9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

Originally posted by 11 11

Actually, the camera is not fully infrared, it is only infrared assist. This means you only see a certain small range of infrared light, and not ALL infrared light. When a laser beam is flying through the air, it does not come in contact with anything solid. This means the beam itself is in another infrared range. Once the light beam hits the building, it reflects off, into a different range of infrared. That range is visible in the video.

This is basically how CD players work. They shine a laser at a compact disk, and whatever reflects off the disk is the information from the CD.

If you can see the dot as the camera has shown from a far distance clearly, then its no doubt you can see a beam as well (if that what that dot represents).

11 11 how about you address some of the questions put to you by others such as this

The Borg asking questions of OP that he never answered. and this was the 2nd time around no less :shk:

[edit on 8/24/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by deltaboy

If you can see the dot as the camera has shown from a far distance clearly, then its no doubt you can see a beam as well (if that what that dot represents).

I don't think you understand how lights work. Get a normal flashlight and shine it in daylight at an object. You will see the light on the object, and you wont see the beam. When the light reflects off of an object it changes its wavelength. The camera's infrared assist abilities only allowed it to see the wavelength of the reflection, and not the wavelength of the beam itself. .

[edit on 24-8-2007 by 11 11]

11 11 wrote,

Actually, the camera is not fully infrared, it is only infrared assist. This means you only see a certain small range of infrared light, and not ALL infrared light. When a laser beam is flying through the air, it does not come in contact with anything solid.

Actually yes it would have come into contact with something solid. The HUGE amount of dust particles. You can see alot of the dust in your own photo. OOPS !

Finally, I am personally disgusted that you have chosen to make SHOTS your personal paranoia target. If you have proof and not WILD speculation that he has conspired to silence you, PROVE IT !!!

If not, PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE. You have derailed the thread by your accusations.

Finally, do you honestly think you're important enough to be personally assigned a government disinformation agent??? COME ON !!!!

reply to post by shots



Actually, if you would have read this thread from start to finish you would have already known the answer to that question long ago.

Even then, the question he asked is incomplete, and does not make any sense at all. I usually just ignore incomplete questions, but I guess I will have to answer this one directly:

-TheBorg

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?

His question, is based on his opinion. I don't understand his opinion that the "contact is occurring below the airplane". He must explain in detail what he is talking about, then I will answer fully.

When looking at this picture below:


...I don't see anything making "contact below the airplane".

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually yes it would have come into contact with something solid. The HUGE amount of dust particles. You can see alot of the dust in your own photo. OOPS !

The wavelength of the laser light beam, when it bounces off of fine dust and smoke, is not strong enough to be seen on the camera in daylight. Dust and smoke simply is not solid enough. This is a laser might I add, not a normal beam of light.

Originally posted by jfj123
Finally, do you honestly think you're important enough to be personally assigned a government disinformation agent??? COME ON !!!!

Me important? Maybe. The subject itself important enough? Yes. I believe this subject is important enough to be assigned a government disinformation agent.

Sorry now, I have to put you on ignore.

p.s. he has to prove he didn't do it.

---edit---

Here is good reading material for you.
www.howstuffworks.com...


[edit on 24-8-2007 by 11 11]

11 11,
you have NO idea how a laser works.

By the way, putting me on ignore because you simply don't want to act like an adult??? come on !!

A person is innocent until proven guilty mate !!!

By the way, since you believe the US government killed over 3000 people in the WTC in cold blood. Instead of personally trying to convince you that you are wrong, wouldn't they simply add one more to the list????


I hope someone in charge at ATS reads your slanderous statements about SHOTS and your crappy attitude in general and sanctions you in some way.

FINALLY,
You accuse SHOTS of trying to censor you however, you just stated you will put me on ignore, CENSORING ME !!!?!?!?!

Look up the following word
HYPOCRITE

Originally posted by jfj123
11 11,
you have NO idea how a laser works.

No, you have no idea how the "infrared assist mode" on the camera works.

Originally posted by jfj123
By the way, putting me on ignore because you simply don't want to act like an adult??? come on !!

Actually I lied to you, to see if you believe me. You do, because you want to believe.

Originally posted by jfj123
A person is innocent until proven guilty mate !!!

Shots first post in this thread was about a logo on the camera, and who it belongs to. The second post was about a CGI jet, or fake jet. The third post actually contained the fact that my video has been removed. He wrote:

"Also your video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

..then, he edited it to say this later:

"Also your video has been removed due to terms of use violation no doubt someone complained about it being the porperty of others which would throw suspect on it."

If I wasn't super observant, I probably wouldn't have accused him.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by jfj123
By the way, since you believe the US government killed over 3000 people in the WTC in cold blood. Instead of personally trying to convince you that you are wrong, wouldn't they simply add one more to the list????

Yes. So what happens when I tell everyone, are they going to add everyone to the list? Probably. Maybe thats why there are no "whistle blowers". It's far easier to spread false information than it is to kill everyone that doesn't believe.

Originally posted by jfj123
I hope someone in charge at ATS reads your slanderous statements about SHOTS and your crappy attitude in general and sanctions you in some way

I had a reason and an opinion about shots. Because I observed him doing something suspicious.

Originally posted by jfj123
Look up the following word
HYPOCRITE

hyp·o·crite
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

dictionary.reference.com...





[edit on 24-8-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 24-8-2007 by 11 11]

» 9/11 Conspiracies » 9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It


The personal banter and or accusations STOP NOW!

Please keep the responses focused on the ACTUAL topic of discussion.





» 9/11 Conspiracies » 9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It


Thank You ... otherwise. (?)


 



[edit on 24-8-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

supermoderator,
Thanks for the post. Hopefully this will actually get us back on topic.

His question, is based on his opinion. I don't understand his opinion that the "contact is occurring below the airplane". He must explain in detail what he is talking about, then I will answer fully.

When looking at this picture below:


...I don't see anything making "contact below the airplane".




I think he meant below the 'white airplane' you're saying is equipped with the laser, not the one hitting the building. I could be wrong, that's just how I took it.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by InnocentBystander]

11:11, I have a question as well. If the camera is on infrared assist mode as you suggest, wouldn't the video shore more signs of this? This may be my complete ignorance of the properties of light, but we're looking at heat, right? Why isn't the burning hole in the other building glowing, or at least more present?

Also, if the video is in infrared assist mode, wouldn't there be artifacts other than glowing heat sources like blown out whites or motion blur from the longer shutter?

Originally posted by 11 11
Using screen shots and layers, I have drawn out the exact path of this "orb", which happens to be a perfectly straight line.

If you look even closer, you can see that the "orb" meets exactly where the tip of the right wing of the jet impacts the WTC. Almost like this "orb" was tracking the jet's wing tip. But what is this "orb"?

In the same video, near the end, you see this white jet pass by in the sky. This same white jet was filmed over the Pentagon on 9/11.

OK, one more question.

If the 'laser' was tracking the plane's right wingtip, wouldn't it be going in the other direction? I mean, as the passenger jet approaches the WTC (from right to left in relation to the 'white jet,') wouldn't the beam be going from right to left as well?

Furthermore, if it really is a targeting laser, I would think it would aim at the desired impact point and stay there; we certainly have the technology to stabilize a laser targeting device from a moving plane.

I guess I'm just not really getting your point, but please don't be offended, I'm trying.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
11:11, I have a question as well. If the camera is on infrared assist mode as you suggest, wouldn't the video shore more signs of this?

Actually there are more signs of it. The fire from the explosion is a lot brighter after impact than most pictures, actually all of the colors are "washed out" in this video.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
This may be my complete ignorance of the properties of light, but we're looking at heat, right? Why isn't the burning hole in the other building glowing, or at least more present?

Wrong.

en.wikipedia.org...

Infrared radiation is popularly known as "heat" or sometimes "heat radiation", since many people attribute all radiant heating to infrared light. This is a widespread misconception, since light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Also, if the video is in infrared assist mode, wouldn't there be artifacts other than glowing heat sources like blown out whites or motion blur from the longer shutter?

There is a huge difference between infrared night vision, and thermal imaging.

en.wikipedia.org...

Night vision

Infrared is used in night-vision equipment when there is insufficient visible light to see.[9] Night vision devices operate through a process involving the conversion of ambient light photons into electrons which are then amplified by a chemical and electrical process and then converted back into visible light.[9] Infrared light sources can be used to augment the available ambient light for conversion by night vision devices, increasing in-the-dark visibility without actually using a visible light source.[9]

The use of infrared light and night vision devices should not be confused with thermal imaging which creates images based on differences in surface temperature by detecting infrared radiation (heat) that emanates from objects and their surrounding environment.

You see, night vision goggles will amplify infrared wavelength light's in true images. A thermal imaging device is like a render of infrared heat, and not a true image.

Look at this night vision example, with a infrared laser.
video.google.com...

You see how the dot of the laser is really bright, but the beam is really faint? Well, if this was shot in the daylight you wouldn't see the beam at all, you would only see the dot at the end.

But the example above is with a 100% dedicated night vision. The camera that shot the video in my O.P. is only maybe 5% night vision mixed with real visible light.

Take for instance this picture of a XBOX 360 infrared remote.


Human eyes wouldn't see the infrared light, but the camera can. Its the same concept as the 911 video, except the camera was detecting a different wavelength then a common infrared LED.



[edit on 25-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
If the 'laser' was tracking the plane's right wingtip, wouldn't it be going in the other direction? I mean, as the passenger jet approaches the WTC (from right to left in relation to the 'white jet,') wouldn't the beam be going from right to left as well?

According to this video at 1:24 minutes in:


The path of the jet was almost exactly the same as the path of the laser dot. Except of course the helicopter image is at a higher altitude so the path of the jet would seem more of an angle, because of the perspective. Also, the helicopter image is facing the direction I believe the laser came from.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Furthermore, if it really is a targeting laser, I would think it would aim at the desired impact point and stay there; we certainly have the technology to stabilize a laser targeting device from a moving plane.

Maybe the impact point was the jet itself? Maybe the laser was targeting the jet the entire time, and not the building?


Also, with that video, there is another fast moving white aircraft in the far background...



Even the news anchor said, "You know we just saw a plane circling the building", in that video.

It may even be possible that the laser came from a boat on the water.


[edit on 25-8-2007 by 11 11]

There is a huge difference between infrared night vision, and thermal imaging.


You see, night vision goggles will amplify infrared wavelength light's in true images. A thermal imaging device is like a render of infrared heat, and not a true image.

Look at this night vision example, with a infrared laser.
video.google.com...

You see how the dot of the laser is really bright, but the beam is really faint? Well, if this was shot in the daylight you wouldn't see the beam at all, you would only see the dot at the end.

But the example above is with a 100% dedicated night vision. The camera that shot the video in my O.P. is only maybe 5% night vision mixed with real visible light.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by 11 11]

I have yet to see a camcorder with this function, can you show me one? I have seen many night vision mods, but none that operate like you speak of. The consumer camcorders with night vision mode I have seen only have 'on' and 'off,' and on gives a green tint. I own a Canon GL2 and XL1, and neither have any function that could blend 5% night vision.

Regarding the laser following the jet, I thought the point of the Smoking Gun was that the white jet fired a Tesla based beam into the WTC to soften the steel. I maintain that if the laser was following the passenger jet into the building, the path would be in the opposite direction: right to left as the plane hit the building if the beam was fired from what you maintain is the ABL.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
I have yet to see a camcorder with this function, can you show me one?

www.kaya-optics.com...

Switching to 'Nightshot mode' physically displaces the camcorder's internal glass filter called "IR Cut Filter (ICF)", which means that much more NIR light reaches the CCD. In-between the optical lens and the CCD, most camcorders have this special "ICF". It is there to compensate the colorings and the tones of the information reaching the CCD by blocking the NIR and ultraviolet rays. Since the CCD is originally more sensitive to NIR rather than the visible rays, as shown at the graph below, it would be impossible to create a natural image on the viewfinder or LCD screen for the human eye without this ICF. However, this ICF, which blocks off the NIR, is the biggest obstacle in seeing-through and night viewing.

If you notice the video with the laser, it has a very very slight green tint to it. It is possible that the normal ICF was swaped with a less powerful ICF.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Regarding the laser following the jet, I thought the point of the Smoking Gun was that the white jet fired a Tesla based beam into the WTC to soften the steel. I maintain that if the laser was following the passenger jet into the building, the path would be in the opposite direction: right to left as the plane hit the building if the beam was fired from what you maintain is the ABL.

When I present a theory, it is not a "set-in-stone" theory, it is just one of many possible scenarios that we can conclude from the video that has the laser light spot on it. The theory is subject to change, yet it will still keep its main evidence (the video) as the basis of the theory.

The plane hit the building during a left hand turn. It approached the WTC from left to right, and at the last minute banked left, to hit the building. The entire time the jet was flying from left to right, yet it was banked to the left before it hit the building.

The laser on the WTC is almost the exact flight path of the jet.

reply to post by 11 11


Ok, my question is in regards to this picture that you posted on page 3 of this thread. You say that the bright spot could be when the "laser" fired at the building. My question, which was very complete, by the way, was: how can this be possibly coming from the airplane that's circling above the target aircraft, when we can obviously see that the flash occurs below the "target" aircraft's nose?

If you notice, the entire underside of the airplane is illuminated. Whether this is from the sun, or from some other source remains to be seen. One thing that I'm certain of though, is that this is no laser being emitted from the airplane above it. Now, I'm not discounting the possibility of a laser being used; I'm just concerned that we might be looking in the wrong place is all.

If what I've said/asked has offended in any way, I do apologize, as that was not my intention. I'm merely seeking the truth, as we all are. Any help would be appreciated.

TheBorg

11 11 wrote,

When a laser beam is flying through the air, it does not come in contact with anything solid. This means the beam itself is in another infrared range. Once the light beam hits the building, it reflects off, into a different range of infrared. That range is visible in the video.

What you are saying is that if the beam came into contact with something solid, it would be more visible which is correct.

The beam would have come into contact with dust particles and floating/falling debris so it would be visible, based on your own observations as quoted by you above.

Also,
If this were a tracking laser, "painting" a target, it would never leave the target so it would either be on the building or plane the entire time.

If it were painting the building to guide the plane, it would need to be "painted" on the building continuously.

I thought it was common knowledge here on ATS that your normal digital camera will pick up IR. This has been used to explain quite a lot in UFO threads. Infact this can be done yourself at home with your camera and your TV remote.

With the Laser Painter idea then i may be wrong but wasnt there a story out there of some Israeli guys setting up a camera system on a tripod somewhere facing the buildings priior to the attacks. Im sure i have read of this on ATS before but may be wrong. If true then i know from using Laser Painters myself in the Military that designating a spot on a target as big as the WTC would be very very easy from a considerable distance somewhere in the city

The thing that does puzzle me about this video is that the "Spot" is still visible when between the buildings like it is holding itself in mid air. This to me (unless proven otherwise) is impossible unless projected onto a blanket of smoke etc.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by thesaint]