9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

There is NO laser that has enough power to weaken the structure of an entire skyscraper. I don't need to know anything about classified projects to tell you this only about lasers and power supplied to lasers.

If you notice the HUGE plane hit the building and slice it almost in half, that really seems to be enough to damage the building.

The death star didn't fire on the WTC.

Well, the ABL is capable of affecting the... aham... "structure" of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Those guys have a thick armor. We are not talking about mere sidewinders, we are talking about patriot-sized hugeness.

I've been working with laser these past 2 years on research and development, and I can guarantee you that the ABL can cause a hell of a lot of damage. I could show you the kind of damage that a small 12 V laser caused on my hand, but that's off topic. (Hey, any questions about lasers, just let m know and I will try to answer them.)

About the plane itself, on the first video, I have some points to add:

1- The white plane does bears amazing resemblance to the Airborne laser. I am staring right now pictures and plans of it of a book, and it is amazing. There's not a single point different from it.

2- The "dot" on the buildings is typical of any laser systems. Ladies and gentleman, that's nothing else then a plasma, overheated air molecules caused by the friction and agitation of those molecules under the sudden increase of positive ions and photons on the surrounding air. And take in account too the fact that there are enormous amounts of INVISIBLE laser radiation surrounding such a plasma dot. Thus, damage to the buildings could be caused not only by the plasma, but by the harmful invisible radiation.

First video? I didn't see anything except a white blur.

I agree that from the footage I've seen, the ABL is very powerful on a small surface area. There's a huge difference between a large missile and an enormous building. Remember the laser would need to penetrate the building outer structure to the primary support beams and posts. Thats alot of heat to drive through the building without igniting major fires ahead of the plane impact. Not gonna happen.

Some witness's say people caught on fire and were burned for no apparent reasons, could a laser cause this.

Also could this relate to the burned up cars as well.

I dunno, i may have to agree with Deltaboy and the first guy, who said the craft trailing the plane in the WTC footage may be a helicopter.

I lived in NY, for over 25 years, and I think all of the news choppers that I can remember are white. There were at least 2 or three near the Towers that morning and one was hovering VERY close to them.

I remember watching it live and wondering why it couldn't snag a few people who were above the fire jumping to their deaths (may their god bless them)at least off the roof. Then I remembered haveing been a bycicle messanger in lower Manhantten and delivering packages to the upper floors of the Trade Center, that access to the roof is totally locked off. To all but those with the uttmost security in the building, who are positioned on the lower floors unfortunately.

Anyways, after watching that future Weapons video just now on the ABL all I have to say is holy mother. that thing has some serious targetting tech on it, and could easily have been painting the targets for unmanned aircraft, or even manned aircrafted, without control of their plane.

One can only speculate, who may have taken control away from the pilots. Terrorists, or some CIA guy with a button. Because really, where are all those people who were supposedly on those planes. Surely their families aren't lieing, and why bother improsoning them when you can just count them as collatorell(sp?) damage?

But again in conclusion, it's too hard for me to tell from the footage in the original post if thats a plane or a news chopper. It's just too blurry, any way to enhance it? Or is there other video of white planes flying around the Trade Towers? I could have sword i remember seeing some....

Here is some info regarding the ABL


The ABL simply doesn't have enough fuel to burn cars, building, etc. en masse.

i rememberedd my third point!!!

3. the aircraft that tailed the plane into the pentagon was a c-130, a c-130 cant intercept a 757...but can tail....

How can a carbon fiber nose cone produce a static discharge?

How can one assume a carbon fiber nose prevents the high possibility of a static discharge between the plane/tower?

Your right about the airstrip, but I'm not here to prove anything. I appreciate your skepticism though. The possibility exists that I confused what I saw so maybe I'm wrong. Either way, I'm no phoney. And no, I'm not confused about the modified P3 Orion with the extra dome underneath the cockpit. That's an entirely different thing.

I wish I would have taken a picture...

that is actually (as FredT pointed out earlier) and Air Force E-4B. It's definitely not ordinary, there is only 4 of them. Airliners.net has several pictures of them available, here's 2.

As I said earlier, the airborne laser did not fly until July of 2002 and still has not fired its main laser in-flight as of today.

You can check out the helicopter action in this video, but none of what i see in here looks like the craft from the OP. There are what appear to be the same bright flashes, but i cant imagine they are painting anything...

YouTube Link

Ok, so it wasn't the ABL. Spicing up theory is always fun. But still, look at the evidence of a laser light on the WTC. It disappears when the jet hits the WTC, and comes back. Maybe the laser was blocked by the jet, and with that information we could find an approximate angle of the light source.

Maybe the jet was programmed to act as a laser guided missile? Maybe one of the many helicopters that were flying around both WTC and the Pentagon had these laser designators and were guiding the jet?

The laser on the buildings is real.

So why didnt the jet melt or explode when hit by the laser? Could your laser on the buildings be a reflection of the sun from a neighboring buildings window and the jet just happened to fly through the light? Or is that to unrealistic like, oh, a laser?

Because the laser that we see on the buildings is non-lethal.



That sun theory is more unrealistic, because if it was a reflection from the sun, then we would see it on ALL camera views. But we don't we only see it on 1 camera view, because it was infrared. An infrared sun reflection like that? I don't know about that... a laser seems more plausible.

kudos to you 1111 for pointing out this luminescent "orb" anomaly!

I have never seen this before, but just the line this white orb tracks across the building, through the smoke and then almost seamlessly onto the building next to it suggests something OTHER than debris, a bird in flight, or paper etc. of any kind.

I agree, it definitely looks like it's coming from an airborne source, given the angle and how quickly it jumped from the smoke onto the next building in the foreground.

However, I have to disagree with your speculation that it heated the building giving way to the aircraft impact moments after it appears. The angle it cuts across the building isn't consistent with the strike impact of the jet.

If this was an illuminating laser from an airborne platform, it was most likely a targeting or 'painting' laser; used to guide the automatically controlled aircraft (assumed within this new theory) in for a *ahem* perfect 10 landing...

I'm sure anyone versed in a physics background reading this could add some credentials to the theory that the planes struck and impacted the buildings in accordance within the laws of physics and what could be expected when such an event occurred. (i.e. all the damage they did to the building before the building collapsed was caused under the sheer weight and kinetic energy of the planes them selfs).

What happens in the realm of physics after the planes strike, but before the buildings are on the ground seem to bend the rules of reality if you follow the official story..

but as we all know, that is an entirely different rabbit hole (covered under many a different thread here on ATS... ;-)).

I am currently a physics major at Carnegie Mellon, and the subject of heating surfaces appeals to me. So I decided to check it out.

If we take the side of one floor of the WTC to be 63 meters across, 4 meters high, and 10 mm deep, we get a volume of 63*4*.01 = 2.52 cubic meters = 2,520,000 cubic centimeters.

The density of aluminum is 2.70 g/cubic centimeter. So, that means one floor of the WTC has 2.7 * 2520000 = 6,804,000 g of aluminum.

The specific heat of aluminum is .897 J/g/K. For those of you who don't know, the specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise its temperature. SO, that means the laser would have to impart .897 * 6804000 = 6103188 J of energy just to raise it one degree kelvin.

The average temperature for NY in September is 70 degrees F, which is 294 Kelvin. The melting point of aluminum is 933 degrees Kelvin. That means the delta T = 933 - 294 = 639 degrees. Now obviously the aluminum didn't MELT, so we can take it to be softened at any temperature 200 or more degrees above the ambient, which is, after rounding for simplicity sake, 500 degrees Kelvin. In order to soften the aluminum, the laser would have to impart 6103188 J * 200 = 1220637600 J of heat. If we give the plane 30 seconds to impart this heat, that means the laser has to put out AT LEAST 40,687,920 watts. That is a lot of power.

How does that compare? Well, the average home uses 8900 kilowatts of electricity a year. The energy this laser would put out in 30 seconds could power a home for about 4 YEARS!

Now, I realize that there were a lot of assumptions in this calculation, but I think that it is pretty accurate, since all the assumptions give the greatest amount of leeway in defense of the laser. Some of the values would change, the specific heat being the biggest example of this. However, the lowest specific heat for glass that I could find is .5 for flint glass, which I don't think that the WTC used in its construction. But then again, the glass would probably be thicker than 10 mm in depth, so that would add to the weight.

In light of this quick calculation, I don't think that a laser mounted inside of a plane could sufficiently heat the side of the building so that the plane could "cut through the building like a cold knife through hot butter."

Better luck next time.

Your calculations are off...

Anyway... try debunking this first:

reply to post by jfj123

---

and also a reply to your other posts.

How can you say not enough heat?
what is your knowledge of lasers?
Have you seen the demonstration of our particle beam weapon that can knock out three mortars while all in the air at once? Meaning we have the guidance capability.
Have you heard of Tesla?
If so, did you know his documents and apparatuses were taken?
did you know he gave his secrets to several countries?
It is possible, maybe not publicly possible but a laser doesn't have to be constructed like the ones you know about in common commercial areas.
I could go on but my point is hopefully made.

b