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: 24
28
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   
www.cameraplanet.com...

Bottom of page, to the right side, under the email address :
Archive@CameraPlanet.com

It even could be that I have it in my own 6 year library, will look for it.




posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg


TheBorg


First of all I haven't insulted anyone but get offended at 1111 referances about those he deems pathetic or fruit loops. I get a scandalous bit suspicious when edits are made in that regard and 1111 are without the same reprisal.

Thank you for answering my question ther is how ever a reason I wanted 1111 to answer and he will not.

I have no idea why no one has seen to attack the premise of this entire theory on that answer. Clearely this whole thing hinges on his speculation of the cam and unique set of circumstances to even make that work.

THE UO has nothing to do with any laser which by the way expert analyisis indicates it is NOT any such thing.

I would match my results against his theory ANY DAY. 1111 wants to argue semantics and hide behind a bias that seem to be going on here with mods. I suggest anyone wanting to continue this discussion use the same angle on from there.

In a court of law this is all hearsay and a complete waste of time. It is too easy to add more and more martian theory once it is allowed to continue in the first place. I anticipated his suggesting I learn more about IR when my own brother IS nationally reknown for his exertise in this area. As we both guessed he avoided it again and asked that I run through some more hoops learning about a thing that hasn't been establsihed as relevent.

This is more martian ideas and adds even MORE uniqueness to the already extremely unlikely circumstances that all this would have happened just the way it did. Every objection you make he gives a link where in another rare unique case it "could" have worked. the more he adds to this the more I know he didn't know to bring this up in the first place. You know why he didn't? Most people can't anticipate everything that can go wrong in the pre mediated minutia if they have to make things up as they go

Get the facts or let the lack of them be your undoing

He has no facts he has no credibility as he lost that as soon as he said he has looked into every theory ever contrived from all corners of the globe.

As many as are created here alone and the time he has put into this one,,

I kinda doubt it.

Remember HE is the one asking me what or many others what they know about this or that without backing up his bravado with ANY FACTUAL information of his own. It is HIS burden to prove his theory and his alone. We have NO obligation to disprove a theory ,, especially when he hasn't proven his exists beyond a story he thinks would be good science fiction



[edit on 10-9-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
www.cameraplanet.com...

Bottom of page, to the right side, under the email address :
Archive@CameraPlanet.com

It even could be that I have it in my own 6 year library, will look for it.


Thank you sir for that link. I checked the contacts page, and it wasn't listed anywhere. I'll give them a call when they're open. It's probably too late now to call. I'd hate to call while he's eating dinner. He'd probably hang up on me.

TheBorg



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Mr. Conspiriology,
What is your proof that it definitely is NOT an infrared laser dot?



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   

I repeat, he does a fairly good job of defending his position.
He singlehandedly keeps defending his ground, and I enjoy the TOTAL discussion.


I beg to differ. 11 11 has not answered very pertinent questions regarding his "idea" that a laser was involved in some way.

I myself have posted a number of reasons why it is not a laser.
It doesn't act like any targeting laser has ever acted in a situation where the target was stationary.
11 11 has actually accidentally corroberated my idea about examples of a targeting laser.

Each time his "idea" is debunked, he changes it slightly and adds new "facts". He lives in semantics and misunderstandings.

Please understand that I'm not trying to be mean. I have read every post in this thread and have patiently tried asking him questions about his statements. He has either ignored my questions or given me tangental answers.

For example, he claims to know the capabilites of a camera that he knows nothing about except its apparent capabilities. He is a fan of circular logic.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 


11 11,
The more important question we have to ask ourself is :
In what manner does the lens of the video camera used for this footage, bend the infrared portion of a captured scene?

Does it refract the IR-light beams "sharper" or "rougher"?

In other words, do the lenses make the captured "IR-dot" sharper on the CCD-surface, and thus show a tiny, invisible dot in the footage, or do the lenses blur the IR-dot, and thus show a fairly huge dot, which is in both cases, however, not an honest picture of the real measures of that dot.
All of this relevant to the intensity of the dot.

A very intense, pulsating tiny IR-dot, will show in the footage of this particular, "crappy" camera, a huge dot, or not?


EDIT:
jfj123,
like I said, I enjoy the TOTAL discussion, pro and contra, and from neutral onlookers.


[edit on 10/9/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Pro IR-dot:
The video was dated 12 November 2001, and it supposedly had that dot of light in it already at that very early date, following a path crossing over the WTC tower, jumping explosion clouds, disappearing in the empty space between buildings, and re-appearing on the face of a far away building again, where after it dissolved halfway on that facade.
A few seconds later a fairly big white flying object appears flying from left to right, disappearing behind the just struck WTC tower. Could be an helicopter, but is probably too big and fast for that, thus more likely a plane.
Only way to find out more details :
TheBorg or anybody else, getting a good copy from the original footage from CameraPlanet.
A bad copy on YouTube is linked to by 11 11, in the first post .


Contra IR-dot:
The plane does not strike at all at a spot somewhere on the path of the dot, while that dot is crossing the WTC tower. It clearly hits nose-on, many meters below that dot.
Possible reason :
The striving of that dot, IF it was a laser targeting aid, could be an extra safety factor and deception for eventual witness videos.
The "gunner" in the white mystery-plane just needed to send one single signal to the incoming plane to aim at the spot where that dot at that moment pointed. And perhaps the plane's remote pilot was allowed to hit somewhat higher or lower, but not left or right, since that would heighten the risk of missing the tower.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Mr. Conspiriology,
What is your proof that it definitely is NOT an infrared laser dot?


READ MY POST it isn't our burden to prove one way or the other as it is not I making assertions that it is. I don't put myself in the same precarious situation 1111 has put himself making claims he can not prove.

Until he does prove that he knows for a undeniable fact that the IR camera was used with all the other unique settings and circumstances that would corroborate his claim,, he has got JOHNSON



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
sorry there are alot of reason why it isn't a laser
WEAPON
or
TARGETING LASER

I'm not sure why anyone would think it is when it doesn't act like them in any way.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Please do tell me these reasons...

I am at the moment compiling all my reason into one post so some of you can pretend to have read the entire thread. brb


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



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   


Originally posted by jfj123

11 11 has not answered very pertinent questions regarding his "idea" that a laser was involved in some way.



You got that right jfj, whats more is his insisting on avoiding even the most academic inquiry as to the cornerstone of his entire premise, the camera. Without it the entire story is just that,, a story.

His story, your statements, his addendum's to the story, more questions which he either uses references that indirectly are used to insult because he has nothing further. The idea that he has single handed defended himself shouldn't be looked at from the perspective that he has done anything impressive but rather that his ego is in jeopardy and continues to spin this thing so far out that it goes from the sublime to the ridiculous.

A friend of my brothers is using some forensic imaging software used by the military and law enforcement that will illuminate the UO 's existence. The video is of such poor quality that it shouldn't even be considered as evidence without such examination by experts let alone the inflammatory claims made here. These aren't just proposals for a theory we are asking him to prove THEY ARE ACCUSATIONS that our government perpetrated this using a weapon he has even less knowledge of. I spent six years in the military and have seen some things that I know the government covered up.

I also know about due process and the rule of law and it applies or should when making accusations such as 1111 is making here.

I too have many questions unanswered regarding 911 but am extremely careful about making claims that I can not prove and THE LAST THING I WOULD DO IS BLAME ANYONE IN PARTICULAR UNTIL I KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AND THEN AND ONLY THEN look into who was behind it.

Saying things like " it looks like a jet or it was moving to fast to be this or that" is just what I am talking about. It's SPECULATION.




[edit on 10-9-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
reply to post by jfj123
 


Please do tell me these reasons...

I am at the moment compiling all my reason into one post so some of you can pretend to have read the entire thread. brb


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


How about this for a reason, NO ONE HAS TO READ THE ENTIRE THREAD ONCE THEY READ THE FIRST POST YOU MADE.

Had you introduced the cam ir being used as proof prima facia and all the uniques settings that had to be just so, with a person that just happened to have that kind of camera, that just happend to be in the right place at the right time, that just happened to have forgot to have settings a certain way. Then an accident that JUST HAPPENS to be a happy one in this case where the features of said camera are set to capture a crime that just happens to be seen in in no other way but with all the aforementioned circumstances to take place in what has to be the most tortureously contrived argument I have ever heard in my life.

Yeah go make your list

I wouldn't bother until you know something ANYTHING to substantiate your claim about that camera. All the rest of the uniques circumstances would STILL cast enough doubt that anyone asking about the odds would be screaming

HELP ME WITH THE MATH!

Don't ask us to jump anymore hoops with links, don't tell us about all the labor pains JUST SHOW ME THE BABY!

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by 11 11
reply to post by jfj123
 


Please do tell me these reasons...

I am at the moment compiling all my reason into one post so some of you can pretend to have read the entire thread. brb


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


How about this for a reason, NO ONE HAS TO READ THE ENTIRE THREAD ONCE THEY READ THE FIRST POST YOU MADE.


And that helps no one. I think we should be fair to everyone, and there's no reason to be overly agressive. Let's all just chill out, let lists be made, and start over. We're spinning our wheels here on both sides now, maybe a fresh start would help us focus on the important stuff.

Thanks to everyone for the interesting reads.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
I think we should be fair to everyone, and there's no reason to be overly agressive. Let's all just chill out, .


I don't get it?? did I cus someone out? call someone a liar?

is it too much to ask that the truth be brought in as a fact with proof to support it?

Or does that come off as agressive?

If so how and why? I don't know any other way to call a lie a lie moreover I have never met a liar in my life that didn't get offended when called on it.

nor have I ever met one that didn't deny it.

Start this thing over??
Gimme a break guy
jeez



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
I think we should be fair to everyone, and there's no reason to be overly agressive. Let's all just chill out, .


I don't get it?? did I cus someone out? call someone a liar?

is it too much to ask that the truth be brought in as a fact with proof to support it?

Or does that come off as agressive?

If so how and why? I don't know any other way to call a lie a lie moreover I have never met a liar in my life that didn't get offended when called on it.

nor have I ever met one that didn't deny it.

Start this thing over??
Gimme a break guy
jeez


Sorry man, wasn't accusing you. Just trying to keep the peace, myself included. It may be a moot point though, it appears that 11:11 has been banned.

I hope I didn't offend you, best of luck.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

posted on 10-9-2007 @ 08:23 PM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:

reply to post by jfj123


Please do tell me these reasons...

I am at the moment compiling all my reason into one post so some of you can pretend to have read the entire thread. brb


I would be more then happy to after you answer questions you have been asked by a number of posters. I don't have a lot of free time but am willing to do the work if there is a point to it. I don't want to spend a lot of time compiling the information for no apparent reason.
Thanks for understanding.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
OK people, we have new information. The woman who taped the video in question is named Jennifer Spell. I'm trying to find out more, but this link is an interview about her experience. Maybe now someone can track down a better quality version.

Good luck, hope this helps!

Jennifer Spell Video



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
IB,

How'd you find that??? I've been looking for that now for about a week!! My God, my researching abilities are starting to falter.

TheBorg



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBorg
 


Just got lucky, I guess.


I haven't been able to find out anything else so far, I would love to at least know the camera it was shot with.

Things sure have quieted down here considerably...



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   
The E-4B National Airborne Operations Center that was flying over the White House around the time the Pentagon got hit gets a Conspiracy Theory piece done on it @ CNN!

www.cnn.com...#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN

[edit on 013030p://upThursday by QuasiShaman]



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join