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: 27
28
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Once again your efforts are laughable.

The laser was on the WTC building for quite a few seconds. If the mission was to get the jet to crash ANYWHERE into the building, I would say it doesn't matter exactly where it was pointing, or how "steady" it was. As long as it was on the building. Once the jet hit, that is when the laser moved to another building, because it doesn't matter where it is pointed anymore.

So your logic is flawed. You can mention how the laser moves to another building all you want. The fact is, the laser was on the building when the jet hit. That is all that matters.




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by IWatchYou

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.
But a hellfire missile has a maximum range of 5 miles, whereas that 767 is coming in from more than 90 miles away.



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.


Since when does smoke reflect like a solid object? You can see it yes, but it also goes through it too. Oh and it definitely can't reflect off a flame. Do you know that fire isn't an object it's a reaction? Or are we in the dark ages?






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.
But still why use a laser? When you can use GPS or radar guidance? And why move the laser across the building?


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.


According to you yes. But If you had posted concrete undeniable evidence, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Edit to add:

The laser was on the WTC building for quite a few seconds. If the mission was to get the jet to crash ANYWHERE into the building, I would say it doesn't matter exactly where it was pointing, or how "steady" it was. As long as it was on the building.
So if it can be anywhere on the building, why use guidance that is accurate to within a few feet normally?

[edit on 15-9-2007 by apex]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   

The Army is mounting precision-guided weapons on hundreds of unmanned aerial vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hazelwood said.

The MQ-5B Hunter will carry the laser-guided GBU-44/B Viper Strike, a 42-pound glide bomb with a one-yard wingspan that can strike within one meter of its aim point.

The Army intends to increase the number of Viper Strike bombs it intends to buy, but declined to give specific numbers, said Tim Owings, the Army’s deputy project manager for UAVs.

www.armytimes.com...


Here is some more evidence to my argument that the government wouldn't have used a laser guided aircraft but instead, they would have used a remote piloted vehicle to hit the towers. Of course they did neither.

Also, if you read above you'll notice that the laser guided bomb can hit within 1 meter of its aim point. This also goes to show that the targeting laser must be small. A targeting laser that would expand to 12 ft, could not hit a target within approx. 3.3 ft.
Whether illusion or actual size, the 12 ft dot is what the camera see's. So if a military camera would see the same 12 ft. dot, it couldn't hit it's target within 3.3 ft.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 16/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by IWatchYou
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.



Neat, you and 11:11 have the same TV remote!



The laser was on the WTC building for quite a few seconds. If the mission was to get the jet to crash ANYWHERE into the building, I would say it doesn't matter exactly where it was pointing, or how "steady" it was. As long as it was on the building. Once the jet hit, that is when the laser moved to another building, because it doesn't matter where it is pointed anymore.


Seriously, this is rediculous. Show me one example of a laser targeting system that isn't aimed at the target, even well after the ordinance has been fired, until 4-5 seconds before impact.

What do you suggest guided the plane until the 'laser targeting' took over? Have you found any example of a passenger jet being piloted by laser?



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
But a hellfire missile has a maximum range of 5 miles, whereas that 767 is coming in from more than 90 miles away.


Aaaaaannnnnnnnnddddd......? Give a hellfire more room to hold fuel and I can make it fly as long as I want. Heck, make it run off of water with super fast electrolysis and I could steer that thing through clouds all day and it will never run out of fuel.


Originally posted by apex
Since when does smoke reflect like a solid object?


Since the beginning of time.

en.wikipedia.org...


Smoke is the airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases emitted when a material undergoes pyrolysis or combustion, together with the quantity of air that is entrained or otherwise mixed into the mass.


SMOKE IS AN AIRBORNE SOLID?!?!?!!!?!?!! SINCE WHEN?!?!?!?!?!?! LOL!

When smoke is really thick, it can reflect like a wall.



Originally posted by apex
Oh and it definitely can't reflect off a flame. Do you know that fire isn't an object it's a reaction? Or are we in the dark ages?


Hmm, maybe you didn't read what I typed correctly. I said "off of the thick smoke and fire". I did NOT say "off of the smoke" and "off of the fire". I said "smoke and fire". Usually in reality, smoke and fire are very hard to separate. Especially in a "fireball".

Either you are in the dark ages, or some virtual reality created by the government.


Originally posted by apex
But still why use a laser? When you can use GPS or radar guidance?


I don't know, these questions are irrelevant until you can prove that the video does or doesn't show a laser. Until then it will all just be speculation.


Originally posted by apex
And why move the laser across the building?


Why not? As long as the IR dot was on the building in the correct envelope of time, it doesn't matter. I personally believe the movement of the laser was a by-product of in flight laser designation from a fixed, pivoting laser on an aircraft though.


Originally posted by apex
According to you yes. But If you had posted concrete undeniable evidence, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Video proof of a laser is enough for someone who knows a laser when they see one. You and MANY others obviously don't know a laser when you see one, so its not proof to YOU. It's a simple problem of lack of knowledge in a certain subject, hence the reason 11:11 took the time to educate you all, yet you are the stubborn students.

Only if you were stubborn in elementary school, your mind wouldn't be filled with theories that you think are fact.



Originally posted by apex
So if it can be anywhere on the building, why use guidance that is accurate to within a few feet normally?


Thats a good question that one can only answer with speculation. Please, debunk the video, none of this crap will get us anywhere.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Here is some more evidence to my argument that the government wouldn't have used a laser guided aircraft but instead, they would have used a remote piloted vehicle to hit the towers. Of course they did neither.


Speculation, speculation, speculation. It seems that is all you have. You are claiming to know what the government "would have used". Thats the lowest form of argument ever.

You then proceed to say "of course they did neither" as if you have inside information or proof, which you don't have. This is more speculation.


Originally posted by jfj123
Also, if you read above you'll notice that the laser guided bomb can hit within 1 meter of its aim point. This also goes to show that the targeting laser must be small. A targeting laser that would expand to 12 ft, could not hit a target within approx. 3.3 ft.
Whether illusion or actual size, the 12 ft dot is what the camera see's. So if a military camera would see the same 12 ft. dot, it couldn't hit it's target within 3.3 ft.


LOL back to the size of the laser again for you huh??? This will never end, and it is getting quite boring. The laser dot is not 12ft. It's reflection is though... that speckle reflection is a unwanted effect from a laser that can NOT be avoided, even by the military.


www.repairfaq.org...

Not only that, but you show me your total lack of knowledge on how the laser homing works. When the ordinance such as a Hellfire sees a 12ft laser reflection, it does not pick any spot in that reflection and aim for it. IT CENTERS THE LASER IN THE MIDDLE OF ITS TARGETING SYSTEM AND FLIES TO THE CENTER OF THE LASER.

It would not matter if the laser is 12 feet, or 50 feet. The ordinance will center itself into the middle of the laser reflection.



See, no matter the size, its going to center itself into the middle of the laser.

Once again, you have no argument. May I ask, where are you pulling these arguments out of?



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Neat, you and 11:11 have the same TV remote!


NEAT! YOU ACTUALLY DID SOME INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH!!! To bad you did it on the wrong video/image!!!

Please, go back to the first post and watch the laser video, and research THAT!


Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Seriously, this is rediculous. Show me one example of a laser targeting system that isn't aimed at the target, even well after the ordinance has been fired, until 4-5 seconds before impact.


I never said it wasn't aimed at the target LOL. Read much? You confuse yourself so much that your questions are damn near impossible to answer because you are asking questions that are based on your confusion.



Originally posted by InnocentBystander
What do you suggest guided the plane until the 'laser targeting' took over?


A person with a parachute? Auto-pilot? Hmm back to speculating again.. please, debunk the laser video.... none of this crap.


Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Have you found any example of a passenger jet being piloted by laser?


No because usually when you guide something by laser, you guide it into a solid object that the laser can reflect off of, meaning CRASH.

Until 9/11 I don't think there was a need to guided a passenger jet with a laser. So yeah, I don't have any examples of one. That doesn't mean you debunked anything....

Please debunk the laser video. You can not debunk this video by pointing out something has probably never been publicly done before.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by IWatchYou
 


Well if you are just going to disprove some of my points with sarcasm and insults, welcome to my ignore list. Thats quite an achievement actually, you might be the first person. BYE!!



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


Sorry, I was just trying to motivate you to research and think about your "points" before you even ask them. If your "points" can be debunked, and at the same time have sarcasm installed, this usually means that you actually had no "points" to begin with. That is not my problem nor my fault. Also, I didn't insult you, you just "felt insulted" because of how easy it was for me to debunk you.

---back on subject---

Did anyone see this morphing bright object (in the wtc shadow side) that seems to be in the same spot for multiple seconds?

It was from the same camera, and person.





If this is debris or a bird, why isn't it moving from its location? Why is it in the same spot as the impact of the jet? Why is it lit up in the shadow side of the wtc?

Watch the video to see..

www.youtube.com...

Although the screen captures above make it appear the object did not change shape, I think it is an illusion, as it does change shape in the few seconds it is visible in the video.






[edit on 16-9-2007 by IWatchYou]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IWatchYou






Doesn't look like your laser to me. So why is it that shape?

[edit on 16-9-2007 by apex]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Doesn't look like your laser to me. So why is it that shape?


Thats funny, I never claimed the image below shows a laser. I was just asking simple questions about that object, as it doesn't appear to be the same one as the original video. Nor does it appear to be debris or a bird.

If it was a laser though, the odd shape could simply be caused by the surface it is reflecting off of. WTC exterior consists of uneven metal and windows, so any shape is possible. Since the video only shows this particular object for a split second, and it rapidly changed shape within that moment, I could possibly just be random "laser speckle" which is known to make odd shapes.

It could also be a side effect of a laser being focused by a telescope, or some sort of focusing mirrors.

Almost like the odd shape made by flashlights.

I did not present this evidence as a laser, I just presented it as an unidentified object.



p.s. PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO AND NOT MY SCREEN SHOTS. This is a problem I have been encountering during debates.

My screen shots were just taken at a time when the object appeared like that. There is a moment in the video when the object appears to be almost perfectly round.

Also, it could be a compression issue. If you stand back away from the camera, it appears to be a whole object. I don't think this section of video was a "camera zoom" I think it was only a resize of original video with video software.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by IWatchYou]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Speculation, speculation, speculation. It seems that is all you have. You are claiming to know what the government "would have used". Thats the lowest form of argument ever.

You then proceed to say "of course they did neither" as if you have inside information or proof, which you don't have. This is more speculation.


POT + KETTLE + BLACK



LOL back to the size of the laser again for you huh??? This will never end, and it is getting quite boring. The laser dot is not 12ft. It's reflection is though... that speckle reflection is a unwanted effect from a laser that can NOT be avoided, even by the military.


You still are just not getting it. If that WTC camera see's a 12 ft reflection, why wouldn't the military targeting camera see a similar extra large size reflection?


Once again, you have no argument. May I ask, where are you pulling these arguments out of?


Common sense, you don't need to worry about that, it's obviously not a concern of yours.

PS

Not only that, but you show me your total lack of knowledge on how the laser homing works. When the ordinance such as a Hellfire sees a 12ft laser reflection, it does not pick any spot in that reflection and aim for it. IT CENTERS THE LASER IN THE MIDDLE OF ITS TARGETING SYSTEM AND FLIES TO THE CENTER OF THE LASER.

It would not matter if the laser is 12 feet, or 50 feet. The ordinance will center itself into the middle of the laser reflection.

This is called SPECULATION 11 11.

So show me a military targeting laser with an approx. 12 ft diameter reflection at a similar distance.

People are debunking your mystery dot hypothesis indirectly by showing evidence that using a laser would be less likely then doing it other ways which would be more accurate and secure.

If what you're saying is true, the 767 must have a remote piloting system onboard to be guided to the target.
Remember seeing the video of the camera mounted bomb?
How did that video come into being? did they go back later and pick up the black box? No the video was transmitted to a monitoring station. That being said, there is no reason to use a less accurate laser system when they can use a more accurate remote piloting system.

Why would the government use a less reliable method when carrying out a ONE SHOT attack of this magnitude?

By the way, I am still waiting to know whether or not you're threatening me Iwatchyou.


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



Finally, insulting people doesn't make your hypothesis correct. Although I think you are a very amusing person, some people may take your insults seriously.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by IWatchYou
Also, it could be a compression issue. If you stand back away from the camera, it appears to be a whole object. I don't think this section of video was a "camera zoom" I think it was only a resize of original video with video software.


Why is it that as long as it disproves the official story, everything which is useful to the 9/11 truth movement in fuzzy video is a compression artefact used as a counter argument?

Like this:

"This shows a pod on the 757."
"No it doesn't this picture shows it is not."
"Well that must be a compression artefact"



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Seriously, this is rediculous. Show me one example of a laser targeting system that isn't aimed at the target, even well after the ordinance has been fired, until 4-5 seconds before impact.


Originally posted by IWatchYou
I never said it wasn't aimed at the target LOL. Read much? You confuse yourself so much that your questions are damn near impossible to answer because you are asking questions that are based on your confusion.


I was referring to the video that you posted on page one of this thread. Watch the video, and count how many seconds the object is visible on the building. Then please come back and answer my question.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
This is called SPECULATION 11 11.


Actually no, this is how laser homing works. the ordinance centers itself in the center of the laser. Please educate yourself, I am tired of disproving every single thing you say.


Originally posted by jfj123
People are debunking your mystery dot hypothesis indirectly by showing evidence that using a laser would be less likely then doing it other ways which would be more accurate and secure.


NOBODY has debunked anything. Especially when the only thing anyone has ever tried to debunk with so far is WORDS. No evidence, no supporting resources NOTHING. Nothing you or anyone has said has debunked this, and that is why I am here now still pull valid arguments with resources, images, and valid comments. SIT DOWN.. YOU HAVE BE DEBUNKED IN THE PAST AND IN THE FUTURE.


Originally posted by jfj123
Why would the government use a less reliable method when carrying out a ONE SHOT attack of this magnitude?


One shot? Excuse me, 2 jets hit 2 towers, get a clue.


b.t.w it was a threat, to your non-existent intelligence.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Why is it that as long as it disproves the official story, everything which is useful to the 9/11 truth movement in fuzzy video is a compression artefact used as a counter argument?


Because most of all the evidence is contained within compressed images and video?!!? G, that was so hard to answer.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Regarding the Pentagon here is a long list of people that saw A PLANE


Nobody in this entire thread has claimed that nothing hit the Pentagon. Actually the very first post of this topic on the very bottom says this:



**note** I am not claiming the ABL did ALL the work, but it did help the aircraft's do more damage. Possibly helped "weaken the steel" of the WTC's with heat.


How one could possibly ignore, or not read, or dismiss, or not care about the VERY FIRST POST in this topic is beyond my ability to comprehend. Something is missing from these people I am debating with.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by IWatchYou

Originally posted by apex
Why is it that as long as it disproves the official story, everything which is useful to the 9/11 truth movement in fuzzy video is a compression artefact used as a counter argument?


Because most of all the evidence is contained within compressed images and video?!!? G, that was so hard to answer.


Oh yeah, and everything clear and not fuzzy and portraying the official story, no matter who took it, was all planted or CGI. Yeah that must be the case.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by InnocentBystander
 



Please watch this video. If you are faint at heart, I don't recommend it.

www.youtube.com...

Anyway, on the bottom right you will see a count down. The first count down is the launch count down. When it reaches 0, it starts over, this is the count down until impact. During the impact countdown, the laser operator has the ability to change his target to whatever he wants, within the area.

He does NOT need to have the laser on the spot for several seconds. The laser only needs to be on the spot during the last few seconds of the count down.

I hope that is clear. (SNIP)

[edit on 16-9-2007 by IWatchYou]




[edit on 16-9-2007 by chissler]



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join