That's debris not a laser, although it is a rather intriguing video and some what sereal with the paper and all.

Edit of an edit.

I do actually see a piece of paper or a similar item falling away in the same general direction after the explosion.

Thanks for sharing the video though, its good to ask questions.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by wiredamerican]

That isn't a laser, the thing flying is "fluttering" in the wind. Its debris. I actually have seen this video before, about a year ago, even though they are claiming "new footage" has surfaced.

The other important thing is that it definitely shows a plane flying into the building.

Originally posted by wiredamerican
Infrared light is visible on many video cameras. Example TV remote light is very visible on most video camera optics and recordings.

Infrared light is visible in an entirely pitch-black room. Infrared light is not visible from remotes in a room with light, not to mention broad daylight/sunlight.

Further, it's just a piece of paper fluttering in the air, likely carried to that location from the smoke cloud above. At :23 seconds, notice the thousands of pieces of paper being carried away from the WTC in the smoke cloud? Then at the end of the video, the people pick up the paper from the ground, carried miles away from the WTC by the smoke cloud.

This has been debunked for so many years. Not sure why people still claim it's a laser/IR unless they're trying to spread purposeful disinfo.

Also, Alex must be trying to get hits on his website again because that video isn't even close to being new.




[edit on 1-10-2009 by _BoneZ_]

The vid is not working for me, but at least one poster has seen it. Is there another link?

I didn't watch the video, it takes awhile on my connection to load videos.

But if it's the video I believe it is then I've seen it before.

I just wanted to respond to this by _BoneZ_....

"Infrared light is visible in an entirely pitch-black room. Infrared light is not visible from remotes in a room with light, not to mention broad daylight/sunlight."

That is wrong. You can see the IR emitted from a remote control in just about light, even sunlight. I can see the light emitted from my remote control on my camera phone in my brightly lit room with the flash pointed directly at the remote the light from the IR still shines through.

Try it.

Not saying whats in question in the video is a laser. Just clarifying that point.

EDIT: After posting I thought, are you saying that in a pitch black room you can see the IR with the naked eye? I don't believe that is so. But through a camera you can see it in just about any light condition.

[edit on 10/1/2009 by ThaLoccster]

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
EDIT: After posting I thought, are you saying that in a pitch black room you can see the IR with the naked eye? I don't believe that is so. But through a camera you can see it in just about any light condition.

In a pitch-black room, you can see the IR shining on a wall with a digital camera. You cannot see IR light shining on a wall in a lit room.

Again, watching the video would have given you more context. Move along. Nothing to see here...

I was once fooled by it until I saw the rest of the video with all the paper flying around and compared the two and it's paper, but that mean nothing.

And it's by no means "new"..

I have infact seen that video before.

"Infrared light is visible in an entirely pitch-black room. Infrared light is not visible from remotes in a room with light, not to mention broad daylight/sunlight."

The only context I can take from that is if you think they pointed an IR at the building with the same power as that of a remote control.

I apologize if I missed your point, should be more clear.

BUT

IF

That were infact an IR pointed at the building guiding the plane, I'm sure the possibility of that IR (considering the "target" would be "painted" from atleast a couple of hundred feet it would most likely be quite powerful) being visible on some cameras would be high.

That being said, if it were a laser or IR designator then it would be intermitten bursts of light, not a continous stream.

I was just trying to clarify a point that you left ambigous. Your dismissive tone does little for your argument.