9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

Originally posted by QuasiShaman
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]

MILITARY PLANES FLYING OVER THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE PENTAGON!!

Isn't that unusual..

What makes it even more strange is THAT SUCH A PLANE WAS FLYING AROUND LIKE THAT DURING A NATIONAL EMERGENCY!

MAN THAT'S A BOMBSHELL !

Much ado about Nothing !
Talk about mountains ans molehills !

[edit on 13-9-2007 by gen.disaray]

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
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...

Apology accepted, and no worries no offense was taken back there. It's just that you had quoted me there so I thought you were talking to me.

I congratulate you for tracking down the camera owner hehe I had hinted at the suggestion that she wasn't hard to find if you looked hard enough. I even hinted at the camera if I'm not mistaken the email my brother got from here said it was a hitachi or your typical hand held minicam. She isn't into infrared or anything having to do with night vision.

I was hoping for the list waiting till he buried himself in so much IR that it would have been very rewarding to spring all the facts about that cam watching him choke on the dust of his own regrets while he put a whole shoe store in his mouth.

I guess it HAS gotten kinda calm around here,, by the way bystander,, do you know what happened to 1111? I read you said he was banned.

Ya know, I am just as skeptical of the Government as anyone else who has first hand knowledge of some of the UN-American activities they have been known to be involved in. I have read the NIST report and like this theory, there is one thing in particular that makes the entire report BOGUS. Their are other theories out there as you probably know and some deserving of some serious consideration for a full forensic investigation. That may be too late and I will always have a gut feeling or open wound infected with doubt.

I am a truther even if I wasn't acting like one in this thread. I just get very frustrated at quackery and junk science with so many silly theories that it has hurt the 911truth's credibility.

Now it seems in these forums, you can't even be taken seriously unless you are an engineer and what I find is that most of them have a vernacular of there own which includes words like "twoofer" and straw man, everyone has this new way to look at things they call it critical thinking. I keep hearing this was falsifiable that was not blah blah. Most all of them get pretty heated up.

They are about as productive as the evolution vs creationist threads or atheists vs Christians.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if that woman met 1111 in person and handed him a sworn affidavit that all she did was make a video with the cam she got from her local walmart and 1111 WOULD STILL THINK IT WAS A LASER that was going across the tower.

He would just come up with another way to sell it.

It is for that reason,,I see why debunkers

have such angst for

truthers

-=[conspiriology]=-

reply to post by Conspiriology



Just for the record here, I was never intending to be either a debunker or a truther. I'm truly interested in knowing what happened on 9/11, so I guess in that way you could call me a truther. But by no means do I consider myself in the same group as them.

Onto the topic:

I think that if this woman would come forward with some hard evidence as to the nature of the make/model of the camera that she used on that day, that we would be a great position to learn something about the validity of 11 11's claims. Now all I'm saying is that his concept was neither right nor wrong. It is very intriguing, to say the least. There may yet be some truth to it, but the major problem with the OP was the way in which it was presented. It was presented as authoritative information, when it was nothing more than theory and speculation.

As far as I'm concerned, this is still an open case. At least for 11 11's sake, I think we owe it to ourselves to learn the truth of this.

11 11, if you're still able to watch this thread's progression, we're going to try and ascertain the truth of this video. Rest assured that if there is something to it, we'll find it. I just hope that you've learned something from all of this. I also hope it helps you in future thread confrontations. Good luck to you...

TheBorg

I think you guys missed a source that 11:11 posted. Read this link about normal camcorders.

www.kaya-optics.com...

This is because the ICFs inserted in normal camcorders don't block out NIR 100% and some degree of NIR can still pass through.

The professionals themselves say that not all camcorder have the same NIR blocking efficiency!

All ICFs inserted in camcorders do not have the same NIR blocking efficiency. An inefficient ICF enables much more NIR to pass through and this means better see-through images. Thus, the efficiency of the ICF is inversely proportional to NIR sensitivity. Specifically, this inefficiency of ICF is the most decisive factor among many other factors having influence on NIR sensitivity of a camcorder.

In other words, you will get good see-through pictures from a camcorder which has an inefficient ICF, or (better still) with the ICF removed or displaced (as in a Nightshot camcorder).

They even talk about how to test the IR sensitivity of a normal camcorder!

Checking the NIR sensitivity (inefficiency of ICF)

The NIR sensitivity can be measured by simply taking pictures of your TV remote controller's transmitting lamp (facing you) with your camcorder. If you press a button on your remote controller, the transmitting lamp will emit NIR. A NIR signal can hardly be seen by a naked eye but can easily be detected by a camcorder's CCD. Thus, if the transmitting lamp appears bright on the viewfinder or LCD screen, your camcorder's NIR sensitivity is fairly good. The highest sensitivity level starts from the bright white, hazy white, yellowish glow to the lower sensitivity level of the red colorings. If the lamp appears very dim on the viewfinder, then this means that your camcorder has a very efficient ICF. Photographing an automobile's break lamp in the evening could also be another good way to measure the NIR sensitivity. If the break lamps look brighter on the viewfinder compared to a human eye, then NIR sensitivity is good.

You can also infer the NIR sensitivity level from your camcorder's minimum illumination (relative amount of light that will produce a viewable image). If your camcorder's minimum illumination is under 4-5 Lux, you may expect a pretty high NIR sensitivity.

It says the highest sensitivity camera will show an infrared LED from a tv remote in BRIGHT WHITE. JUST LIKE THE OBJECT IN THE VIDEO!!!

I believe 100% that 11:11 knew what he was talking about. Not only did he take a picture of his TV remote with his camera, he even showed you all the appropriate links and everything, and it went ignored.

I hope someone finds the make and model of that camera, even thought it doesn't even matter, since normal cameras can see IR.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I even hinted at the camera if I'm not mistaken the email my brother got from here said it was a hitachi or your typical hand held minicam. She isn't into infrared or anything having to do with night vision.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if that woman met 1111 in person and handed him a sworn affidavit that all she did was make a video with the cam she got from her local walmart and 1111 WOULD STILL THINK IT WAS A LASER that was going across the tower.

The camera does not have to be special in order for it to see IR light. A typical hand held minicam CAN see IR light, it doesn't need to be fully infrared nor have night vision.

If she did buy a cheap camera from walmart, that would give much greater possiblity that this is a laser, because walmart cameras are cheap, and would no doubt have an inefficient ICF.

Cospiriology, you must get it out of your mind that it has to be a special camera, because it doesn't! Thats what 11:11 has been trying to explain the entire time, it doesn't need to be a special camera, it needs to be a CHEAP ONE. Apposed to all the high grade expensive ones the media were using on 9/11.

Go ahead and ask a REAL photography expert about ICF lenses. DO IT.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by IWatchYou]

I believe 100% that 11:11 knew what he was talking about. Not only did he take a picture of his TV remote with his camera, he even showed you all the appropriate links and everything, and it went ignored.

No offense but I have posted a number of reasons why it can't be a laser. My info came with appropriate links and everything but I went ignored.

It is not a weapon.
It is not a targeting laser.

Above and beyond that, I don't know what it is.
We seem to have danced around the possibility that the video is fake. Please keep in mind this is a very real possibility as a number of youtube videos have been found to be faked (ie ufo vids).

I believe if this is a real video, there is the distinct possibility that the light comes from the visible spectrum and is a reflection from an aircraft window. Please refer back to my previous post regarding this idea, for details.

reply to post by jfj123


JFJ123,

I yet to see any facts from you though. 11:11 has been posting only things that hold water. See:

1: It is a fact the object travels in a pretty straight flight path, over a very large distance, which would be impossible for "falling debris" at that size.



2: It is a fact that the object is only visible on 1 maybe 2 videos.

break.com...

3: It is a fact that normal cameras can see infrared light, without any "night mode", "night assist", or special hardware.

www.kaya-optics.com...

4: It is fact that this video is not edited, nor changed, by the camera person. And her video was even mentioned in many documentaries and has been shown around the world, and preserved for historical value:

www.youtube.com...

www.cameraplanet.com...

5: It is fact that lasers have a reflection that will appear much larger than the laser dot, no matter how focused the laser is, and the effect can not be avoided.



www.repairfaq.org...

Note that the effect exists equally strongly whether you are focused on the surface or not. Where the laser spot is large compared to the speckle pattern, the direction and speed of movement of the pattern will be affected by whether you are focused in front (opposite direction, nearsighted) or behind (same direction, farsighted). However, if you are far enough away to not resolve structure inside the spot, you get one big speckle which will get brighter or darker without appearing to move.

For those applications where the laser's bright light and its ability to be sharply focused or easily collimated are important but coherence is irrelevant, speckle is an undesirable side effect to be avoided.

6: It is a fact that lasers with a fixed focus will expand over a distance.

www.wickedlasers.com...




...but you know what JFJ123? I don't see ANY facts from you. Only opinion. Please, post your facts and resources in a list like I did in this post.






[edit on 13-9-2007 by IWatchYou]

Iwatchu,
I have posted facts.
I have posted opinion.
I have posted video clips.
I have posted news clips.
I have even provided equations.

I am sorry you have apparently missed every one of the above, even though I have posted them multiple times.

I have shown a video of how a IR targeting laser works on a fixed target. Unless strafing multiple targets in close proximity, targeting lasers remain as stationary as possible to ensure accuracy. Strafing requires use of multiple ordinance delivery.

Notice in my video the following:
Green screen.
an attempt to keep the laser dot as still as possible but does show slight bobbing around. Now remember they're trying to keep the dot as still as possible for accuracy. In the video, you see the attempts to keep it stationary.
Now compare it to the WTC mystery dot. Notice NO BOUNCING just a slow steady movement?
Now look at the small target (the building) from the video I posted.
Notice the huge WTC building?
Notice how little the targeting dot from my video moves?
Notice how much the mystery dot on the WTC moves?
Please don't say that the WTC building is bigger so it can move more because the comparable movements are not even close based on size.

The WTC dot doesn't have the characteristics of a targeting laser. I have reviewed dozens of different videos of targeting lasers and they are all basically the same as the one I posted and none resembles the WTC mystery dot. Please feel free to research this yourself. You'll come to the same conclusion.

The ABL laser system can target small missiles at long range. Now if the ABL targeting system could not track and remain stationary on the target the weapon couldn't hit the target. This is not opinion this is fact and common sense. So why would the big dot move so far across 2 buildings???

Every time a targeting laser moves, the bomb or whatever ordinance aiming at it's target, must adjust it's heading. This is why a targeting laser must remain as still as possible. Does it look like the WTC mystery dot is following these parameters?

Now lets look at the 767 itself. It doesn't have the maneuverability of say a hellfire missile so it would be even more essential to keep the targeting laser still so it wouldn't miss it's target. One false move and the plane may not be able to re-adjust fast enough to hit it's target. BIG OOPS!! I bet there would be some red faces in that case !!

Painting a target with a continuous laser, is an outdated tool.
You can easily find declassified info about paint and forget targeting (aka fire and forget).


Another way you could steer the plane would be with GPS. Precision Guided Bombs do use GPS to find their targets.


In addition, you could also use remote piloting. 11 11's response was that anyone with a video camera could potentially intercept the feed. If that were really the case, ALL the military DRONE aircraft including the Predator series would be useless. Gee, why didn't 11 11 respond to that?

With all these BETTER options, why would they use an old method that is less reliable??? Did they go over their budget ?

Now here are some questions
What is the brand of camera that was used in the footage?
When were ICF filters introduced into the video camera market?

Finally, why would you trust someone who claims to be all knowing. 11 11 on more than one occasion, has told everyone that he has studied all theories of everything and knows everything. This is obviously absurd. To disprove his claims of omnipotence, I have asked him a few questions that he claimed he could answer but never did. I'm not sure why anyone here would take his information at face value after reading the statements he has made.

Hopefully some of this info. helps

Originally posted by IWatchYou
reply to post by jfj123

 

JFJ123,

I yet to see any facts from you though. 11:11 has been posting only things that hold water. See:

1: It is a fact the object travels in a pretty straight flight path, over a very large distance, which would be impossible for "falling debris" at that size.

2: It is a fact that the object is only visible on 1 maybe 2 videos.

break.com...

3: It is a fact that normal cameras can see infrared light, without any "night mode", "night assist", or special hardware.

www.kaya-optics.com...

4: It is fact that this video is not edited, nor changed, by the camera person. And her video was even mentioned in many documentaries and has been shown around the world, and preserved for historical value:

www.youtube.com...

www.cameraplanet.com...

5: It is fact that lasers have a reflection that will appear much larger than the laser dot, no matter how focused the laser is, and the effect can not be avoided.

This guy sounds a lot like 11:11 to me. He posts in the same format, he already knows the way to link and embed pics even though he only registered two days ago, and he also fails to understand the difference between opinion and fact.

I'm probably way off here, but I'll be honest, I hope it is him. Although sometimes he gets under my skin, this forum was dead without him hanging out here telling everybody how stupid they are.

I guess it HAS gotten kinda calm around here,, by the way bystander,, do you know what happened to 1111? I read you said he was banned.

No clue, I just read 'banned' under his name. I would love to know.

I want to play.

Originally posted by IWatchYou

1: It is a fact the object travels in a pretty straight flight path, over a very large distance, which would be impossible for "falling debris" at that size.

How did you determine how far it is from the camera when you figured out the size of the object? Also, I bet if you drop a piano (large object) off of a building, it would fall straight down.

2: It is a fact that the object is only visible on 1 maybe 2 videos.

Not a fact. You don't know what the object is. It could be a bird, halfway to Brooklyn, that you've even seen in another video and did not recognize.

3: It is a fact that normal cameras can see infrared light, without any "night mode", "night assist", or special hardware.

'Normal cameras,'...Although literally every camera is different, and I doubt you could prove your claim, it's really more to do with the lenses. The only way you can make any factual claim about the camera that filmed this footage is by contacting Ms. Smart and finding out the make and model. If you can do that, I would love to know!

4: It is fact that this video is not edited, nor changed, by the camera person.

After she recorded it, I bet she captured it on her computer, cut out the relevent clip, and sent it to camera planet electronically. I doubt she sent them the original master tape, it would be a pretty big risk. On some level, that's editing. Furthermore, you have no clue if she color corrected it or anything else. She is, after all, a working professional in New York that owns her own production company.

5: It is fact that lasers have a reflection that will appear much larger than the laser dot, no matter how focused the laser is, and the effect can not be avoided.

What about all the videos jfj123 posted? Sure doesn't look very big there, just a little dot. What about lens flare, in 11:11's video we see none?

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
This guy sounds a lot like 11:11 to me. He posts in the same format, he already knows the way to link and embed pics even though he only registered two days ago, and he also fails to understand the difference between opinion and fact.

I'm probably way off here, but I'll be honest, I hope it is him. Although sometimes he gets under my skin, this forum was dead without him hanging out here telling everybody how stupid they are.

Well, he did register the day after 11 11 got banned. I don't think that's a coincidence.

In any case, the point still is that 11 11's original conclusions are based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, with no serious PROOF to show for it. If he could have provided scientific, verifiable proof of his claims, then he would have appeared to be more believable, and he would have gotten more of a welcome than he got. A huge thing he could, and I hope did learn from this was that you can't insult people while trying to make a point. He failed to gather any support until late in this thread, as he kept attacking everyone that disagreed with him.

If IWY is actually 11 11, then I'd like to re-welcome him back, but at the same time, I'd like to warn him that the mods will likely take notice of this, and act accordingly. I wish him the best of luck though. Maybe IWY will provide some evidence.

TheBorg

I do not beleive you people actually think some of this stuff up. You guys have to much time on your hand. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!!!!!!! You guys are talking as if the government is out to get you. Some of this stuff in here would get you killed in some countries. I believe we live in the greatest country in the world, and you guys are making some people believe something else.

you know i found a very odd clip that maybe related.


Notice the time, before the second plane hit a light can be observed that seems directly lined up with the second impact area. If you watch the video you can see for yourself its very odd, certainly not a plane or helicopter. It appears to phase in and out of visual range. It actually looks like its part of a long line leading to that building with the pointed roof.

There were also these strange beams of 'light' later in the day:




I don't really have any explaination for what they are except for lights or lasers. I have seen many laser shows in the past and this is what they remind me of mostly.



[edit on 14-9-2007 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by jfj123
Iwatchu,
I have posted facts.
I have posted opinion.
I have posted video clips.
I have posted news clips.
I have even provided equations.

I am sorry you have apparently missed every one of the above, even though I have posted them multiple times.

Could you please at LEAST post links to the posts you are talking about. Because everything I read from you was all opinion and everything was debunked by 11:11. Instead of sifting through each of your posts to find the ones you think makes sense, can you please post links to those posts? I would REALLY like to see the "equations" you are talking about.

Originally posted by jfj123
I have shown a video of how a IR targeting laser works on a fixed target. Unless strafing multiple targets in close proximity, targeting lasers remain as stationary as possible to ensure accuracy.

So, WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon are not multiple targets?
Also, laser guided missiles or bombs can be shot in two different ways:

www.lockheedmartin.com...

The missile may be employed by lock-on before or lock-on after launch for increased platform survivability.

In the case of 11:11's video evidence, it must have been a "lock-on AFTER launch".

Originally posted by jfj123
Notice in my video the following:
Green screen.

Yes because the camera on your video is a pure infrared camera, not a visible/infrared mix like normal cameras with inefficient ICF lenses.

Originally posted by jfj123
an attempt to keep the laser dot as still as possible but does show slight bobbing around. Now remember they're trying to keep the dot as still as possible for accuracy. In the video, you see the attempts to keep it stationary.
Now compare it to the WTC mystery dot. Notice NO BOUNCING just a slow steady movement?

Yeah actually, I think they did a better job on WTC then they did on your video. Your point is they need a steady laser dot, and thats what we see on WTC, besides the normal forwards strafing movement. So, you are actually proving yourself wrong. The laser on WTC is steady, and on the target when it needs to be.

Originally posted by jfj123
Now look at the small target (the building) from the video I posted.
Notice how little the targeting dot from my video moves?

No actually, your video laser moves WAY MORE than the WTC laser. You have no point what so ever. The laser is bouncing so much that it appears that the laser was a hand held designator. Compared to WTC which is steady yet moving forward at a smooth rate like if it was an aircraft mounted laser designator.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by jfj123
Notice how much the mystery dot on the WTC moves?
Please don't say that the WTC building is bigger so it can move more because the comparable movements are not even close based on size.

The WTC laser is very very steady compared to your video, besides the normal forward movement you would expect from a moving aircraft. If it was lock-on AFTER launch, then the laser only need be on target in the correct envelope of time.

Originally posted by jfj123
The WTC dot doesn't have the characteristics of a targeting laser. I have reviewed dozens of different videos of targeting lasers and they are all basically the same as the one I posted and none resembles the WTC mystery dot.

I don't see any difference what so ever. The laser only needs to be on the target when the munitions are in range. If you are talking about size issues...then...11:11 has also disproved those issues. Since the camera in your LGM video is from the FLIR camera in the missile, the camera is much closer to the target. In the case of 11:11's video, the camera is a few miles? away. These distance difference's make the laser appear bigger or smaller. He even cleverly measured and pointed out the differences in an image.

Originally posted by jfj123
The ABL laser system can target small missiles at long range. Now if the ABL targeting system could not track and remain stationary on the target the weapon couldn't hit the target.

You do know the ABL laser tracks moving missiles that are usually traveling at the speed of sound right? Thats irrelevant anyways, because you must first prove the video doesn't show a laser before you try to prove what the laser was, and why it was there.

Originally posted by jfj123
This is not opinion this is fact and common sense. So why would the big dot move so far across 2 buildings???

If your only issue is the way the laser is moving forward, well that was already explained by 11:11 as well. And on his behalf I would like to take it within my own hands to complete 11:11's vision with an image:



Since the jet is not as maneuverable as a Hellfire missile, and that the laser finder has a limited range, it would be necessary to move the laser to make flight path adjustments.

Originally posted by jfj123
Every time a targeting laser moves, the bomb or whatever ordinance aiming at it's target, must adjust it's heading. This is why a targeting laser must remain as still as possible. Does it look like the WTC mystery dot is following these parameters?

Well, not EVERY TIME. If the ordinance moved every single time the laser did, then your video would show a really erratic movement, but it doesn't. Actually the ordinance is not perfect pin point accuracy, there is a +/- of a maybe a foot or more. This is probably because there is "steering play" like in a steering wheel of a car or truck. You can probably move your steering wheel +/- an inch, and your wheels will not turn with it. "Free play" is the word I was looking for.

Originally posted by jfj123
Now lets look at the 767 itself. It doesn't have the maneuverability of say a hellfire missile so it would be even more essential to keep the targeting laser still so it wouldn't miss it's target.

Exactly what 11:11 said earlier in this thread. Since the 767 is laking maneuverability, you can't just keep the laser on target and expect it to do some wild flight path correction to get to it. You have to keep the laser in front of the ordinance so it can see it, and slowly move the laser to the target so the 767 never looses sight.

Originally posted by jfj123
Painting a target with a continuous laser, is an outdated tool.
You can easily find declassified info about paint and forget targeting (aka fire and forget).

Fire and Forget-Once sighted, the missile just needs to be launched and the on-board computer takes care of the rest.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Radar/Infrared/IR Imaging/Electro-Optical Guided Weapons

Precision guidance has been applied to weapons other than conventional bomb warheads. The Raytheon Maverick heavy anti-tank missile has among its various marks guidance systems such as electro-optical (AGM-65A), imaging infra-red (AGM-65D), and laser homing (AGM-65E).[3] The first two, by guiding themselves based on the visual or IR scene of the target, are fire-and-forget in that the pilot can release the weapon and it will guide itself to the target without further input, which allows the delivery aircraft to escape return fire.

Originally posted by jfj123
Another way you could steer the plane would be with GPS. Precision Guided Bombs do use GPS to find their targets.

GPS is the new method of fire-and-forget. It is unable to be jammed and works under all weather conditions. Before it is fired, the on-board computer is loaded with the coordinates of the target and the surrounding terrain.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

GPS is used for long range, and bad weather. With laser's you are limited by the horizon, so its a shorter range. Anything further can't be targeted with a laser unless you can bend light around the globe. Also, bad weather would make seeing the laser hard for the ordinance. Since we did not have bad weather, and anyone could have been near the WTC's with a laser designator, GPS would not be needed.

This is irrelevant anyway, because now you are trying to debunk something with opinion. We are not debating what technology the US Government has, or what they should have used, we are debating the object in 11:11's video. Please, get back on topic.

Originally posted by jfj123
In addition, you could also use remote piloting. 11 11's response was that anyone with a video camera could potentially intercept the feed. If that were really the case, ALL the military DRONE aircraft including the Predator series would be useless. Gee, why didn't 11 11 respond to that?

With all do respect, 11:11 never claimed a "video camera" can intercept the feed. I believe he said anyone with the right equipment, and knowledge could. Radio transmitters, or communication devices could potentially pick up the signals, not video cameras. Get your facts straight.

Originally posted by jfj123
With all these BETTER options, why would they use an old method that is less reliable??? Did they go over their budget ?

See, this is all irrelevant because now you are distracting everyone away from the laser in the video. Please, you must first debunk the object in the video before you ask questions like these.

Originally posted by jfj123
Now here are some questions
What is the brand of camera that was used in the footage?

I seriously can't believe you asked this question again, it has been stated many many times on this thread that no one yet knows the exact brand of the camera. How could you have missed that?

Originally posted by jfj123
When were ICF filters introduced into the video camera market?

I'm pretty sure ICF's were used since the very first digital camera was made. I'm not sure about analog cameras though, as I believe the type of film they used wasn't that sensitive to IR light. But since cameras are mechanical seeing devices, they can see ALL LIGHT, unlike human eyes. So I'm certain ICF's were around since the very first cameras were made.

I would like to know the answer too, but in the end, it is still irrelevant since ALL camera's need them in order to take pictures that our eyes can see.

Originally posted by jfj123
Finally, why would you trust someone who claims to be all knowing. 11 11 on more than one occasion, has told everyone that he has studied all theories of everything and knows everything. This is obviously absurd. To disprove his claims of omnipotence, I have asked him a few questions that he claimed he could answer but never did. I'm not sure why anyone here would take his information at face value after reading the statements he has made.

Yes, I have read all of 11:11's posts. I went to his profile and viewed every single one of them. It appears he has extensive knowledge in computers, electronics, photo and video analysis, mechanical devices, and light, and much more.

The greatest minds in the world like Einstein and many others have been looking for the "Theory of Everything", which could explain how everything works. Who are you to say that he hasn't figured out the "Theory of Everything"? Is that knowledge only available to certain people? I don't think so.

He is 100% correct, this entire universe is made of "atoms". This was proven quite a while ago. Now, if you know what "atoms" are made of, then you would know how "atoms" work, and how they interact with each other. That would technically mean he does know how everything in the universe works.

Not once did he claim to "know everything". He only claimed to "know how everything works".

[edit on 14-9-2007 by IWatchYou]

anyone else notice how iwatchyou's writing style and non answer, answers are exactly how 11 11 used to write????
Very interesting.

Originally posted by jfj123
Iwatchu,
I have posted facts.
I have posted opinion.
I have posted video clips.
I have posted news clips.
I have even provided equations.

I am sorry you have apparently missed every one of the above, even though I have posted them multiple times.


Could you please at LEAST post links to the posts you are talking about. Because everything I read from you was all opinion and everything was debunked by 11:11. Instead of sifting through each of your posts to find the ones you think makes sense, can you please post links to those posts? I would REALLY like to see the "equations" you are talking about.

Actually they all make sense, some are opinion, some are fact.
If you REALLY want to see them, please look for them since you said the following,
"Because everything I read from you was all opinion and everything was debunked by 11:11". You obviously have seen them.

Originally posted by jfj123
I have shown a video of how a IR targeting laser works on a fixed target. Unless strafing multiple targets in close proximity, targeting lasers remain as stationary as possible to ensure accuracy.

So, WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon are not multiple targets?

YOUR... I mean 11 11's video shows 1 plane hitting one tower. This is called a FACT based on the video. We are discussing the video posted by 11 11 right? How many buildings did the plane in the video crash into??? more then one?? Nowhere in the posted video does it show the pentagon so I really don't know where you're going with that.

Originally posted by jfj123
an attempt to keep the laser dot as still as possible but does show slight bobbing around. Now remember they're trying to keep the dot as still as possible for accuracy. In the video, you see the attempts to keep it stationary.
Now compare it to the WTC mystery dot. Notice NO BOUNCING just a slow steady movement?

Yeah actually, I think they did a better job on WTC then they did on your video. Your point is they need a steady laser dot, and thats what we see on WTC, besides the normal forwards strafing movement. So, you are actually proving yourself wrong. The laser on WTC is steady, and on the target when it needs to be.

Nope. Not proving myself wrong at all. My point is that they need a steady, STATIONARY laser dot and that is NOT what you see on the WTC.
Strafing with a laser is used to destroy multiple targets. ONE PLANE HIT ONE BUILDING. ONE BUILDING = ONE TARGET.

Originally posted by jfj123
Now look at the small target (the building) from the video I posted.
Notice how little the targeting dot from my video moves?

No actually, your video laser moves WAY MORE than the WTC laser. You have no point what so ever. The laser is bouncing so much that it appears that the laser was a hand held designator. Compared to WTC which is steady yet moving forward at a smooth rate like if it was an aircraft mounted laser designator.

Your assumption is that a laser mounted on an aircraft would be fixed. That would make no sense and for example, the ABL is NOT FIXED. Why would you afix a laser to an aircraft so only moving the aircraft would let you acquire a target?? Well you wouldn't.

Originally posted by jfj123
Notice how much the mystery dot on the WTC moves?
Please don't say that the WTC building is bigger so it can move more because the comparable movements are not even close based on size.

The WTC laser is very very steady compared to your video, besides the normal forward movement you would expect from a moving aircraft. If it was lock-on AFTER launch, then the laser only need be on target in the correct envelope of time.

Once again you're making the incorrect assumption that a targeting laser would be fixed and immovable except by the movement of the aircraft. Now who is posting opinion??

Originally posted by jfj123
The WTC dot doesn't have the characteristics of a targeting laser. I have reviewed dozens of different videos of targeting lasers and they are all basically the same as the one I posted and none resembles the WTC mystery dot.

I don't see any difference what so ever. The laser only needs to be on the target when the munitions are in range. If you are talking about size issues...then...11:11 has also disproved those issues. Since the camera in your LGM video is from the FLIR camera in the missile, the camera is much closer to the target. In the case of 11:11's video, the camera is a few miles? away. These distance difference's make the laser appear bigger or smaller. He even cleverly measured and pointed out the differences in an image.

You do see a difference. You proved it by noticing the differences and mentioning them in your post. You, I mean 11 11 has not disproved anything yet...
Wow, a slight increase in laser size which I acknowledged which is nowhere near what you're claiming the mystery dot is on the WTC. The dot from source to destination showing an approximate increase of 144 times. Show me on the footage I posted of an increase anywhere near that.

Originally posted by jfj123
The ABL laser system can target small missiles at long range. Now if the ABL targeting system could not track and remain stationary on the target the weapon couldn't hit the target.

You do know the ABL laser tracks moving missiles that are usually traveling at the speed of sound right? Thats irrelevant anyways, because you must first prove the video doesn't show a laser before you try to prove what the laser was, and why it was there.

Yes, I know that. And???
I was using the ABL system as example of how your mystery dot isn't a laser so it's only irrelevent to someone who doesn't want to be wrong.

Originally posted by jfj123
This is not opinion this is fact and common sense. So why would the big dot move so far across 2 buildings???

If your only issue is the way the laser is moving forward, well that was already explained by 11:11 as well. And on his behalf I would like to take it within my own hands to complete 11:11's vision with an image:

Since the jet is not as maneuverable as a Hellfire missile, and that the laser finder has a limited range, it would be necessary to move the laser to make flight path adjustments.

Well obviously since you have responded to more then one issue, you obviously know that this is not my only issue.

Again, once you find an area on a target that you want the object to hit, you keep it there and flight adjustments are made to that dot. It's not like a bowling ball that hooks to the left or right.

Yes I know 11 11 has explained my question before but a wrong explanation doesn't help.

Originally posted by jfj123
Every time a targeting laser moves, the bomb or whatever ordinance aiming at it's target, must adjust it's heading. This is why a targeting laser must remain as still as possible. Does it look like the WTC mystery dot is following these parameters?

Well, not EVERY TIME. If the ordinance moved every single time the laser did, then your video would show a really erratic movement, but it doesn't. Actually the ordinance is not perfect pin point accuracy, there is a +/- of a maybe a foot or more. This is probably because there is "steering play" like in a steering wheel of a car or truck. You can probably move your steering wheel +/- an inch, and your wheels will not turn with it. "Free play" is the word I was looking for.

OK well let me give a better explanation.
The ordinance has an onboard computer that will perform computations to adjust flight path based on a number of factors including maneuverability, speed of ordinance, speed of target, distance to target, etc. All these things and more are figured into adjustments based on ultimately one thing. The location of the laser dot. The ordinance see's the dot as the target. I should have said, every time the laser dot is moved, the ordinance potentially would need to make physical adjustments to it's flight path. This still makes my point just as valid. Moving the dot more makes it more likely the ordinance will miss the target or not hit the target exactly where they want, within specs.

Originally posted by jfj123
Now lets look at the 767 itself. It doesn't have the maneuverability of say a hellfire missile so it would be even more essential to keep the targeting laser still so it wouldn't miss it's target.

Exactly what 11:11 said earlier in this thread. Since the 767 is laking maneuverability, you can't just keep the laser on target and expect it to do some wild flight path correction to get to it. You have to keep the laser in front of the ordinance so it can see it, and slowly move the laser to the target so the 767 never looses sight.

You paint the target. The targeting system see's the dot. Ordinance hits the target. SIMPLE. Why would keeping the dot still cause "WILD FLIGHT PATH CORRECTIONS"? AGAIN, you don't use the laser dot as a trail for the ordinance to follow. If this were the case you wouldn't be able to use it in the air at all, only on solid surfaces.

GPS is used for long range, and bad weather. With laser's you are limited by the horizon, so its a shorter range. Anything further can't be targeted with a laser unless you can bend light around the globe. Also, bad weather would make seeing the laser hard for the ordinance. Since we did not have bad weather,

GPS can and is used for all types both short and long range. Keep in mind that the ordinance may start out long range but becomes short range as it gets closer to the target.
HERE'S YOUR QUOTE
"bad weather would make seeing the laser hard for the ordinance. Since we did not have bad weather..."
Now here's another point I'd like to make. If the government planned this in advance, they would not have hoped for a nice day so they wouldn't have used the laser targeting system. Sudden thunder storms happen ALL the time EVERYWHERE so why take the risk of F'ing up a huge operation because of bad weather. Another reason why it's not a laser.

and anyone could have been near the WTC's with a laser designator, GPS would not be needed.

Yeah that wouldn't look suspicious right? Some guy standing around with a targeting laser?? And all the people in the city with personal cameras, security cameras, video cameras, camera phones, etc.. and only one camera saw the "LASER"??

This is irrelevant anyway, because now you are trying to debunk something with opinion. We are not debating what technology the US Government has, or what they should have used, we are debating the object in 11:11's video. Please, get back on topic.

I am on topic. My point is that IF the government was going to do this, they wouldn't do it the way you are suggesting. Then I am explaining why.

Originally posted by jfj123
In addition, you could also use remote piloting. 11 11's response was that anyone with a video camera could potentially intercept the feed. If that were really the case, ALL the military DRONE aircraft including the Predator series would be useless. Gee, why didn't 11 11 respond to that?

With all do respect, 11:11 never claimed a "video camera" can intercept the feed. I believe he said anyone with the right equipment, and knowledge could. Radio transmitters, or communication devices could potentially pick up the signals, not video cameras. Get your facts straight.

Here is what 11 11 said:

Oh yeah, they could have used remote piloting, but theoretically that is the biggest mistake anyone would make. Of course, when you remotely pilot an aircraft, you have multiple electronic signals traveling over the airways.

In order to fly the jet you need a video feed coming from the jet. This video feed can be picked up by ANYONE with the right equipment, especially the News Media equipment. Also, flight controls, and other signals are over the airways too, all of these could be detected and picked up by other sources on accident. Just like how Russia and other radio experts were able to listen in during the entire "moon landing" of NASA.

So once again, if this were really true, all of the DRONE programs run by the military would be useless. My facts are pretty straight as these are direct quotes from his posts.

It's amusing also that his only example was that other countries were monitoring the moon landing....you know, the one in 1969.. We're discussing an event that happened in 2001. Wouldn't you thing technology may have moved along a bit in 32 years???

Originally posted by jfj123
With all these BETTER options, why would they use an old method that is less reliable??? Did they go over their budget ?

See, this is all irrelevant because now you are distracting everyone away from the laser in the video. Please, you must first debunk the object in the video before you ask questions like these.

No this is very relevant is it goes to discredit 11 11's OPINIONS. Again, I am debunking it, just not in the way you want.

Originally posted by jfj123
Now here are some questions
What is the brand of camera that was used in the footage?

I seriously can't believe you asked this question again, it has been stated many many times on this thread that no one yet knows the exact brand of the camera. How could you have missed that?

Why not? My whole point is that, as you say, "NO ONE YET KNOWS..."
I didn't miss it at all. You are claiming to know about a camera you know nothing about. The point I am making has been made by a number of posters here and ignored by 11 11 and yourself because there is no answer.

Originally posted by jfj123
When were ICF filters introduced into the video camera market?

I'm pretty sure ICF's were used since the very first digital camera was made. I'm not sure about analog cameras though, as I believe the type of film they used wasn't that sensitive to IR light. But since cameras are mechanical seeing devices, they can see ALL LIGHT, unlike human eyes. So I'm certain ICF's were around since the very first cameras were made.

I would like to know the answer too, but in the end, it is still irrelevant since ALL camera's need them in order to take pictures that our eyes can see.

Well since you're pretty sure and do not KNOW, you cannot know whether the ICF was in this camera and therefore cannot know the mystery dot is even in the IR spectrum.
Again, we're back to just your opinion.


11 11 wrote the following:

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.

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".

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

Now here's the good part:

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: 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.

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

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.

11 11's own statements dictate he must be able to answer these questions.

Unfortunately as of this writing, these questions have sadly remained unanswered thus disproving his claim of "knowledge of everything".