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: 22
28
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Here is some basic info about the video file posted on page 1

Toweronehitfireballv.flv is the file name
File size is 4.06 MB (4,267,707 bytes)
File time length is 1 minute, 7 seconds
Google video link is:
video.google.com...

This file must have been massively compressed plus the file type has been converted from it's original file type to FLV.

Hopefully this info helps.




posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
11 11,
I asked a few questions, a few pages back. You may have missed them so I will be more then happy to repost them for you. Your answers are greatly appreciated.



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.

11 11 wrote,
But I do have knowledge of everything that has ever and will exist. They are called "atoms" with traditional science.

jfj123 wrote,
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.

11 11 wrote,
Well, I do. I know the location of every attraction and repulsion force in the universe.

jfj123 wrote,
Please name all the individual locations.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I wanted to share something I saw today that in my opinion MAY explain the possible light reflection on the WTC buildings.

I was driving home and saw a plane making a long banking turn. A slow, controlled turn with what seemed to be very constant speed. The windshield of this plane was facing the sun. The sun reflected off the curved windshield of the plane and the light was almost blinding.

OK AT THIS POINT I AM SPECULATING.....

If this plane was flying anywhere near the WTC and had the same type of reflection off the CURVED windshield, it could have easily reflected the light onto the reflective glass on the side of the building. The curved windshield would cause the light to disperse over distance and would increase in size. So maybe what we are seeing is a visible light reflection??

If you follow the light in the video and then watch a plane banking and extrapolate the 2 things flying in a controlled motion and linear, you may be able to see how this could be valid.

As an aside, we still have the same problem we had before in that we don't know that the light (if it is indeed even light) is in the visible spectrum or IR spectrum.

Just some thoughts for the group.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Well jfj, I'd love to believe it's as simple as that. Yet, in none of the other videos do we see such a light. I'm left to wonder if the video posted in the OP wasn't tampered with, to try to distract attention away from some other event that we may be overlooking. It's just a thought though. Probably wrong, but still a thought.

Best Regards,

TheBorg



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I should have finished putting the 2 thoughts together.

Again, think about the airplane windshield reflection.

Now take a video of this and overlay it onto the video in question.

I guess what I'm saying is that because of the way the light moves, could the light be overlayed from something like a plane reflection??

Just a thought. I don't know whether I believe it myself but wanted to throw it out there.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
So you're suggesting that the video was altered? That's quite possible, given all of the evidence presented thusfar.

TheBorg



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I am suggesting that. I don't know if it was or not but that would explain alot, wouldn't it?

I would think that it would be possible to alter the uncompressed raw footage then compress it it create picture loss to hide the alteration.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
It's just a thought though. Probably wrong, but still a thought.



No I would say you probably are right on. If you read the early posts you will find one where 11 11 accused me of having it removed from You tube.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 9/9/2007 by shots]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
11 11 wrote,

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


You could start by giving your educational background
The type of work you do
Why you would consider yourself a specialist
Age
etc...

You don't need to give your address, full name, license number, etc.

Nobody will be able to find you if you provide the above basic info.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:53 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.


Tell me the make and model of the video camera and all other cameras so we can compare their uniqueness' . That is the only way you can state that the unique camera was indeed unique.

Telling us that since only that camera can see the light means the light is IR, doesn't cut it. You're using circular logic.

Also, if the unique camera can see the IR dot on the side of the building, that same camera should be able to see the IR beam in the debris field. There is no beam to be seen. Please don't tell me that the laser is IR so thats why we can't see it because we can see your "IR dot" because of your unique camera. You have mentioned that when the dot comes into contact with something solid, it becomes "more" visible so the camera can see it. OK with that same logic, the beam itself came into contact with solid debris and smoke so why can't we see it? Because it's not there.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I guess what I'm saying is that because of the way the light moves, could the light be overlayed from something like a plane reflection??


No because then all cameras would see it.




Originally posted by jfj123
Tell me the make and model of the video camera and all other cameras so we can compare their uniqueness' . That is the only way you can state that the unique camera was indeed unique.


Are you suggesting that every single camera on 911 was the same? Thats ridiculous.



Originally posted by jfj123
Telling us that since only that camera can see the light means the light is IR, doesn't cut it.


I don't know, that logic is a lot more clear to me than it is to you. I can not fix that unless I some how make you a genius (not possible). I mean, if its "debris" or "a bird" well, I have seen LOTS of video that show the same area the laser dot is, and nothing is there. So we have a mystery object that can only be seen on one camera. Why is that? What object on the face of the Earth could only be visible to one camera, yet not the others? Its simple. IR light.



Originally posted by jfj123
Also, if the unique camera can see the IR dot on the side of the building, that same camera should be able to see the IR beam in the debris field.


But through out the entire path of the laser, it only shined one NEAR SOLID things. The smoke and debris were so THICK that the beam pretty much stopped on the outside of it, and only showed the "dot". The "beam" itself never really went through debris fields, it only stopped on the outside.


Originally posted by jfj123
There is no beam to be seen. Please don't tell me that the laser is IR so thats why we can't see it because we can see your "IR dot" because of your unique camera. You have mentioned that when the dot comes into contact with something solid, it becomes "more" visible so the camera can see it. OK with that same logic, the beam itself came into contact with solid debris and smoke so why can't we see it? Because it's not there.


Because last I heard light can not pass through solid things, nor can it pass through such thick near solid smoke and dust. If the camera wasnt 2+ miles away and it was up in the smoke, I'm sure it might have been visibile, but the "beam" itself would be so small that it would be near impossible to make out. You yourself said the beam can be "focused" and It can, how do you expect such a small narrow thing to be visible from so far away? There is compression issues that will pretty much make anything smaller than a pixel, invisible.





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



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have yet seen aluminum pass through steel with pure kinetic energy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aluminum passing through steel with pure kinetic energy, got news fer ya. That is VERY possible.



We have all seen those images of straw that had penetrated half way through 2x4's after a tornado



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


This is a great example of you people jumping to conclusions or shaping my words into some alternate meaning to fit your mindset.

I said "i have yet to see it", and you people think I said "it is impossible".

Thats pretty pathetic.

Aluminum at 500mph going through steel, LOL.

btw, straw and wood is not aluminum and steel.


[edit on 10-9-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Yes of course, in my FIRST POST, I even explain why the camera was able to see it.

Some cameras have a setting that will mix the normal camera mode with infrared mode for better images in dark environments. It is not a "full night vision" it is just an infrared assist.


I always like to establish some ground rules before I dissect and derail diatribe like this. I have been following this thread for quite a while and have went as far as having a Colleague examine the video. He does this sort of thing for Air Force at Luke Airbasethe near my home. In addition to that Ill ask the threads creator some questions that I have had answered according to the same rules of the debate I will suggest with the exception of any additional rules or addendum's we establish first.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As it is in in our nations court of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. This tradition is widely accepted in the science community that those proposing a theory provide proof to substantiate it.

Proof should be recognised in it's many forms as being the unvarnished testimony of credible sources IE a person with nothing to gain who was of sound mind alert and in control of his faculties.

Hearsay is not evidence and will not have time wasted debating someones speculation, conjecture or any straw-man attempts to "fit" ambiguous arguments. Unless detailed verifiable proof that such statements made are unequivocally substantiated as fact or proof prima facia, it is agreed it is to be removed from the post. Hearsay from witnesses will also have no bearing on the outcome by adding what they "think" but rather should be someone who was actually there. expert experience as with expert witness should be decided by both sides of the argument based on past experience, education or factors agreed on by both sides as being that of expert testimony.

Physical evidence IE DNA, finger prints etc are most compelling but only when they can be placed in the hypothesis without tampering nor will manufactured, fabricated physical evidence be considered.

If such evidence is introduced, it is agreed the party introducing it has just been debunked as fraud. A scientist cannot employ the "Martian" argument. That Martians exist because there is no proof they do not exist. The moment any martian arguments are introduced will be cause for the discussions dismissal as just another one of the great aggregation of the many lies and idiotic fairy-tales being spread. There is enough missing and or misunderstood components regarding 911 without having add more lunacy.

I think a good place to start with your theory is the unique yet ironically curious coincidence that someone was using a weapon everyone missed.

Not only did theyt miss it but in your own words the only way this strange orb as you call it (before you start saying it is a abl) could be seen at all is with a special camera. Being that this was daylight and a color video makes IR viewing impossible. UNLESS it just happens to either have two separate cameras a multiplexer OR incorporate "dual" imaging chipset technology. This one I am assuming by your insisting it is IR DID in fact have this capability. Having said that I have stated three HIGHLY UNLIKELY occurrence at a time in our nations history where such circumstances just happen to be just what the theorist needed.

If that isn't enough, we have the problem that this couldn't have worked unless the person using the camera had enough dumb luck to have it set to infra assist night assist. LO n BEHOLD !!

This was just that kind of guy with that kinda of dumb luck to be lucky enough to have all the right components of this theory, screw up enough to capture the biggest crime of the century.

Having said all that, I usually look at a theory for several weeks and mull it over ,, talk to some colleagues etc and then when I get all my data, I like to attack it from the weakest link in the chain of BU||SHlT most of them are full of. From that point they usually come down like a house of cards.

IN this theory,, it is all about the camera.

Knowing one of the best sources of information regarding IR he is someone who was instrumental in developing such cameras for the Apache helicopter and has had an impressiveclient list.

He had some issues with many of the points made here.

Before I bring them in I felt I needed just a little clarification on this one area of your theory, the camera.

Now I realize with your staggering intellect knowing all the universe secrets as you have implied, I am at a serious disadvantage.

Ill try my bestest.

First question, Do you know who made the video?
Do you know the make of the camera?
Did the camera employ and distance measuring technology?
Do you think the settings on the camera alleged to have enabled it capturing the white UO could have also registerd seeing items, things etc, that the towers would have had in them or around them?

Do you know of anything typically seen by a camera like the one you describe that might be in an office building?

If so what are they ?

The Jet you suggest we take a closer look then show an enlarged picture of another jet, is that the SAME jet in the small picture only close up or?

you say this abl follows on a straight but downward line illustrating with narratives ,, according to scale,, how far a distance did that travel where you have the red lines indicating it's path?

How did you arrive at calculating "scale"

Last one,,

If I were to ask the original creator of that video used in your first post,,if he did in fact use any other camera then say ohh a hitachi digital mini cam

Would he ask me why I am asking or would he tell me it was an IR cam?

Just wondering what he told you is all.

Be looking forward to your prompt reply


-=[conspiriology]=-




[edit on 10-9-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 



Conspiriology,

As it is late and I must sleep, I don't have much time to write a another repeat of what I have been answering this entire thread. So if you would kindly go over this thread from start to finish, you will most likely have a TON of your questions answered by the time I come back and reply to the questions that have already been asked. AGAIN.

Thanks.
Also..... Although my beginning statements were that this camera had "IR assist", that was the EXTREME POSSIBILITY. It IS possible, that this camera had this function, you can't deny that. The reason I started with the EXTREME POSSIBILITY is because I had the SIMPLE POSSIBILITY up my sleeve of counter arguments. (Yes I plan for every single counter argument before I decide to post a topic.) This SIMPLE POSSIBILITY is that ICF lenses are not all made the same grade, or quality, letting in a small amount of IR light into the camera.

Cameras all vary from make to make. Some really cheap cameras usually are cheap because the parts they were created with are cheap. Sometimes, they cheap you out on ICF lenses, just like they might with a cheap laser.

www.wickedlasers.com...

Isn't that ironic that both lasers and cameras have an IR filter? That has nothing to do with this topic since only visible light lasers would need a IR filter, and we are discussing a infrared laser.



to lower costs and cut prices, numerous manufacturers do not equip their lasers with IR filters


Hmm I wonder what cheap camera makers would do to get their costs down?



Because your safety is our #1 concern, Wicked Lasers products are 100% NO IR Certified and come equipped with a high grade IR filter.


Well, if there is such thing as a "high grade IR filter", that MUST mean there is such thing in this world as a "low grade IR filter".

I know lasers and cameras are different, I just wanted to show a bit of a hint about the ICF's and their quality from camera to camera, and from laser to laser.

Also, I wanted to clarify, that I never really thought it was exactly the ABL. Actually my first post included question marks. I also say "i THINK so".

BUT, I stand by my knowledge and study and I do claim that that is actually an infrared laser in the video. If its a weapon laser, a tracking laser, a laser designator, or a random IR laser pen, it is still a laser, and the video is my key evidence.

Thats another thing, proof and evidence. You people treat this like it is a physical court system about a civil dispute. This is far from physical, and it is FAR from being just a civil dispute. Over the internet there are 1000's of limitations to providing you proof or evidence, one of them being evidence that is not in the form of words, images, and videos. If I had the proper resources I would probably get a hold of good cameras, and crappy cameras, and an infrared laser beam, and do a physical test. But it would STILL mean I would have to take images, and videos of the test, and send it to you... Then we are back at square one, "questioning the provided evidence". Is it tampered???

This is where I can not cross the line with some of you people. Some people here know that no matter what, when someone on the internet is trying to prove something, it all comes down to words, images, and video, which in todays graphics world could all be faked.

Instead of looking at this as a "court room case", think of it more like a research project FOR YOU, that was issued by the teacher... ME. Then maybe YOU can come up with the conclusion based on YOUR evidence, or YOUR physical tests, illumination the need for me to some how prove something over the internet.

In the mean time, I found this info quite supportive...
www.wickedlasers.com...
...just reading for fun now.


I'll be back to answer your questions directly, if reading the entire thread doesn't answer your already answered questions.



[edit on 10-9-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I don't know, that logic is a lot more clear to me than it is to you. I can not fix that unless I some how make you a genius (not possible). I mean, if its "debris" or "a bird" well, I have seen LOTS of video that show the same area the laser dot is, and nothing is there. So we have a mystery object that can only be seen on one camera. Why is that? What object on the face of the Earth could only be visible to one camera, yet not the others? Its simple. IR light.


Well, it could be that, or the video that you show has been tampered with. To assume that the one you have is the real deal, with no supplemental information, is highly speculative, not to mention suspicious. I still say the likelihood of your video being tampered with is much higher than all of the others having the same done to them.

When arguments like these hit walls like this one has, someone has to be willing to concede certain points. I've been more than willing to give some room for speculation, but I need proof. Either that, or you'll have to concede that you could be wrong. Don't worry, I won't hold it against you. I've been wrong many more times than I care to admit. Again, proof is something that you've yet to provide. Until that happens, your theory will sit here with the rest of them.

Conspiriology,

That's some of the best questioning I've seen in a while. I do welcome you to the forums. Sorry I missed ya!! Keep it up!!


11 11 and Conspiriology,

If either of you need help with anything, feel free to send me a U2U. I'll do whatever I can, within reason.

TheBorg



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Because I am addicted to this website, or because I sometimes can be an insomniac, I have to answer these before I go to sleep, so I can go to work tomorrow.


Originally posted by TheBorg
Well, it could be that, or the video that you show has been tampered with. To assume that the one you have is the real deal, with no supplemental information, is highly speculative, not to mention suspicious. I still say the likelihood of your video being tampered with is much higher than all of the others having the same done to them.



The video is from a legit database of videos gathered and stored by CameraPlanet. Because the videos are HISTORY ON FILM, and are vary valuable to the future generations, they felt the need to protect these videos from disappearing into nothing like a LOT of 911 artifacts and images and videos did. There are 100's of images, artifacts, and videos that STILL haven't made it to YouTube, Google, or any websites, or media, and if this is never available then it could possibly disappear for the rest of TIME. These videos are so valuable that The Bank Of America themselves wanted to buy the entire database and store them also.

As of now, I believe these videos were not collected "via internet" like you would expect. When I say "these videos" I am talking about every "9/11 CameraPlanet" video available for sample on YouTube and Google.

I actually provided the details of this collection of videos, that include the laser video.

www.cameraplanet.com...

You can read about it above. Now, if you are saying that these respectable sources would harbor CGI 9/11 videos, then I guess thats a problem that you have to fix, and not I. I suggest contacting them.



I also wanted to comment on this, I forgot:


Originally posted by Conspiriology
How did you arrive at calculating "scale"


The "entrance" of the "orb" in the video, appears to have started from the upper left side of WTC2. If you study the images closely, it almost appears the "orb" turns around the corner of WTC2 to become visible. This gave me the impression that the "orb" is next to the WTC2, which I can then use the WTC2 as a measuring stick, thus giving us "scale".

Although, once the "orb" passes WTC2, and the fire, and thick debris and smoke, it jumps onto a building that is 1000's of feet away from WTC. Yet, it keeps its relative size.

This can only be explained as a laser light source.



[edit on 10-9-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
You can read about it above. Now, if you are saying that these respectable sources would harbor CGI 9/11 videos, then I guess thats a problem that you have to fix, and not I. I suggest contacting them.


I hate to say this 11 11, but you should have been reading your own thread. On two or three separate [I forget] occasions, I've admitted to sending them an email asking them for information on the people that took that film. It's been almost 2 weeks, with no response. Now, does that seem like a "respectable website" to you? I would at least have expected an auto-response when they didn't respond within the first 2 days, but this is ridiculous.

Lets just say that I'm a little ticked that they haven't even given me the time of day. Especially with the content of the videos being of such importance.

TheBorg



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
personally i think that first video is merely debris. Here's why:

for a start, the ABL is invisible to the naked eye so even if it was used we wouldn't be able to see it.

Secondly, if the ABL was used to soften the outside so the plane could enter more easily then why isn't it focused on the exact entry point, in fact i don't think it even passes over the entry/collision point until after the planes hits


The same is also true if it was just a targeting system.

Whats more, you think if this were a top secret operation they would be so blatant and use a laser that is in visual range for human observation?

I also think the perps didn't have an unlimited budget,

Why don't we see it in any other clips of better resolution? My guess is because its actually sunlight reflecting off whatever debris that is.

And lastly, although its hard to tell - after the collision the debris/light passes through the sky before crossing the building which to me looks more like a falling rotating piece of debris.

Regardless of all this, I do believe the towers where ultimately reduced to fine powder with explosives. It also looks to me like a couple of charges went off during the collision on both towers, much like all those additional flashes going off all over the buildings (primary charges being very slowly detonated over the course of 2 hours to weaken the infrastructure).

The primaries may explain how the plane was able to penetrate so well.


[edit on 10-9-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Sorry to interject here, but I think you might wanna take a few minutes, and fully acquaint yourself with the conversations that have transpired in this discussion. We've been over all of that several times, making for a very long-winded argument.

I suggest you take some time to get familiar with this thread before posting again. I mean no offense by this; I just want you to be educated about what you're jumping into is all. Consider it a passing caution.

TheBorg



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join