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: 26
28
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
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.


HAHAHAHA!

I find it mind boggling that you still have the nerve to post here after everything you have ever said has been debunked and has no point or meaning at all.

ALL NORMAL CAMERAS HAVE ICF's.

Your lack of knowledge stinks this entire thread.

You are going on ignore before your uneducated wild claims reach a nerve that you don't want to mess with.


[edit on 14-9-2007 by IWatchYou]




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I forgot to mention:

11:11 does not post topics that can be debunked.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by IWatchYou
I forgot to mention:

11:11 does not post topics that can be debunked.


Hmmm ... stated as fact yet once again only one's opinion. Oh so similar an approach.

Earlier in the thread you posted a photo of your remote's IR taken with your cell phone. Unfortunately, in my opinion, that does nothing to bolster your claims that what we're seeing is the Reflection of IR/Laser light off the tower itself. A more accurate demonstration would be to point the remote at a wall and take a photo of that. i.e. show the reflection.

Until then , I'd be inclined to call hogwash pagewash.
cuatro unos

 



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 



www.kaya-optics.com...

It is a test to test the IR sensitivity of a camera.

Get an infrared laser and point it at the wall. It will have nearly the same strength as a infrared LED from a remote.

Try researching maybe your IQ will go above 10.

22,000 views and no one tests this.

[edit on 14-9-2007 by IWatchYou]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by IWatchYou

Try researching maybe your IQ will go above 10.


Nothing like resorting to insults, eh?

Funny, that. Especially coming from one who cries foul elsewhere for like kind. Pot/Kettle?

Still doing the apples and oranges thing, I see. So are you going to take a photo of your remote pointed at a wall or not? I'd still like to see your camera capture that Reflection. Just as I'd like to see a clear and irrefutable demonstration as to how, out of ALL the eyes and cameras focused on that second tower, only one had the capability to "capture" the reflection of your so-called laser.

You can point to article after article, website after website, but until you can document the actual camera used and it's abilities or lack thereof, there is absolutely no way to conclude that your opinion is anything more that ... an opinion, yours.

D'ya take that photo yet?

 



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I have a hard time believing that there are people as stupid as you are. That first (orb) you refer to is a piece of debris from the first plane crashing into the tower, it could be a window flying out of the building from the concussion. then when you say (referring again to the orb) “it does disappear but it comes back” My goodness man how stupid are you of course it comes back after all there is so much debris flying from the second plane that you are bound to see it again, only it is not the same piece. I could probably plot several pieces of the debris from the planes crashing to make it look like it was in a straight line. As for the small plane in the foreground, it is New York, how many planes do you think fly over on any given day? If you were flying in that area when the first plane hit it would only be natural that you would fly closer just to see what had happened. That picture is so distorted after it is enlarged you certainly can not see it close enough to say what kind of plane it is. I wish all of your type would find yourselves facing Osama bin Laden and you could discuss your stupid theory with him as they cut off your head.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by IWatchYou
 



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.


Tell me, have you ever sat through a single lecture on how basic control systems work? In fact, you don't even need to have done that, common sense should be enough.

The dot doesn't move to adjust the flight path if the missile is not on course. The missile (or plane) can 'see' the dot and will steer so that it is directly ahead of it. If the dot moves then the difference between it's current heading and the heading to the dot is an error in the system (from the point of view of the missile) and since it has a point of reference (the dot) it corrects that error and goes toward the dot again.

Of course to a laser, air isn't reflective, so the laser guided missile would get confused then, and the next building, well why is the laser still on?

Edit for a bit more clarity.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by apex]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   
11 11

I don’t know of this is earlier mansion before.
This are the links to the new September Clues Parts 7 & 8 videos.
It supports in a way your thread of “9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is
It If this isn’t the SMOKING GUN, then what do you need more to proof that 9/11 was a giant FALSE FLAG operation.
I look forward to see what the debunkers who are against the inside job theory say about this.

September Clues Parts 7
www.livevideo.com...

September Clues Parts 8

www.livevideo.com...



[edit on 15/9/07 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 15/9/07 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 15/9/07 by spacevisitor]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   


I find it mind boggling that you still have the nerve to post here after everything you have ever said has been debunked and has no point or meaning at all.

ALL NORMAL CAMERAS HAVE ICF's.

Your lack of knowledge stinks this entire thread.

You are going on ignore before your uneducated wild claims reach a nerve that you don't want to mess with.


This is what amuses me.
You, YOURSELF wrote, "I'm pretty sure ICF's were used since the very first digital camera was made. "

This means you don't know for certain when ICF's were put into cameras. These are your words, not mine. So based on your own words, you admit you do not know if ICF was in this camera. You are guessing based on your own post.


You are going on ignore before your uneducated wild claims reach a nerve that you don't want to mess with.

So should I consider this a threat??? I would think that this might get you banned AGAIN !

Finally, nothing I have said has been debunked as false. Simply saying it, doesn't make it so.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
On the closeup of the mysterious white plane, how did that tree magically appear?


That video was shot from the woods out behind the WTC. It seems that a little Irish guy in a green suit with big buckles was installing security camera's to protect his pot of gold from the Jews. So it's credible.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
I'd still like to see your camera capture that Reflection.


Here you go, this is a reflection of the IR light from my TV remote bouncing off of a wall at about 3 inches away. You can clearly see the IR light on the wall. Now, if this was an infrared laser, the "speckle" would be many times more bright.

en.wikipedia.org...





Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Just as I'd like to see a clear and irrefutable demonstration as to how, out of ALL the eyes and cameras focused on that second tower, only one had the capability to "capture" the reflection of your so-called laser.


It's simple, ALL human eyes can not see infrared, thats a fact. Also, all different makes of cameras have different strength ICF lenses. If I had the resources to test multiple cameras, I would, so I ask everyone in the world out there to gather your cameras, and test them with a remote.

We WILL find out that all cameras have different strength ICF's, and some will see the IR and some wont. Also, some will see it stronger than the other. PLEASE I would really like people to come forward and try it, as I don't own any cameras besides my cell phone cam's.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
This means you don't know for certain when ICF's were put into cameras.


JFJ123, please before you bury yourself into a hole of self pitty, research.

The point of cameras is to capture visible light because that is all our eyes can see. In order for a mechanical device to capture only visible light it MUST have an ICF. The ONLY cameras that don't have an ICF are usually night vision cameras.

So please, stop yourself from looking worse than you already do. All normal cameras have ICF lenses.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by IWatchYou]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
double post... sorry.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by IWatchYou]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueyedlady
I have a hard time believing that there are people as stupid as you are.


LOL, if you truly think I am stupid, then you are in for a big surprise in this world. LOL.



Originally posted by blueyedlady
then when you say (referring again to the orb) “it does disappear but it comes back” My goodness man how stupid are you of course it comes back after all there is so much debris flying from the second plane that you are bound to see it again, only it is not the same piece.


The ONLY time the "orb" disappears is when the jet hits, and there is a plume of debris blocking our view of it. It then reappears directly on that plume of debris half a second later. I have provided a entire set of picture that show you this...

download the zip here:

www.lolproxys.com...

Here is the sequence when it disappears:







That is the only time the laser dot is not visible. It isn't exactly "behind" the plume, it is actually to the left of it, we just can't see it because of our line of sight. Seconds later, the laser moves on top of the plume, and that is when we see it. We then can follow its entire path which travels 1000's of feet further in a perfectly straight path.

THIS CAN NOT BE DEBRIS NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.




Originally posted by blueyedlady
I could probably plot several pieces of the debris from the planes crashing to make it look like it was in a straight line.


OH PLEASE DO! Make sure these debris fly 1000's of feet away from WTC, and appear to be in front of other buildings. I dare you.

These debris must also defy gravity, and physics, just like thet WTC 1,2, and 7 building. Also, don't forget to find debris that can fall from WTC 1, curve/turn around the corner of WTC 2, and fly several blocks in front of another building. It also must appear several feet large from a few miles away.

Good luck with that genius.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by IWatchYou]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 



If the IR finder doesn't see the IR dot, how is it going to fly to it?? Please answer that.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Well from this picture you posted, thats truly rubbish IR guidance if it is a laser, since it's nowhere near where the centerline of the aircraft/missile is.


These debris must also defy gravity, and physics, just like thet WTC 1,2, and 7 building.


Similarly your laser defies gravity(oops, i mean physics), since it reflects off thin air.


If the IR finder doesn't see the IR dot, how is it going to fly to it?? Please answer that.


You mean if it isn't locked on, then it won't fly into it of course. But if it's in it's field of view, it'll hit it. But generally things are locked on before they are fired, or they use some other guidance system until they see the laser and then lock onto that. But when it's going for a huge building, why it needs a laser is beyond me. A nice angular metal building should show up fairly well on radar I'd have thought.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by apex]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Well from this picture you posted, thats truly rubbish IR guidance if it is a laser, since it's nowhere near where the centerline of the aircraft/missile is.



Actually, it is not the IR guidance that is rubbish, it is the ordinance(the jet) that is rubbish. It does not have the maneuverability as say.... a hellfire missile, so it can not make extreme adjustments.

Hmm, now look at this Hellfire demonstration:








Originally posted by apex
Similarly your laser defies gravity, since it reflects off thin air.


THIN AIR?!?! It's reflecting off of the building, off of the plume, off of the thick smoke and fire, and off of another building.. I don't see it ever reflecting off of thin air.

Even then, I don't see how that defies gravity LMAO.




Originally posted by apex
You mean if it isn't locked on, then it won't fly into it of course. But if it's in it's field of view, it'll hit it. But generally things are locked on before they are fired, or they use some other guidance system until they see the laser and then lock onto that.


Hmm I swear I just posted exactly two methods of firing... I guess I'll post it again...

www.lockheedmartin.com...


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


They probably use it like a laser guided bomb...



The Laser Guided Bomb flightpath is divided into three phases: ballistic, transition, and terminal guidance. During the ballistic phase, the weapon continues on the unguided trajectory established by the flightpath of the delivery aircraft at the moment of release.




During terminal guidance, the UGB attempts to keep its velocity vector aligned with the instantaneous line-of- sight. At the instant alignment occurs, the reflected laser energy centers on the detector and commands the canards to a trail position, which causes the weapon to fly ballistically with gravity biasing towards the target.


So you see, when they do a "lock-on AFTER launch", the ordinance is flying unguided, and its only guidance was the general direction it was launched. It only locks-on at the final stage of its flight, which is what must have happened to the jet ordinance.

I would guess maybe a pilot set the Auto-Pilot so the jet could fly to the general direction, then he parachutes out. Then later the laser guided system kicks in, when it is near the area.

Although, we must first prove this is or isn't a laser before we speculate. So far the evidence is pointing towards it being a laser.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by IWatchYou]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

JFJ123, please before you bury yourself into a hole of self pitty, research.

The point of cameras is to capture visible light because that is all our eyes can see. In order for a mechanical device to capture only visible light it MUST have an ICF. The ONLY cameras that don't have an ICF are usually night vision cameras.

So please, stop yourself from looking worse than you already do. All normal cameras have ICF lenses.


That contradicts what you said earlier. LET ME POST IT ONCE AGAIN.

This is what you said:
"I'm pretty sure ICF's were used since the very first digital camera was made. I'm not sure about analog cameras though"

Now since you don't understand you own statement, let me explain it to you 11 11.
READY??
HERE GOES !!
You don't know when ICF's were first introduced into digital cameras but are "PRETTY SURE".
AGAIN YOU SAID PRETTY SURE.
This phrase means you are not positive that your statement is correct but believe it is correct. This means you cannot state as fact that ALL digital cameras always had ICF's. This is YOUR statement, not mine.

You're also not sure about analog camera's.

So how do we know whether or not the footage is coming from a digital or analog camera? We have no idea how old the camera is because we know nothing about it so your own statement tells us that we honestly don't know whether the camera had an ICF.

Now to address your other concerns
1. Don't you worry, no self pity here
I actually find you amusing and entertaining


2. Again your 2 statements contradict themselves so I don't look bad at all. You're the one that seems to be arguing with yourself and somehow losing



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


JFJ123 your efforts are laughable.

Please, instead of trying to debunk my words with semantics, please try to research ICF's and find out yourself. You will find it much more gratifying if you can actually provide this thread with details about the very first ICF lense. I will give you a star if you could find that information out.

Until then, I will trust my knowledge about lights and mechanical devices, meaning normal cameras are pretty much useless without an ICF.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by IWatchYou]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Actually, it is not the IR guidance that is rubbish, it is the ordinance(the jet) that is rubbish. It does not have the maneuverability as say.... a hellfire missile, so it can not make extreme adjustments.


So since the plane cannot make as many adjustments as a hellfire missile, the targeting laser must keep still so it will be more accurate. But as you watch the video, the mystery spot just wanders across 2 entire buildings. You keep posting the above quote and it contradicts what you said earlier again.



OOPS again 11 11



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join