Ok suppose a laser was used to guide this RC airplane into the WTC tower.

Why would they want to use a VISIBLE beam when an IR beam would have been a better choice..not only to prevent it from being seen, but an IR beam has a tighter beamwidth at a given focal length than a visible beam does.

Also, why doesnt the beam show itself in the smoke..as it should and does not????


Any visible laser beam, when passing thorugh smoke, will show the beam AND the spot the beam is focused on. In this video, the beam does not appear in the smoke at all, and the intensity of the beam spot is bright enough to see the beam through the smoke as well..yet we do not see that!!!



In my book...this is a fabrication.


Cheers!!!!

6 posts in a row matrix911? Talk about bumping your own thread.

This video has been debunked 5 years ago. It was proven to be part of the missile pod disinformation campaign.

The only thing this video is smoking gun is that the perps are employing websites and bloggers to derail and obsefucate any serious investigation in 911.


Btw, Hows jayhan doing these days?

Amalgam Virgo.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Ok suppose a laser was used to guide this RC airplane into the WTC tower.

Why would they want to use a VISIBLE beam when an IR beam would have been a better choice..not only to prevent it from being seen, but an IR beam has a tighter beamwidth at a given focal length than a visible beam does.

I can't answer that... however the fact it appears they did use it for whatever reason, doesn't disprove the theory or what is seen.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Also, why doesnt the beam show itself in the smoke..as it should and does not????
Any visible laser beam, when passing thorugh smoke, will show the beam AND the spot the beam is focused on. In this video, the beam does not appear in the smoke at all, and the intensity of the beam spot is bright enough to see the beam through the smoke as well..yet we do not see that!!!

Uhmmmm YES WE DO. The analysis clearly shows where the beam is seen IN THE SMOKE. Did you miss that portion of the analysis?

Originally posted by RFBurns
In my book...this is a fabrication.

and which fairy tale are you reading "this" week?

Originally posted by IvanZana
6 posts in a row matrix911? Talk about bumping your own thread.

What are you talking about? seriously... All my posts in this thread and for that matter elsewhere are mostly REPLIES and intelligent discourse.

So how exactly are replies equated with bumping in the way you're implying?

Originally posted by IvanZana
This video has been debunked 5 years ago. It was proven to be part of the missile pod disinformation campaign.

The only thing this video is smoking gun is that the perps are employing websites and bloggers to derail and obsefucate any serious investigation in 911.

First of all, I'd love to see the evidence you claim has debunked that video.
Second, Is there a problem with revisiting theories or evidence and claims which to me appears to lack any clear debunking?
Third, I've seen no recent threads discussing this on either side. So I'd like to see any updated theories or evidence confirming a debunking please.

Originally posted by IvanZana
Btw, Hows jayhan doing these days?

Who is jayhan? I have no idea what you're talking about or who you're talking about... care to elaborate? Or are we playing a new game?

[large quote removed]


As I stated,
"If thats the extent of your "argument", you either haven't done very much research, are a plant, are a victim of gov mind control, watch too much fox, msnbc, cbs, cnn etc, or are in denial."

If your comment is SINCERE, then one of the above is true... not to mention how much evidence is on this board alone that REFUTES your assertion in EXTREME DETAIL.

I'd be happy to point you to threads and FACTS i'm speaking of, but for some reason I detect almost TOO MUCH IGNORANCE and Naivity and do not want to waste my time debating with someone who is showing a lack of knowledge as to BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT, and possibly an inability to present or understand what an intelligent argument and supporting evidence in context means... a truly objective person on this board and who's interested in TRUTH should be in command or understand BOTH arguments... So far you're demonstrating you've done very little research on just basic evidence of CT's.

Your particular citation or mimic of the OS is almost too easy to address.

I may be wrong, but again, it appears you're either what ivanzana states you appear to be, or haven't done any real research. your comments are very elementary. If I'm wrong, please tell me or demonstrate some knowledge of the EVIDENCE CT'S present in support of their argument against you... OR ARE YOU SAYING YOU DON'T KNOW AND HAVEN'T SEEN IT??? its pretty basic TBH.


[edit on 24-11-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

Okay,,, in response to your comments ivanzana, I've read the entire thread you've pointed to as PROOF of "debunking" or reason to abandon this theory and thread and have decided to filter the bs and compile the primary arguments best i can with a response/comment to each line by line.

You're claiming that thread and many others have "debunked" the UAV/DRONE/LAZER PAINT theory, yet imo I've found no evidence whatsoever that conclusively debunks anything...

and lastly, what I'm also interested in seeing is YOUR ARGUMENT, logic and reasoning for why YOU believe this theory is bs. Please be sure to address the primary contentions and arguments in favor of
the theory showing exactly how and where its wrong with supporting evidence and a similar counter argument. That would include evidence refuting the articles and material about UAV's and Lazer targeting facts, technology etc.


So Again, below I'VE compiled a set of what i believe are the strongest arguments for and against the theory. In order to prove your CLAIM, i think its reasonable to request you address any and ALL your objections or arguments and provide FACTS or supporting evidence that disproves/debunks what i'm presenting and show exactly how each is factually false or illogical/unreasonable/nonsensical.

If theres anything I missed or failed to address, feel free to point it out since this REPLY is a bit unconventional
as to QUOTES and responding due to my compiling various responses from the old thread...sorry.

Oh and apparently i have to post this in parts as it is a bit long, but i think the format I'm using in this case answers your points in the best way i can. Hopefully this is all within the parameters of posting and i'm not making any serious violations.

PART 1
(hopefully this appears in a correct and understandable format)

--------------

Looks like a sun reflection off a shiny metal plane right before impact.

A) Thats merely an OPINION... which proves nor disproves anything. CONCLUSION: not a debunking

It's also not very on target since it's quite a bit above the impact. You could use the plane as a scale. That would make the "laser" like a few feet in size. Must be those new giant laser designators the NWO has been making.

A) merely an OPINION... which proves nor disproves anything. CONCLUSION: not a debunking

B) If the "plane" is being GUIDED remotely, a logical/reasonable possibility or conclusion one must consider
is the fact that the plane doesnt have to impact the LAZER SPOT itself... the lazer is
painting an approximate AREA of impact. and such plane of that size could never be expected
to make precision maneuvers to hit a PERFECT POINT in the way you imply.
C) As to the SIZE of the lazer spot, if its being PROJECTED from a UAV or ariel platform, the SIZE of the beam will OBVIOUSLY increase depending on DISTANCE of the original projection point.

Have you ever had a lazer? argon etc? LOL see what happens when you set mirror points!

so that argument proves or disproves nothing.

I wouldn't just point-blank say it's a laser target designator. There are three options that I can see, sorted from most likely to least likely, IMO.

1. It's a reflection in the WTC windows of the sun hitting the airplane.
2. It's fake.
3. It's a laser target designator.

I'm open to all three possibilities, but I see #1 as most likely.

my skepticism indicates it could be some sort of glare coming off the plane but i never seen a perfect circle glare before .. who knows?

merely an OPINION... which proves nor disproves anything. CONCLUSION: not a debunking

But personally, I think ZeddicusZulZorander makes a good point with the scale of the dot of light and the fact that it is not reflecting right at the impact point. Also, I'm not sure if laser target designators create a visible dot of light?

Point answered

Another point that at the very least "suggests" that it isn't a laser designator.
The spot looks white to me. There aren't any white light lasers, much less white light laser designators. There are probably red or green laser designators available, but I'm guessing that most are IR, which would not be visible to a camera.

merely an OPINION... which proves nor disproves anything. CONCLUSION: not a "debunking"

also it should read instead: There aren't any white light lasers, much less white light laser designators that WE KNOW OF. There may very well be UNKNOWN TECHNOLOGY.

One response states:
"I have used laser designators or laser painters whilst in the military. They are not your average day laser pen and are accurate and powerful.

A designator can be visible if thats all its meant to do is "Designate" a position to a allied aircraft however IR painters/designators can be used to direct in weaponry.

Is this film taken with a digital camera. If so IR can be detected by digital camera as a bright white llight.

This is something you can try at home using your digital cam and the TV remote control"

but it appears that the right wing tip hits exactly on the dot of light.

PART 2 (comments/discussions/answers)

---------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by digitalassassin
It moves to the building to the right when the plane hits how could it be a reflection.

Excellent point! I hadn't noticed that before. It pans across the fireball and down onto the other building. Several of my previous points are moot. It is not coming from the aircraft itself.

Several people commented to me on AIM after I showed it to them that they thought it was a floating piece of paper or a bird, but after watching it several dozen more times, I'm even more convinced it's not. And here's why:

1. If you watch it when it passes over the fireball and the second building, you can see that it's changing depth. Light does this as it moves over objects that have rapid changes in the z-axis.

2. It's moving in a very consistant and nearly straight line. A bird would fly around more and not move so flawlessly, in my opinion. And a floating piece of paper would be caught by the wind, drifting around in different directions, I think.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
You all make good points, but it is none of the above. Watch it again. It is not a reflection, it the the light from the wing of the plane. Watch closely and you will see it blink just like airplane lights do.

huh? Lol

Actually, watch it again. It's not anything from the airplane itself, because it continues to pan across the fireball and lower building after the aircraft has impacted the tower. The aircraft cannot be creating a small point of light to be bouncing off objects after it has been destroyed already.

WHY NOT?

It does look like a bird at first, but it could be the reflection of the planes wings.

After the explosion it appears to be fluttering and looks like all the other pieces of debris falling down.

Now, if it was a laser designator, then why does it move?

The plane isnt moving along with it so what would be the point of having one?

Why would they wait until the last minute like that? Why would it move at all?

If it is a laser, why didn't they just turn it off once the target was hit?

ALL ADDRESSED...

and doesn't appear this person has done very much research as most points are answered.

I think that it makes more sense to say its the planes reflection or a bird at first. After the explosion it looks like debris, unfortunately the quality of the video leaves it open to interpretation.

merely an OPINION... which proves nor disproves anything. CONCLUSION: not a "debunking"

I don't agree that it makes sense to say it's two different things when it is clearly moving in the same exact direction before and after the impact. And watch it when it moves onto the lower building. It is clearly distorting as it moves across the face of the building.

i don't think it's any targeting light, or it would have showed up on ALL the pictures and videos of the tower. 'tis either faked or a bird, imo.

Not true if one considers there's evidence of FAKERY where such TL's would be edited out/covered Not to mention as stated previously about KNOWN TECHNOLOGY vs UNKNOWN

So again merely an OPINION... which proves nor disproves anything. CONCLUSION: not a "debunking"

Not that I think its a laser but, IR lasers of high enough power will seem white to video cameras that have cheapo IR blockers or none at all.

If any one wants to test that, point a TV remote at a web cam or any other CCD camera from a foot or more, away from the lens and press some buttons. It will be either light blue or white. I think its paper. Then again we could say those figures we saw in the explosion after people got some "stills", could have meant it was all the work of the devil.

no comment

PART 3

-----------------------------

That video is an interesting find. It doesn't offer any clues as to what the object is, but it would definitely suggest that it's not a point of light.

merely an OPINION and speculation... which proves nor disproves anything. CONCLUSION: not a "debunking"

As for timing between the two clips being the same time period, they're both beginning just before the point of second impact... so that would indicate to me that they are at the same time.

The film Loose Change makes reference to this white dot and shows it from multiple angles ruling out a reflection or a reflected piece of garbage in my opinion. Not only that but in the Naudet film, especially the DVD version where it's clearer, the white flash appears just before the first plane hits too so that can't be ignored either.

THAT COMMENT WAS TALKING ABOUT THE FLASH FROM THE PLANES NOT TARGETING LAZERS. SO points MOOT.

Come one, nobody uses visual lasers for this stuff you use lasers in the I.R range which is invisible to the naked eye.

Its absurb that you would use a visual laser for this

answered as well as ignores previous replies with counter evidence.

but merely an OPINION and speculation contradicting lazer targeting data or point about unknown tech ... which again proves nor disproves anything. CONCLUSION: opinions, not "debunking"

It's a bird. There are quite a few dotted around in the various videos. It doesn't disappear altogether but it is more difficult to see when it is between buildings. It seems to be flying more or less perpendicular to the lower building on the right, although it appears to come from across the face of the impacted tower, due to the 2D/3D effect. The flickering effect was the wings beating.

merely an OPINION... which proves nor disproves anything. CONCLUSION: not a "debunking"

Even though it chokes me to say it, and I think someone else has already mentioned it, video cameras pick up IR a treat, if someone shone a bright IR laser on the building then the camcorder would pick it up as a bright spot. You can see for yourself using an IR laser if you have one, or simply a TV remote.

For the record though, I definately do not think it was a laser spot, it really looks like a bird or something.

merely an OPINION based on speculation... which proves nor disproves anything. CONCLUSION: not a "debunking"

Wheres the BEEF?

Some points to adress here.

1) If the "laser" was coming from the plane, it would hit where the "laser" is on the tower.

WHICH PLANE IS BEING REFERENCED? POSTER FAILS TO CONSIDER OTHER ALTERNATE POINTS OF ORIGIN

2) Why would you then make sure that the "laser" is visible for everyone to see?

ADDRESSED

3) Why is the "laser" not seen in any of the other clips?

ADDRESSED

4) If you want something for the plane to aim for, I think the tower itself might be easier.

I think this is the sun glinting off some paper or debris as people have suggested.

merely an OPINION... which proves nor disproves anything. CONCLUSION: not a "debunking"

Can anyone verify IF the kind of lasers used for painting military targets are VISIBLE, even on reflection, to the human eye or cameras?

Because I had allways thought that they were invisible to the eye and cameras, or else the people being painted with it would be able to see it and, well, move.

I have used laser designators or laser painters whilst in the military. They are not your average day laser pen and are accurate and powerful.

A designator can be visible if thats all its meant to do is "Designate" a position to a allied aircraft however IR painters/designators can be used to direct in weaponry.

Ya know I got a better idea...

This debate has gone on for many years and will keep going on.

Someone needs to build an exact miniature replica of one of the twin towers while your at it make 2.

Then calculate the equivalent of an airplane explosion on that scale, make a miniature bomb out of jet fuel and place it on each corresponding floor then video tape it and set them off to see what happens.

Whether they collapse on themselves or not we can argue for the next 10 years how inaccurate the test was or wasn't.

Chances are the person who makes it will not have the heart to destroy it so add another 10 years of convincing them to do so.

Oh don't forget we need every piece of furniture, phone, and miniature staples all in the exact setting, we also need full miniature electrical and plumbing in the building.

On second thought lets just do the third building light it on fire and see if it falls

had 2 more important parts... but i guess thats more than enough for now... hope i didn't violate any TOP/ROP's. if i did i suppose it'll be deleted. LOL

however i think you get my point. I just wanted to include most of the arguments that seem to address the UAV/ laser issue since i'm sure many may not have seen past threads on this.

In conclusion, those posts and that thread doesn't remotely "debunk" the theory or offer conclusive evidence of debunking as you claim. Many offer alot of valid evidence and theories in support of the theory all the way up to the end of the thread.

Originally posted by Darthorious
Ya know I got a better idea...

This debate has gone on for many years and will keep going on.

Someone needs to build an exact miniature replica of one of the twin towers while your at it make 2.

Then calculate the equivalent of an airplane explosion on that scale, make a miniature bomb out of jet fuel and place it on each corresponding floor then video tape it and set them off to see what happens.

Whether they collapse on themselves or not we can argue for the next 10 years how inaccurate the test was or wasn't.

Chances are the person who makes it will not have the heart to destroy it so add another 10 years of convincing them to do so.

Oh don't forget we need every piece of furniture, phone, and miniature staples all in the exact setting, we also need full miniature electrical and plumbing in the building.

On second thought lets just do the third building light it on fire and see if it falls

This is basically what the perps have going for them and probably counted on... the conspiracy is so HUGE and complex, most don't have the time or patience or knowledge to be bothered with such an indepth investigation it takes to understand the scope and context... If one took the time to do a FULL investigation as CIT and some do, I believe most would agree and understand its far from a THEORY and the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt it was an inside job.


But i agree it would be nice to replicate many of the events.... for one i'd love to see footage of a building the size of the wtcs and see how much debris would be left in CD. Or recreation of a boeing flying into a building ie pentagon and see if the damage and maneuvers are possible... which we know AREN'T.... but that would wake up alot more people since its one thing to read all the data, and another to SEE it.

pt 5 final
-----------------------

Im not saying I believe the laser theory. But for the sake of argument if it were true then it would imply the plane was not being flown by pilots in the cockpit but by a remote guidance system and the laser was needed to direct it to the target.

Very interesting footage. First time I have seen it. For the most part, I feel that it is some type of debris from the other tower, however, I find it 'interesting' how the 'dot' appears to begin at the very left edge.

Lest we not forget a ufo/ plane is/are seen flying by in an area that would be a correct area of positioning to have projected a beam.

Anything in the South Tower or second hit video is suspect and
considered doctored.

Since the referenced flights were never scheduled or had pasengers
the planes were unmanned, the Arabs were never seen in the airport
security cameras and no boarding list of true origin ever existed.

Only the first hit film is considered true and is argued about as to size
of the plane. Both hits bring out large fireball at entrance and some
flames out a side. The second hit film is backward physics, and impossible
according to some analysts. Great care was taken to show how the
first plane entered as a debunk of the small plane issue but then it
totally makes the second hit look like a fraudulent TV effect.

So thats what this laser thing is all about, the planes must have been
remote controlled and one Air Force Officer on satellite company
stock board once said it may become possible at some time.

Was it on the original and forgot to take it out. Now it turns into a
gigantic piece of paper. The plane isn't even there, off to the right
there is a plane in position to a shoot napalm missile into the side
that explodes with the fire ball.

So in two fights no one died, the PA crash has no plane parts,
the forth referenced flight that day may have been give as incorrect
as well and another crash plane used. This is just from people looking
into flight records and not accepting what TV stations say.

But video cameras DO detect infrared, and it shows up white on the recording (just try pointing you're TV remote at your camcorder and press a button to see it for yourself).

I do believe that it is an infrared laser - but not a targeting laser. Airliners are equipped with Low-Level Windshear Alert Systems (LLWAS), to warn pilots of dangerous downbursts on the glideslope. These systems measure diffraction of a laser beam, most likely in the infrared spectrum. I think it's likely that the system automatically activated due to the low altitude, projecting a laser dot onto the side of the building.

Looking at the video, to me it does not look like a reflection, and it definitely doesn't look like a piece of debris. If you look at all the other footage of the event, all the other debris is being blown around and rotating at inconsistent angles due to the wind. This moves is a uniform direction from right to left, at a constant downward angle, at a consistent speed and keeps a consistent brightness.

Scale.

Meaning, if that's a laser designator.....that's one GIGANTIC beam. Can you imiagine the size of the device it would take to make a beam that appears to be about 20 feet in diameter (at least)?

Also, why would 'they' need a laser designator? For what purpose? If you were trying to pull off a massive conspiracy, wouldn't it be in your best interest to make the plan as uncomplicated as possible? A laser designator would require an operator(s). One that can project a 20 foot diameter beam probably needs a crew and a large structure to house and operate it.

EXACTLY.........lol