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 - IS BULL- I made it up 4yrs ago.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
3-4 years ago....

9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun theory is bull# because i made it up as a tactic to irritate and also prove a point how ridiculous stupid fringe conspiracies are designed to mislead and irritate the public.

Here is the post from 2004
www.letsrollforums.com...



I posted this nonesense as a theory as to why the WTC collapsed and to also sidetrack the ridiculous theory of the Pod.
So i guess you can say I was the originator of the Particle beam weapon theory and also the video was originally used by Letstroll911 to prove that it was a targeting laser held by some guy on the woolworths tower to guide the plane into the wtc ( i know fk'n stupid, welcome to the dumb world of disinformation)

So from the creator of the particle beam weapons and now this stupid Airbornlaser, I will tell you, its junk. These disinfo-jerks are running out of things. Ha.

As you can see in this link www.letsrollforums.com... the very people pushing these ridiculous theories already debunked themsleves.


[edit on 23-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]




posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Well you're probably going to be banned (if you care) for posting a known hoax. you could've worded it differently.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
It is an amazing thing, to see a member step up and admit one has done such a thing. Yet many other members, continue to carry on with their stories to the end.

Examples are such as, UFOs and alien encounters, yet no proof, no one camera shot or unblurred picture. Yet none of them are punished as hoaxers, and they continue on.

It takes more to admit a wrong or ill deed, than it does to hide behind the act.

Too bad it had to go this way though.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I think what you did proves a very valid point. I was going to do the same a year ago. Not with the ABL idea but along the Titor sillyness.


PEOPLE OF THE WORLD. PLEASE LEARN TO BE MORE ANALYTICAL AND REASONABLE. USE YOUR POWER OF LOGIC AND REASON BEFORE DRINKING THE KOOL-AID!



Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 23-8-2007 by elevatedone]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
oh, i get it. if we don't toe the line and accept the official story (which is utterly laughable when you use logic and analytical thinking, as you propose), then you're a kool-aid drinker.
the official story does NOT HOLD WATER.
there is absolutely NO WAY for an unskilled, amateur pilot to strike the pentagon the way they did.
here's a small piece to think about:
a passenger jet creates a horrific, turbulent wake when it is landing. if you were on the tarmac and the plane passed 15 or so feet over your head, you would be tossed about like a rag doll. and this would occur AFTER the plane had decelerated for landing. now imagine that same plane passing overhead doing 400-500 mph (as in the official story). of course the turbulence and wake would be greatly increased.
now juxtapose that image with some of the "official facts:"
when this object knocked down light-posts on its approach, what happened to the light-posts? did they get tossed around in this increased wake? oddly enough, they DID NOT. they simply fell over, to be found later next to their sheared-off bases.
and consider the testimony offered by rumsfeld (i believe it was rumsfeld) that one of his staff was no more than 10 feet away from this huge jet engine on the plane as it plunged into the building. does it seem logical or likely that he would have survived this event, as opposed to being another casualty of that horrible day, sucked into the maelstrom in this jets wake.
odd, don't you think?
WAKE UP!!! disregard the stories. forget about what you've been told and look at the evidence. this is one SMALL impossibility out of MANY. how would you reconcile these FACTS (and that's what they are) with the official story and what happened that day?



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Yet many other members, continue to carry on with their stories to the end.

Examples are such as, UFOs and alien encounters, yet no proof, no one camera shot or unblurred picture. Yet none of them are punished as hoaxers, and they continue on.


Say what? A lack of evidence doesn't automatically make something a hoax, although that is seemingly the logic utilized by several of the members here...

[edit on 23/8/07 by Pelagoshin]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
so you put flashes in the clip? or you just made up the theory, there is a big difference here?



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by teresius
oh, i get it. if we don't toe the line and accept the official story (which is utterly laughable when you use logic and analytical thinking, as you propose), then you're a kool-aid drinker.
the official story does NOT HOLD WATER.
there is absolutely NO WAY for an unskilled, amateur pilot to strike the pentagon the way they did.
here's a small piece to think about:
a passenger jet creates a horrific, turbulent wake when it is landing. if you were on the tarmac and the plane passed 15 or so feet over your head, you would be tossed about like a rag doll. and this would occur AFTER the plane had decelerated for landing. now imagine that same plane passing overhead doing 400-500 mph (as in the official story). of course the turbulence and wake would be greatly increased.

Do a search for Maho Beach.

www.rtl.nl...


and consider the testimony offered by rumsfeld (i believe it was rumsfeld) that one of his staff was no more than 10 feet away from this huge jet engine on the plane as it plunged into the building. does it seem logical or likely that he would have survived this event, as opposed to being another casualty of that horrible day, sucked into the maelstrom in this jets wake.
odd, don't you think?

Please, show me this testimony.

As for the opening post, I understand what your intention was.

You would think people would look at all the available evidence, then form a conclusion from that evidence. A majority of "9/11 Truthers" or whatever you want to call them, do it the other way around. They have the conclusion that the government was behind these attacks, then they go about bending and cherry picking evidence to support their predetermined conclusion. This is why there are so many conflicting and ridiculous theories floating around.

No other conclusion is acceptable other than the government being behind it.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
3-4 years ago....

9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun theory is bull# because i made it up as a tactic to irritate and also prove a point how ridiculous stupid fringe conspiracies are designed to mislead and irritate the public.

Here is the post from 2004
www.letsrollforums.com...


Not to sound too dense, but I guess youare also 11:11 then or this is a remarkable coincidence, right? I was at Letsroll around that time and recall the Woolworth's thing. Damnit, man, you and your joke. We had it cornered with the pods! Von kleist hd it and was amping it up, even Loose Change included them at first, and you had to go and confuse things by seeing the pod on top. Now we are screwed.

Kidding of course.
I thought that thread seemed extra dumb. This explains it. Good one.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
3-4 years ago....


I posted this nonesense as a theory as to why the WTC collapsed and to also sidetrack the ridiculous theory of the Pod.
So i guess you can say I was the originator of the Particle beam weapon theory and also the video was originally used by Letstroll911 to prove that it was a targeting laser held by some guy on the woolworths tower to guide the plane into the wtc

[edit on 23-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]


Even though you came clean (4 years later) you are completely contradicting yourself. You made it get back at those "dis-info" jerks but for 4 years YOU were a "dis-info jerk". I do not think you should be commended at all. You are the type of person who is ruining the valid theories concerning 9/11. You did it for 4 years and now you are coming out... lets all applause "you got us, good one!". You should be banned for making up lies and hoaxing. I am completely surprised that people here are not upset with you at all.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I wasnt spreading disinfo, I just saw that the whole pod thing was bull and i posted that it could be anything, including the ABL.

I only posted to get the shills to respond and identify themselves.

The sick and funny part is that they are using that bs story i made up as an actual theory.

Youl'l see that next. ABL ABL ABL BEAM WEAPONS PODS PODS MISSILES BLA BLA.

Quite obvious having CT-goofs point you at flight 175 saying there were missiles or no planes is just taking the attention away from WTC7 and the fact there was no plane at shanksville and that possibly a bomb, or missile was used.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hikix
Well you're probably going to be banned (if you care) for posting a known hoax. you could've worded it differently.


He posted it on another site, not ATS.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Speakeasy1981

Originally posted by teresius
oh, i get it. if we don't toe the line and accept the official story (which is utterly laughable when you use logic and analytical thinking, as you propose), then you're a kool-aid drinker.
the official story does NOT HOLD WATER.
there is absolutely NO WAY for an unskilled, amateur pilot to strike the pentagon the way they did.
here's a small piece to think about:
a passenger jet creates a horrific, turbulent wake when it is landing. if you were on the tarmac and the plane passed 15 or so feet over your head, you would be tossed about like a rag doll. and this would occur AFTER the plane had decelerated for landing. now imagine that same plane passing overhead doing 400-500 mph (as in the official story). of course the turbulence and wake would be greatly increased.

Do a search for Maho Beach.

www.rtl.nl...


and consider the testimony offered by rumsfeld (i believe it was rumsfeld) that one of his staff was no more than 10 feet away from this huge jet engine on the plane as it plunged into the building. does it seem logical or likely that he would have survived this event, as opposed to being another casualty of that horrible day, sucked into the maelstrom in this jets wake.
odd, don't you think?

Please, show me this testimony.

As for the opening post, I understand what your intention was.

You would think people would look at all the available evidence, then form a conclusion from that evidence. A majority of "9/11 Truthers" or whatever you want to call them, do it the other way around. They have the conclusion that the government was behind these attacks, then they go about bending and cherry picking evidence to support their predetermined conclusion. This is why there are so many conflicting and ridiculous theories floating around.

No other conclusion is acceptable other than the government being behind it.

the only thing that i'm saying is that the official story is CRAP! what that might mean is another discussion ENTIRELY!
as for your pictures, they kind of prove my point. the plane in the picture where everyone is making funny faces and their faces are distended from the air turbulence is at least 40 feet in the air and going slow (FOR A LANDING, can't you grok this point? the pentagon plane was supposed to be flying between 400 and 500 mph!) and STILL they're getting handled by the wake of the plane. but the light-posts just dropped where they were knocked down.
and i was incorrect about the testimony given:
it was given by mr. lee evey. he's the defense contractor that was renovating the pentagon and had a press conference with terry mitchell. here's the quote:
EVEY: Actually, there's considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring. It's just not very visible. When you get up close -- actually, one of my people happened to be walking on this sidewalk and was right about here as the aircraft approached. It came in. It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in. He happened to hear this terrible noise behind him, looked back, and he actually -- he's a Vietnam veteran -- jumped prone onto the ground so the aircraft would not actually -- he thinks it (would have) hit him; it was that low.
you can read the whole report at
www.patriotresource.com...
while the actual flight path of the nist report differs GREATLY from the data gathered from the data flight path recorder, i would imagine even the cars on the road (was heavily congested traffic, according to the taxi driver that was hit by one of the falling poles) would have been buffeteted if it was low enough to hit the poles.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OutoftheSky
 


Accepting your claim, the question arises, why? Did you really put that together for disinfo purposes, or was it something you thought at the time was true, and later backed off of?

And why, if looking at your posting history shows that you believe in a CD of the WTC towers, did you purposely want to throw a wrench in the works? And further, that took some time to pull together, why all that effort for what you characterize as a cynical prank?

Anyway, thanks for coming clean, but lots left unsaid.

As for the idea itself, doubtless there are more sophisticated and less obtrusive guidance systems for airplanes than the ABL. A cruise missile can be programmed to fly thousands of miles into a bedroom window, after all.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join