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: 21
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

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.


You don't even know what kind of camera this is so that is one of many reasons why it's not possible for you to know that.




posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
11 11 wrote,

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.


You have no way of knowing whether it is unique or not because for starters, you don't even know what kind of camera it was.

Again, you have no way of knowing that the other cameras can't see the laser because they have better IR filters as you don't know what kind of cameras the other ones were.

We don't even know whether or not the footage was tampered with and that is why only this footage shows the "object".



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

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.


Both You and I, and actually EVERYONE, perform "Jesus Miracles" on a daily basis without even knowing it. All life force, including humans, manipulate magnetics 24/7.

When you touch two magnets together, they combine in strength, and over-power all magnets that are weaker. Imagine now, that Earth is one giant magnet. Over time, this Earth magnet that is floating in the universe collects other magnets floating in the universe. Dirt, Water, Air, Everything, are all magnets. They all added to the strength of Earth, or in traditional science, " Earth increased in mass", or "weight".

But what is "weight"?? I will tell you, it is the strength of which an object is attracted to Earth magnetically, the stronger the magnet, the heavier it will weigh.

That means, all extremely heavy objects are very strong magnets. Hence why the Egyptians and Ed Leedskalnin were able to levitate their rocks to form a pyramid or castle. They key to that, is reversing the polarity of the rock to be opposite of Earth.

Well, we human reverse polarity of objects on a daily basis! Grab a baseball, and throw it in the air. You don't notice, but the magnets in your hands and arms and the movement of them, reverse the polarity of the baseball, and it repelled away from Earth. Although, later, Earth re-magnetizes the polarity back to "normal" depending one which side of the equator you live, and it "attracts back to Earth".

kinetic energy = transfer of magnetic force from object to object.

The kinetic energy (magnetism) from your arm, transfered to the ball, that transfer actually flipped the magnetic poles of the ball.

Imagine the Earth had a magnetic force of 1000. Your body has a lifting strength of maybe, 100. Next to you on the ground are 2 rocks, one is 100 strength, and another is 110 strength.

Because the 2 rocks are touching Earth, their strength's are combined. Meaning the one rock actually has 1100, and the other has 1110 strength.
YOU are touching Earth too, so that means your body would have a 1100 strength as well.

So what happens when the strength of Earth passes through You, and You touch a rock? Well, all of you combine in strength, and you don't even feel it.

But what happens when you try to pick the rock up?? Well picking the rock up would mean you need to separate the rock from Earth. If the force of Earth, and the force of the object combined, is greater than the force of Earth, and the force of YOU combined. Then you WONT be able to lift the object.

Although, if the force of Earth, and the Force of YOU combined, is greater than the force of Earth and the Rock combined, then you WILL be able to lift the rock, and you have yourself anti-gravity. If you want to lift objects that are greater than You and Earth combined, then you must learn how to store magnetic strength in your body.

That might be confusing to you, or not, but it was necessary to explain that in order for you to understand something far greater.

I already know how to walk on water, and split an ocean in half to walk through it like Jesus. Water is diamagnetic, it both repels and attracts magnets.
www.otherpower.com...

Using a VERY STRONG SINGLE SIDED MAGNETIC FORCE, you can actually move water around with magnetic force only. I could probably make a hole all the way to the bottom of the deepest ocean with a super magnet. I could probably then walk on the bottom of the ocean without water even touching me.

If I had a super magnet touching my body, I would have the strength of that magnet flowing through my body. I could probably then, just walk on water barefoot.


Magnetic Force = God

Jesus = Son Of God

Actually, everyone is "Son/Daughter of God".


I would love to tell you more, but my information can both be used for the Ultimate Good, or even the Ultimate Bad. You want to know why "The Secret Of The Universe" is withheld from common people? Because it would be like giving a kid a gun. The kid can either shoot both the good/bad to death, or use it to only shoot bad people.

Want to know why they only teach half truths in school? Same reason. In life, you are handed the "base belief". It is up to you to accept that and live your life, or search for the "true belief".

One thing is true. Everyone is brainwashed to think they are insignificant, when in fact we are all Gods of this Earth.

Anyway, if you want to get into more detail. U2U me. I have already been in communication with some very respected scientists, and I have opened their eyes to see things that you only dream of.


---switching back to subject after this post---


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



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You have no way of knowing whether it is unique or not


Yes I do. One camera can see the infrared laser dot, and other cameras can't. That's how I know it is a unique camera/ICF.


Originally posted by jfj123
Again, you have no way of knowing that the other cameras can't see the laser because they have better IR filters as you don't know what kind of cameras the other ones were.


Well, I already know the other cameras can't see the laser, because THEY DO NOT SHOW THEM.

Also, ICF filters are used to make the colors and images MORE CLEAR, by blocking IR light from the camera sensor. By simply seeing the clearity, and colors of the other videos, I can automatically know the cameras are different in both value, and ICF strength. But of course, only someone well knowledgeable about cameras, colors, and lights would be able to tell you this.. until then, I guess you will have to believe your self only.



Originally posted by jfj123
We don't even know whether or not the footage was tampered with and that is why only this footage shows the "object".


Actually, it was tampered with, there was a logo added to it.

Also, why would someone add a laser dot, only to tell everyone its debris, and it never gets talked about again?



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

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



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
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".


A question to the moderators: Is it possible to have a rational debate with someone who claims supreme knowledge?

11:11, I've asked you twice to back up your claim of being a 'laser expert,' and you've ignored it. One last time, do you have any proof?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
By simply seeing the clearity, and colors of the other videos, I can automatically know the cameras are different in both value, and ICF strength. But of course, only someone well knowledgeable about cameras, colors, and lights would be able to tell you this.. until then, I guess you will have to believe your self only.


You can't judge a cameras quality or color accuracy from a fouth generation youtube video. I shoot and edit video for a living. Your claim is rediculous.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
A question to the moderators: Is it possible to have a rational debate with someone who claims supreme knowledge?



My knowledge is NOT supreme by any means. Actually the knowledge I have, you ALL KNOW ALREADY. You all just forgot.



Originally posted by InnocentBystander
11:11, I've asked you twice to back up your claim of being a 'laser expert,' and you've ignored it. One last time, do you have any proof?


Tell me how you would like me to prove it. As of right now, I don't exactly know how to "prove knowledge" other than by you asking me questions.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
A question to the moderators: Is it possible to have a rational debate with someone who claims supreme knowledge?

My knowledge is NOT supreme by any means. Actually the knowledge I have, you ALL KNOW ALREADY. You all just forgot.


Actually, like I said, that was a question for the moderators.


Originally posted by InnocentBystander
11:11, I've asked you twice to back up your claim of being a 'laser expert,' and you've ignored it. One last time, do you have any proof?
Tell me how you would like me to prove it. As of right now, I don't exactly know how to "prove knowledge" other than by you asking me questions.


Diplomas, certificates of study, published research, articles you've authored on lasers, personal references, etc. Anything other than 'because I said so' would be great.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
You can't judge a cameras quality or color accuracy from a fouth generation youtube video. I shoot and edit video for a living. Your claim is rediculous.


First off, were do you get "fourth generation" from?

Second, you are wrong I can judge the quality of the camera simply by looking at the COLORS. When I was developing a C++ program that loads, shows, and saves images and videos into different formats, I learn a lot about the compression algorithms. All though a lot of "data" is lost in some compressions, none of the colors changed too drastically. The colors stay within a small +/- range, no matter what compression you use.

So, if you had 5 cameras, and all 5 took a picture of the same object, and all images were compressed to different lossy and lossless compressions. All I would have to do, is figure out the TRUE color of the object that was filmed, and then compare that true color with all 5 images.

Unless someone deliberately tried to change the colors, they would all be within the same range (+/-). If they are not in the same range, you can blame it on the ICF of the camera, which would then tell you how cheap/expensive the camera is.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
First off, were do you get "fourth generation" from?


Pulled it out of thin air. You know what I mean.



Second, you are wrong I can judge the quality of the camera simply by looking at the COLORS. When I was developing a C++ program that loads, shows, and saves images and videos into different formats, I learn a lot about the compression algorithms. All though a lot of "data" is lost in some compressions, none of the colors changed too drastically. The colors stay within a small +/- range, no matter what compression you use.


OK, so you're a programmer, not exactly a laser expert. Tell me this:

How many megs is the video you're talking about?

How many megs would it be if it were uncompressed captured footage?
Hundreds of megs. Tons of data is lost. If you can identify the make and model of the camera by looking at a .mov 1/10 of the original size, you have an uncanny gift.





[edit on 7-9-2007 by InnocentBystander]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
OK, so you're a programmer, not exactly a laser expert.


I never understood why some humans are brainwashed to think they can only have ONE specialty.


Originally posted by InnocentBystander
If you can identify the make and model of the camera by looking at a .mov 1/10 of the original size, you have an uncanny gift.


This above quote is why I don't like talking to you. You misread words, and then insert your own.

I never claimed to know the make and model of the camera just by looking at it.

Actually, I only claimed to know the quality and price range of the the camera BY LOOKING AT THE COLORS.

Quality meaning quality of the camera itself, NOT the images it makes.

I can tell you if a camera is cheap, or expensive, by the COLORS.


--please, if repeating it multiple times doesn't work, let me know, so I can stop--

as for the rest of your questions, they are irrelevant.

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



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
OK, so you're a programmer, not exactly a laser expert.

I never understood why some humans are brainwashed to think they can only have ONE specialty.


So you specialize in programming and lasers? Please provide proof.



I never claimed to know the make and model of the camera just by looking at it.
Actually, I only claimed to know the quality and price range of the the camera BY LOOKING AT THE COLORS.
Quality meaning quality of the camera itself, NOT the images it makes.
I can tell you if a camera is cheap, or expensive, by the COLORS.


The quality of a camera is measured by the images it makes. Regardless, you've never even seen the original footage. How can you claim to know anything about the camera when you only have access to a low quality version of the footage?

[edit on 7-9-2007 by InnocentBystander]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
So you specialize in programming and lasers? Please provide proof.


Actually I specialize in a LOT more. Basically, I learned one thing, that gave me knowledge to millions of other things. Electronics was my start, which taught me more than I wanted to know.


Originally posted by InnocentBystander
The quality of a camera is measured by the images it makes.


No, the quality of the camera is measured by the quality of the parts within it. If the quality of the ICF is low, then the camera quality, is technically low.



Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Regardless, you've never even seen the original footage. How can you claim to know anything about the camera when you only have access to a low quality version of the footage?


Because the COLOR of images hardly change during compression, and it is the COLOR of the video that gives me visual clues, about the ICF.

Geez this will go on forever.. I'm putting you on ignore.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
So you specialize in programming and lasers? Please provide proof.

Actually I specialize in a LOT more. Basically, I learned one thing, that gave me knowledge to millions of other things. Electronics was my start, which taught me more than I wanted to know.


I'll take that as you can't provide any proof.



Because the COLOR of images hardly change during compression, and it is the COLOR of the video that gives me visual clues, about the ICF.


So, provide details as to the camera in question. Image sensor size, CCDs, lens. Which specific icf are we talking about? What cameras does it come in? How? Well, you will have to guess, because you have no verifiable information. That's the problem.
I've read your other threads on magnetism, it pretty much went the same way.

1. You claim to have some type of earth shattering information.

2. People disagree with you.

3. You insult and attack them personally.

4. You get warned by the moderators.


Geez this will go on forever.. I'm putting you on ignore.


Enjoy, it's much easier to have theories when you ignore all evidence to the contrary.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
I'll take that as you can't provide any proof.


Actually I could provide all the proof in the world, and would would ignore it because of your opinion.

Seriously, you must have not been able to read when I asked you, WHAT TYPE OF PROOF DO YOU WANT?

I guess ignoring people is why your opinion is wrong.



Originally posted by InnocentBystander
So, provide details as to the camera in question. Image sensor size, CCDs, lens. Which specific icf are we talking about? What cameras does it come in? How? Well, you will have to guess, because you have no verifiable information. That's the problem.


You see, your problem is that you don't read. For the past few post's I have been telling you over and over that I can only tell you how much the camera is worth, in quality, by seeing the colors. I never once claimed to know the make, model, or any of that. Did you not read that? Seriously that is an honest question. Did you not read that? Did you not read that? Did you not read that? Did you not read that?

Repeating seems to be ineffective, yet I still do it...

Since you are stuck on being a straw man for this entire topic, I will have to resort in attacking your reading abilities, because it is completely obvious that you are NOT READING MY POSTS. You are simply skimming them and then blind posting. You are not researching, you are off topic, and you are sitting here and trying op disprove a theory by "lack of information".

This tells me you are lacking an argument, so you result to missing information. If you want to know this information RESEARCH IT YOURSELF. But because you are to busy being a straw man, that is probably to much work for you.



Originally posted by InnocentBystander
1. You claim to have some type of earth shattering information.


I do, I have studied AND COMPREHENDED every single theory known to man. When you do this, you will know what I know. Until then you are just another ant in line to get squashed.


Originally posted by InnocentBystander
2. People disagree with you.


People lacking knowledge about the subject yes.


Originally posted by InnocentBystander
3. You insult and attack them personally.


Only AFTER they have attacked me. Actually I never attack first, its a sign of weakness.


Originally posted by InnocentBystander
4. You get warned by the moderators.



And I STILL love every single one of the moderators too. Especially Springer, he is a good guy. Probably the most forgiving I have met.




Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Enjoy, it's much easier to have theories when you ignore all evidence to the contrary.



Actually If you had any evidence at all, this above quote would actually make sense. But since you are a straw man that has ZERO supporting evidence for your side of the debate, I can simply put you on ignore, and I would not miss a single "argument".

-good day






[edit on 8-9-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Seriously, you must have not been able to read when I asked you, WHAT TYPE OF PROOF DO YOU WANT?


I can read fine, this is about halfway up the page.



Tell me how you would like me to prove it. As of right now, I don't exactly know how to "prove knowledge" other than by you asking me questions.

Diplomas, certificates of study, published research, articles you've authored on lasers, personal references, etc.




Did you not read that? Did you not read that? Did you not read that? Did you not read that?


Back atcha.



Only AFTER they have attacked me. Actually I never attack first, its a sign of weakness.


I'll refer you to the beginning of this thread.



I can simply put you on ignore, and I would not miss a single "argument".


I assumed I was allready there. I've obviously agitated you greatly, I'll back off again and let you continue your thread.










[edit on 8-9-2007 by InnocentBystander]

[edit on 8-9-2007 by InnocentBystander]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Back atcha.


Actually I read that, and then laughed. Like I am actually going to give away my personal ID to prove my knowledge to you LOL!!!

I asked you the question of "how should I prove it?", meaning BESIDES GIVING MY PERSONAL INFORMATION.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 


Ok, fair enough. However, I want to try one last comparison, if you will. I'm going to post both your video and then mine below it. I want you to look at them both, and explain to me how they can be so different. To simply state that it looks like they can't be the same ICF is kind of misleading, and it even borders on dismissal. You cannot deny the mounting evidence against the theory that you propose. While I DO find it intriguing, I'm left wondering if there are any grounds on which we can base any of what you've said.

Anyway, onto the good bits:

Your video


Google Video Link


My second reply



Now, how can they NOT be at least similar in quality? They both show the same side of the building as the plane makes contact, and yet in both of the ones that I've posted, they don't show a "laser". Please help me to see what specifically stands out here. I know you probably are growing tired of answering my repeated questions, but I just don't see the differences in quality of video. Perhaps you could shed some light on this for those of us here that really want to know what's going on.

You suggest that the green tint in your video source is what tells you that this is an IR-Assisted camera. Well, mine has that as well. Why does mine not qualify? There's not too much green, and it IS the correct tint.

Again, maybe I'm missing something, but I can show several other videos of similar quality that don't show any "laser". It would only stand to reason that the one that's being touted as proof of some underhanded, nefarious use would be the one under the most suspicion of tampering. Wouldn't that be a more prudent course of thought for those of us that are seeking the truth?

Just some thoughts is all. Let me know what you think.

Best regards,
TheBorg



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 


Actually 11 11, the quality of any piece of media deteriorates when it's compressed to a smaller format. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, and I deal with compressing audio files all of the time. During the compression phase of any file, lets say from lossless to 128kbps, the quality of the sound is dramatically cut. Now why might this be? It's because the other bits of the file have been cut out to make the media file smaller. This causes the audio file to sound "tinny" when played at the lower bitrate. Anyone can test this by playing a music file on lossless, and then playing the same song at 128kbps. You'll be surprised by the difference. I can easily see how this might cause a video image to be distorted during the compression phase.

Anyway, what I think others here are trying to say is that we don't know what you claim to know. To tell us that you have an innate understanding of the workings of the universe, and then just expect us to take that as a fact is at best ridiculous, and at worst totally absurd. If you just wanted a place to post a thought without any kind of rebuttal, maybe you should have posted it someplace that sanctions that kind of thing.

Coming here and posting something of this magnitude mandates our interest, and unfortunately, that includes endless questioning. So, if it is going to be a problem for you to continue here, then I suggest that you consider giving us something more substantial than you're word. The reason I say this is because, quite frankly, none of us can trust anyone that says that they understand the entire universe. You're not God, nor are you Jesus. I appreciate your enthusiasm here, but that's a conversation for another thread.

I just wanted to convey these couple of things, in the hopes that we all might be able to find a more amicable means of conveying ALL of our ideas. Should you wish to talk more about this, U2U me. Again though, if you intend to stay and convince us, you're going to need more than what you've provided to make that happen. You're going to need HARD PROOF; something which you've yet to bring forth.

Also, could you please answer my previous post? I'd appreciate it.


TheBorg



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Actually I read that, and then laughed. Like I am actually going to give away my personal ID to prove my knowledge to you LOL!!!

I asked you the question of "how should I prove it?", meaning BESIDES GIVING MY PERSONAL INFORMATION.


You can provide the necessary info to a moderator. I trust them.



You are not researching, you are off topic, and you are sitting here and trying op disprove a theory by "lack of information".


It's laughable to say I'm going off topic when the title of this thread is 911 ABL Smoking Gun. That theory got abandoned on page 12. Your last 5 posts have been about how you know everything in the universe including alchemy and Jesus' secrets.

What am I supposed to research? Your opinion of a heavily compressed video's icf? You have no information on the camera whatsoever, so it's impossible.



For the past few post's I have been telling you over and over that I can only tell you how much the camera is worth, in quality, by seeing the colors.


I'm sure you know the colors are affected by a number of settings. Exposure, other lenses and filters, shutter speed, white balance. You don't even know if the footage has been color corrected. When I export footage out of Final Cut Pro, I have the option to export an animation, (1 minute of footage equalling about a gig of information,) all the way down to an mp4, which is 1/100 of the size. I assure you, they look completely different. What you saw was likely less than 20 megs. What I'm trying to tell you is, you don't know anything about the camera that shot this video just by looking at web quality footage. Not even the price range or icf. Too many unknowns, and NO VERIFIABLE FACTS.

OK, I'm really done.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join