything that has ever and will exist. They are called "atoms" with traditional science.



Originally posted by jfj123
You must know the exact location of of every bit of matter at every moment in time. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say YOU DON'T.


Well, I do. I know the location of every attraction and repulsion force in the universe.



Originally posted by jfj123
Your statements make everything you say now suspect in my opinion.
Your claim is simply outlandish.




Ok, fine with me. You can be suspect about ME all you want. But please, research everything I say.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   


Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
considering that it disappears repeatedly throughout, from start to finish.


Repeatedly huh? So you agree it disappears repeatedly. WELL, HOW THE HECK DOES DEBRIS DISAPPEAR REPEATEDLY?
Nice one, you cornered yourself.
Answer this:
According to your logic, the object we see over the WTC2 building is 1 piece of debris, and the object that flies over the smoke/fire/other building is ANOTHER piece of debris.

What are the chances that 2 completely separate pieces of debris, have the same size, and same FLIGHT SLOPE??


Just to play devils advocate, debris could disappear into the smoke cloud.

What are the chances? Statistically pretty low. Just like winning the lotto, but someone does all the time.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   


Originally posted by Torlough
OK so how in the world does light (which is what a laser is LightAmplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) "hide" behind smoke??


Quite simple, the angle of the camera, makes the "plume" cover the position of the laser dot. Just like how these clouds block the Sun:

b.t.w its not smoke, smoke isn't that solid. When I said "plume" i meant of plume of debris.

Anyway, the laser is to the LEFT of the plume in that image. Only later does the laser move to the right and appear ON the plume.


Now regarding the clouds.. notice you also see the rays of the sun. So using your analogy, you would also see the laser beam itself but you don't.

It is smoke and debris/dust. Fire causes smoke. Explosions cause debris. For the most part.

We still don't know if the object is a laser or debris or a visible light reflection. You assume it's a laser. I just want to clarify that.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Then learn how Jesus used alchemy and magnetism to perform his "miracles".


Please provide proof of this rather extraordinary statement. Provide the proof by performing the miracles you claim jesus performed. Since you know what they involved, it shouldn't be difficult.

Your credibility is dropping faster then a rock off a cliff my friend.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

alchemy (Arabic: الخيمياء, al-khimia) refers to both an early form of the investigation of nature and an early philosophical and spiritual discipline, both combining elements of chemistry, metallurgy, physics, medicine, astrology, semiotics, mysticism, spiritualism, and art all as parts of one greater force. Alchemy has been practiced in Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Persia, India, and China, in Classical Greece and Rome, in the Muslim civilization, and then in Europe up to the 19th century—in a complex network of schools and philosophical systems spanning at least 2500 years.

Ok now lets look at a few of the words used in the definition:
mysticism
spiritualism

Sorry, neither of these fit into science unless you're playing Dungeons & Dragons. extra DIV



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   



Originally posted by jfj123
Well you just blew any credibility you may have had.

For one, I don't care about creditability, because that is all YOUR OPINION.

Thats true.



Originally posted by jfj123
This is simply an untrue statement. The best minds on the planet would not make these claims.

It is not "untrue" actually it is so true that you will never believe it until the future comes.

NOPE. IT'S COMPLETELY UNTRUE. I know everything too

[quote
The reason the "best minds" don't talk about it, is because every single thing they have learned was from someone else's research. I must say, science started ALL WRONG. Everything they know is 100000 times more complex than it really is.
So what you're saying is that everything science has taught is wrong?



I can explain all scientific phenomena with simple basic rules of magnetism. lol

Of course you can make something up. I'm sure you have a vivid imagination. But explaining all scientific phenomena with proof.... NO YOU CAN'T. SORRY.



Originally posted by jfj123
I am not interested in testing you as I know the type of knowledge you claim is simple not possible at our current stage of human evolution.


Thats to bad, I was really looking forward to showing you PROOF from ancient writings, ancient symbols, and lots of todays scientific discoveries.

Please do so with actual scientific proof.



Originally posted by jfj123
For you to know how everything works, you must first have knowledge of everything that has every and will ever exist in the universe.

But I do have knowledge of everything that has ever and will exist. They are called "atoms" with traditional science.

OK so what happened before the big bang?
How many molecules are in our sun?
How many planets are in the universe?
Please answer the questions with proof.



Originally posted by jfj123
You must know the exact location of of every bit of matter at every moment in time. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say YOU DON'T.


Well, I do. I know the location of every attraction and repulsion force in the universe.

Please name all the individual locations.




Originally posted by jfj123
Your statements make everything you say now suspect in my opinion.
Your claim is simply outlandish.

Ok, fine with me. You can be suspect about ME all you want. But please, research everything I say.

There is no real way using science to research mysticism. That would be like using equations to prove or disprove the existence of GOD.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Just to play devils advocate, debris could disappear into the smoke cloud.


If debris disappeared into the "plume" than that would mean the "debris" were right next to the WTC.

In this case, that would mean we can use the WTC as an accurate measuring tape, meaning the "debris" are actually 12 feet in size. That would also mean the "debris" actually did travel 1000+ feet to the other building.

That would also mean that all of the other cameras that filmed the that area would see the debris. But, supposedly, there is only 1 camera that has filmed this "12 foot piece of anti-gravity debris" and that is the one we are debating.

You see, it simply CAN'T be debris.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Now regarding the clouds.. notice you also see the rays of the sun. So using your analogy, you would also see the laser beam itself but you don't.


No, WRONG. First, the laser beam is INFRARED LIGHT. The Sun rays you see are visible light. Second, the Sun is 100000 times more powerful than this laser. Third, I have gone over this many times in this thread.


Originally posted by jfj123
It is smoke and debris/dust. Fire causes smoke. Explosions cause debris. For the most part.


No, the plane did not explode on impact. It only exploded when it reached the center of the building. The "plume" is not smoke, it is just debris from the initial impact.




Originally posted by jfj123
We still don't know if the object is a laser or debris or a visible light reflection. You assume it's a laser. I just want to clarify that.


No I KNOW it is a laser. You see everything all of you have asked or "tried to debunk with" has been played through and answered in my head before I even posted the O.P.

It CANT be debris simply because it defies gravity, and shows signs of control. It flies in a straight path, and only 1 camera can see it.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

That would also mean that all of the other cameras that filmed the that area would see the debris. But, supposedly, there is only 1 camera that has filmed this "12 foot piece of anti-gravity debris" and that is the one we are debating.

Yes, I see your point and tend to agree that it may not be debris. That's why I was saying "playing devils advocate".

But keep in mind your argument against the debris theory can also be applied to invalidating the laser theory.

That would also mean that all of the other cameras that filmed the that area would see the debris "LASER". But, supposedly, there is only 1 camera that has filmed this "12 foot "LASER" piece of anti-gravity debris" and that is the one we are debating.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
That would also mean that all of the other cameras that filmed the that area would see the debris "LASER".


No, because like I have said 1000 times on this thread, the camera used was unique compared to the rest of the cameras. This "uniqueness" is a valid claim, because not all cameras have the same ICF, or even ICF manufacture. The reason the other cameras do not see this laser, is simply because the other cameras have better IR filters.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Now regarding the clouds.. notice you also see the rays of the sun. So using your analogy, you would also see the laser beam itself but you don't.

No, WRONG. First, the laser beam is INFRARED LIGHT. The Sun rays you see are visible light. Second, the Sun is 100000 times more powerful than this laser. Third, I have gone over this many times in this thread.


Yes, we have gone over this many times. Here's the problem, we have no idea if what we are seeing is in the IR spectrum. That is only speculation.



Originally posted by jfj123
It is smoke and debris/dust. Fire causes smoke. Explosions cause debris. For the most part.

No, the plane did not explode on impact. It only exploded when it reached the center of the building. The "plume" is not smoke, it is just debris from the initial impact.

No, actually I am right. Just to make sure I was correct, I watched your video again. You can see the "dot" while you can see fire. Fire makes smoke.


[quote
Originally posted by jfj123
We still don't know if the object is a laser or debris or a visible light reflection. You assume it's a laser. I just want to clarify that.


No I KNOW it is a laser. You see everything all of you have asked or "tried to debunk with" has been played through and answered in my head before I even posted the O.P.

It CANT be debris simply because it defies gravity, and shows signs of control. It flies in a straight path, and only 1 camera can see it.

-You may "know" it in your mind but your mind does not constitute proof of anything.
-My opinion is that you're probably right as I don't think it is debris either. I may be wrong and it still could be debris and an optical illusion from the camera is playing tricks with us.
-Again, a targeting laser would not dance across 2 buildings in a path like this. I have covered this already. The WTC was stationary. Please do not use the strafing argument as "strafing" is used during delivery of multiple ordinance' in rapid succession. You wouldn't want to move the laser because during a course correction from a laser movement, you would increase your chance of missing the target. A 767 doesn't have the maneuverability of a hellfire missile so each course correction would be critical.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join