9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

For the record, I'm quite sure that my previous assessment of the sunlight being the bright spot was inaccurate. That doesn't mean that I've given up on it entirely; merely that I'm putting it on the side as a possibility that I may revisit later.

Onto the juicy bit...

How could the targeting laser be able to make contact with the plane in that position? It appears, even in the IR image, that the "contact" is occurring below the airplane, which would mean that the laser would have to be ground-based to make any kind of contact. Wouldn't that mean that the airplane flying above isn't carrying anything of value to this situation? All of the pictures here that are being discussed are being taken from below the aircraft, while the big white airplane is high above, looking down on the situation.

Do my eyes deceive me, or am I correct in assuming that the "laser" couldn't have been being shot from above the aircraft?

TheBorg

[Edited for clarity.]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by TheBorg]

well , I think it would be prhaps a good idea just to ask the professionals.

we here have the opportunity to directly ask one of the best pilots, Mr. Lear..

reply to post by Torlough

---

That is NOT the "channel 7" helicopter flying by in the OP's video. The video you posted shows a static picture from a helicopter; Not one flying at a high rate of speed like we see in the OP's video.
Look at the video you posted again and tell me the helicopter is moving? It is not moving.



And the OP's picture of the plane with the tree in it is from footage shot at the Pentagon. I am pretty sure he was showing that whatever the white plane is was at the Trade Center and the Pentagon flying around on 9/11.

You pretty much debunked it yourself. Look at the "laser dot" on the building "next" to the South Tower.

Even thought the video makes it look like that building on the right is next to WTC South Tower, its actually closer to the camera and looks bigger. I would say that answers your question.

Can I stop laughing?

Just because some dots do not align, or because someone thinks a Laser is not there, wont make the airplane disappear. the point is that there were other planes in the area on 9/11.

I am not saying that is a complete proof of demolition, but it surely brings some foundation to the inside job theory...

WHAT?? That only proves its a laser dot, because it moved from building to building even when they are a few hundred feet apart. That's what I said earlyer. The building is a LOT closer than it looks, and the fact that the light beam jumps from one building, over the fire, to the next building, means it is not a bird, or paper, or debris, its a laser light source.

Your post has ZERO meaning.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

My post does have meaning. You admit it may not be the ABL so you decided to go for lasing the target like guiding a bomb. If the "laser" was guiding the plane continuously downward, then the plane be heading towards that building and not South Tower.

Your posts STILL have no meaning.

"then the plane be heading towards that building and not South Tower."

Please clarify what you are saying, as you aren't being clear. When the laser first appears it moves slightly downward, just like the jet did. It moved from left to right, just like the jet did. The laser was in the exact spot the jet's wingtip impacted with the WTC. After the impact of the jet, the laser was still moving in the same direction and appeared over the fire and smoke and the closer building at the angle and direction the jet impacted with the buildings.

IMO this is proof the jet was guided by a laser. FYI laser guided missiles don't follow a straight line path, they only hunt for the infrared beam that is reflected. Just like the one we see in the video.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

O I can see you notice that the plane was not exactly in the exact path of the laser when it hit, since the plane hit below the "laser" path instead.

If you want to know about laser guided bombs, you would know that its not a good idea to move the laser around when guiding something in. Always keep the the laser on target, not move diagonally.

Ok I am not debating the pentagon because I see no video just stills of a white plane reported to be at teh pentagon.

OK might not be Chnl 7, but do you know how many choppers were in the air that day. I do, at least 6. WPIX Chnl 11, WWOR chnl 9, Fox Local Chnl 5, WABC local Chnl 7, WNBC local chnl 4, WCBS Local Chnl 2. Not inluding police helicopters which if I rember right there were 3 in the air. So that makes 9 Helicoptes flying around the WTC. Yet you are asking me to believe that out of all that footage on the news, only one amature camera person saw this mysterous Government Jet carrying a high tech Laser weapon that was targeting the WTC?

Oh yeah count the seconds of the "fast Flying Jet" if you compare the rate of speed to the jet hitting the WTC2 (less than a second) to the speed of the "Fast Flying" jet, you will notice that it takes 5 seconds, 5 times longer. Then instead of assuming that it is a secrtet gov. plane (painted white??) in the distance, consider the scale of the object to be Helicopter size a few, that it is one of 9 Helicopters in the air that day, there is one resonable conclusion.

But I am confused, I thought it was a missle that hit the WTC that is why there were"missle" parts found, no wait it was a controlled demolition, because it is easy to sneak explosives in the WTC, wire them to the support columns and blow them up wirelessly, or was it an Air Borne Laser, melting the building so the structure is weakend, the plane will then remotlly be targetted to hit the WTC on the corner. I guess the U.S. Government really wanted to bring those towers down, and we are talking about the same gov. that can't hide the fact that the US att. General fired 8 guys for political reasons.


[edit on 23-8-2007 by Torlough]

This should better illustrate what deltaboy is trying to say:




The circled building is the one we see in the video, in which the 'targeting laser' flashes across the front of. You'll see that it's a bit of a distance from the south tower (where the 'targeting laser' begins).

The yellow line illustrates the path the targeting laser would've had to take to fit with your theory.

I would like to add that due to the angle of the 'targeting laser', the source would have to be to the south or west, which would make it out of view in the video, which was shot to the north (unless, of course, the laser could break from it's 'straight line shackles' and bend around the towers, which is impossible).

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Speakeasy1981]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Speakeasy1981]

reply to post by Torlough

---

First, I have never seen any compelling evidence that suggests any of what you say here. I think there are questions that need to be answered as to what exactly happened that day, but I do not believe in controlled demolitions, missiles, lasers melting the building, etc... However, I would like to know exactly what that was flying in the background of the OP's video. That is the first thing I have seen that makes me think something might have been going on here. Really caught my attention.




While you are correct that it could be a helicopter, I do not think that your other assumptions are correct. How far away is the object? It could be a mile or more away. Obviously, the further away it is, the smaller it will look and the slower it will appear to be going. Of course I could be wrong in my assessment that the unknown object is far away. Too hard to tell with the poor quality of the video.

My point is that you said you debunked the OP's theory and that the vehicle we see in the video was the "channel 7 news" helicopter. When, in fact, this is incorrect as shown by your own video. Was it another news helicopter? Could be. I am sure you could find footage to validate your argument if it exists.

Again, This is the first 9/11 related topic that I have ever found interesting enough to think about, let alone actually post my thoughts on. I don't have any idea what it is but think it is definitely worth trying to find out.



P.S.- thanks for the Condescending remarks.

I'm pretty certain that i read somewhere that a lot of people were confused as to the fire damage to cars and tree's that were a fair distance from any of the buildings, could that attributed to the laser theory?

I'll try and dig up some quotes or photo's, i'm in work at the mo.

janedoe0911.tripod.com...

edit to add link (Someone else have your idea 11 11)

[edit on 23/8/07 by RancidCat]

Yes, with my experience with laser guided missiles, I know that they don't react as fast as the laser does. Moving the laser just tells the missile to make flight path corrections, sometimes you will point the laser somewhere the missile can not turn its heading towards fully. This is what I think happened on 911.

The reason the jet didn't hit exactly where the laser was, is because the jet can only turn and maneuver at a limited amount. It would be possible to move the laser into a position that the jet could not fly itself into. I actually think they almost missed the WTC on 911.




Yes exactly. That is why I believe the laser is NOT from a ground source, and from a flying source that cant exactly hold the laser in place. The reason the laser is moving like that, is because I think it came from another JET.

Although, if your missile seems to be missing its target, it is 100% OK to make small corrections with the laser. Where ever you point the laser, the jet should fly to it, if its not a crazy physics defying maneuver.

I already knew this information and talked about it in the first few posts. I know that building is such a far distance away from the WTC, hence the reason why I think its a laser beam, and not anything else.

I STILL don't get what deltaboys point was, even though I knew what he was talking about regarding the building distances.

Here you go:

YouTube Link

This jet being in the air on 911 is smoking gun enough. Even though they publicly talk about holding drills on 911.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

If you know about fighter bombers, they have laser designated pods that have the ability to stay on target even while moving around, even when the planes circling.

How can that be a smoking gun? Did you watch the video real close near the end where the trees are several times????? You might want to because it clearly shows the video is a fraud (at least to me it is) because the plane flys in front of then through the tree DOH

Deltaboy, I know a lot about military weapons. The main thing I know, is that missiles are greatly different than jets.

With a missile, you could point the laser at a target, and the missile will fly itself to the target, no problems. The missiles are light and fast, and can turn pretty sharp.

With a jet, if it was laser guided, it would not be a good idea to keep the laser in one spot. Especially if you have to keep the laser within a certain "field of view" of the jet, in order for the jet to see the laser and fly to it. It may be possible for the laser to point in a direction the jet wont be able to detect, so they need to keep the laser in front of the moving jet.
If I had to make a jet do a wild turn only using the guidance of a laser, I'm pretty sure I would be moving the laser to a certain extent just to get the jet pointed in the spot I wanted.

LOL that's a camera illusion, because it is focused on a far object, while passing a closer unfocused object.

The "out of focus tree leaves" have holes in them so the "in focus jet" will appear in front of the "out of focus tree leaves" simply because it is more clear.

Generally our mind thinks that "clear images are closer", and "blurry images are further". But with camera lenses, you can have the opposite.

I see a lot of people trying to debunk FACTS like this one. The white jet WAS flying around on 911. MANY WITNESSES CONFIRM IT, SO DO MANY VIDEOS.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]