9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

Originally posted by shots
No problem now thanks to this poster go to video 1 fast forward to 36 minutes into the clip (I do not want you to claim you see nothing the interview starts at about 37)

We've already been over this, I believe the History channel vid is bunk. I believe what you're telling me, I know what you're saying is on the vid. I already verified that the vid claims it was a C-130.
But I want proof, not some strangers word on a whitewash documentary.

That video is NOT proof. Do you get it now?


[edit on 28/8/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by 11 11
Razimus, prove to me that there were terrorists on the jets, on another thread. I dare you.

I double dare you Razimus!

The 'terrorists' weren't even on the flight lists!

# 8 people came forward in Egypt and Saudi Arabia after the incident claiming that the pictures and names listed were their own, but they were still alive and not aboard the planes.

The flight manifest lists released by United and American Airlines following the flights did not list all passengers (at least by the official count given), but those listed did not include any Arabic names or any of the suspect names.

A list obtained from by FOIA the Armed Forces Pathology Division of victims at the Pentagon site, still not matching total count of passengers (58 of 64) also lists no Arabic or suspect names.

Source

How can all these inconsistencies not make you question the official story? You are all too quick to believe what you're told by 'officials'.

Question everything!

Sry 11 11 don't mean to keep going off topic but I just can't let this stuff slip by without comment.

Originally posted by 11 11
It wouldn't be the first time you were wrong on this thread.

Look, I was trying to be nice and admit that I was wrong. Apparently, you feel it's more important to slam people verbally for admitting a fault than in actually backing up what you have to say with something more tangible than a fuzzy "laser dot". I find your attitude here obscenely rude and irritating. However, that's not going to keep me out of this little debate, because I want to know if you're right or not.

You may not believe this, but I'm on your side here. I have no doubts that 9/11 was an inside job. But that doesn't mean that I believe that it happened this way. You purport to know how it happened, yet when questioned on it, you get anal and abusive with your responses. Chill out a little bit and have some fun. RELAX.

The difference between you and I, is that I know how everything in this entire universe works.

No sir. The difference between you and I is that I'm not at all convinced that you know what you're talking about. You have made a couple good points here, but you're far too arrogant to be receptive to criticisms from others. I base this on the above statements made by YOU. You sir, are not in the possession of the detailed workings of the "entire universe". That by itself tells me more about your agenda here than anything else. You're too self-involved to see others' posts for what they are, which might explain why you seem to skip those posts that ask legitimate questions. Sounds to me like you're just afraid to admit that you're wrong. As you know however, I'm not.

I'm sick and tired of you close minded people telling me to be open-minded.

And I'm tired of arguing with people that aren't receptive to being wrong. If you aren't willing to admit that you COULD be wrong, and entertain other ideas posted here, than I recommend that this thread be closed due to a lack of cooperation on your part.

You aren't searching the truth, you are searching for something your brain can comprehend, which isn't much.

Again, I don't think this kind of talk is necessary. I'll consider the apology a given; you're forgiven. Please don't let this become a habit. I'm forgiving for a while, but please don't push the issue.

No one said anything about that, EVER. It's perfectly plausible all the aircraft in the air were normal aircraft. I still don't see your point, and you are making no sense what so ever. What does that have anything to do with the fact that you need to debunk each aircraft, and prove to me each one is NOT military.

My point here is not that I'd have to debunk every single aircraft in the air at the time. It's that the fact that a white plane was around the WTC on that morning wouldn't have been anything out of the ordinary, regardless of what kind of airplane it was. There are military bases in the area. Why would military aircraft flying in the area be out of the ordinary. I'm in the Southern Seattle area, and we have a LOT of military aircraft that do early morning sorties. Does this mean that they are testing lasers over my area? No, it simply means that they're practicing.

Now, before you say that this has no bearing at all on the point that you made, let me bring the point home. Whether any of the planes in the area that morning were military or NOT doesn't prove anything other than a military plane was in the area then. As for finding out which airplanes it could have been, there are only a limited number that it could be. The "laser" was only on one side of the towers. If we found a radar image from that exact moment, we could find all of the airplanes on that side that would be in range close enough to pull something like this off. That number would be less than 20. If any of those were shown to be military, then you might have something. BUT, and this is a big but, you have to show that the trajectory matches the "laser" point on the buildings as it passes, and then link it up with the plane.

Could it be done? Sure. Does anyone have enough free time to devote to something like this? Not I. The first course of action would be getting the radar image from that exact time. Good luck on that one.

I just merely linked the white jet that was flying over the Pentagon with it, as a CLUE, not as a FACT. The white jet in the laser video is just another CLUE, the white jet in the 3rd video is another CLUE. You must look at ALL THE CLUES.

This is not supposed to be a treasure hunt. You claimed to have undeniable proof that there was a military assist in the demolition of the WTC on 9/11, and laid out a rather hard-to-swallow hypothesis on it. How about we stop with the clues and the 20 questions, and get down to the actual FACTS of the case. For example, we need to validate what camera the actual video came from, as in make and model. That will help out in this discussion immensely.

In the end though, I'm stuck here, as many others are, scratching my head because most of it makes no sense at all. The likelihood that a Night Assist camera would be on and running at that moment is staggering. Most people would have been in too much of a hurry to get the video for history's sake to be worried about the IR feature. If they somehow managed to remember to alter the camera before the video was taken, I'd me inclined to ask who these people really are, and what their motives were for doing so. They would have had to have had an in-depth knowledge of what was about to happen before it did to have set that all up.

When the truth is, you are giving up. My theory is that a a laser came from a jet. Now that you know how many jets, and aircraft, were in the sky, you are getting SCARED. Run to mommy. FEAR is the main reason nobody wants to believe the government did 911.

That's not what your thread title suggests. Nor is it what you suggest in your opening post. You purport it to be FACT, when now you're saying it's an opinion. Well, which is it? Fact, or opinion? Have we began to doubt ourselves? As for the running to mommy part, shame shame. I figured that by now, we would have gotten past the insulting part. It's a shame that you keep doing that. It's ruining your credibility.

As I've stated before, I'm also of the same opinion that the government was in on 9/11, and I've even gone so far as to suggest on numerous occasions that they organized it. So why would my statements make you think that I don't want to believe that they did?

Not one person has ever researched my threads before they posted. ALL of the people just post from their uneducated mind, without first thinking.

Now you see, this is what's getting you into so many fights with the other members here. You presuppose that no one here is intelligent enough to come up with a coherent thought, and you even go on to say that you know everything in the universe. With arrogance that large, would you even be able to tell if someone's post was educated or not? We DO think. We just don't go around telling everyone else that they don't. Again, decorum is in order.

Remember, I'm on your side here. You may not want to believe that, but I can assure you that I am. Consider this the olive branch.

So you admit to the 1000000's of anomalous things with 911? I hope you would admit to the 100000000's of coincidences, and the 100's of classified video footage the government suppresses from us, and the 10000000000's of information they withhold. Oh there are a lot of things that should have instantly told people "inside job", but no, you people FEAR that.

Um, I've admitted to such sentiments several times here on ATS. When you get a chance, do a search for all of TheBorg's posts. Follow my statements throughout ATS' political section. You might be surprised. I've never said anything other than that I believe that the government was in on 9/11. However, I don't fear what I believe to be fact. It is what it is though; my opinion. I hold it as such, and I don't try to pick fights over it.

The other coincidences and anomalies are more important to me than this "laser" is though, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't find this as enticing as other pieces of evidence.

Again 11 11, I'm here if you need to chat. U2U if I can help at all.

TheBorg

11 11,
Another question I have is,
In a previous post, you mentioned the "tracking laser" is painting the plane in the video. Why would it do this?

Thanks.

I think what 11 11 was trying to say there was that the laser was painting a path for the plane to take to its destination. The laser's sole purpose would be for guiding the plane to the building. That is assuming, of course, that there was a laser there.

TheBorg

reply to post by ANOK


Of course their names wee not on the manifest.

I mean what do you think they are dumbies or down right stupid. They used fake names for some of the schools also so their names not being on the manifest means nothing.

Now if 11 11 will get to ansering some of the questions put to him from jfj123 regarding the cone shaped lasers etc but I doubt we will see any since I think he has about used up all the excuses there are

Originally posted by shots
Now if 11 11 will get to ansering some of the questions put to him from jfj123 regarding the cone shaped lasers etc but I doubt we will see any since I think he has about used up all the excuses there are

Yes I have to agree with you here SHots. Where are those answers or are we going to get another list of homework from 11 11 to help us understand the grand vision here?

Here is the definition of a laser. This definition contradicts the laser expansion at distance theory.

LASER
(Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation) A device that creates a uniform and coherent light that is very different from an ordinary light bulb. Many lasers deliver light in an almost-perfectly parallel beam (collimated) that is very pure, approaching a single wavelength. Laser light can be focused down to a tiny spot as small as a single wavelength.

Now here are my key points against the "1 story" tall laser dot.
1. Many lasers deliver light in an almost-perfectly parallel beam.
2. Laser light can be focused down to a tiny spot as small as a single wavelength.

a parallel beam would not expand.
The light can be focused to a TINY SPOT. If it can be focused to a smaller spot, why wouldn't they opt for that as a TINY SPOT would be much harder to spot.

Also,
I still disagree that it would be theoretically even necessary to "paint" a target as this is not needed for Predator Drones and they are able to fly ANYWHERE they want through remote control. The predator drone is a perfect example of why early 1990's technology (ie painting a target) is no longer needed for something like this.
To back up this further, the US government has publicly announced that the F-22 Raptor will be the last generation of manned aircraft. They didn't make this announcement without the ability to carry it out.

So just to be clear, my point is a laser would not be necessary and an extra step that could cause problems THEORETICALLY.

Here's some more information about remote piloting which again would not need a laser to paint a target. This is just an example of how it could have been done.



Here's the full story link
www.usatoday.com...

reply to post by jfj123


Before 11 11 comes on, I'd like to add that he is right that lasers do disperse over an area. There's even an equation for it provided here.

The example we will use is that of a 10mW (Io) He-Ne laser operating at a
wavelength (lambda) of 633nm and having an wo of 0.50mm. We will compute
the value of the intensity (I) of the beam at 100m.(L)
w(L) = Theta * L = lambda * L / (pi * wo) = 40mm
A = pi * w(L)^2 = 0.0051 m^2
I = Io / A = 1.96 W/m^2
In comparison, the intensity of Sunlight on the surface of the Earth is
about 1000 W/m^2.

So, as you can see, lasers DO disperse over an area over a given time. What would be required now would be to try to figure out how far that this supposed laser must have been away from the building to have been that large. If we can find this, then maybe we can locate the general area that the supposed laser was fired from.

Just some thoughts to ponder...

TheBorg

Please also keep in mind that Lasers can be focused to a fine point at distance. There is simply no need to make a 12 ft diameter laser beam when it can be focused.

Do you agree that a laser can be focused to a fine beam?

The example we will use is that of a 10mW (Io) He-Ne laser operating at a
wavelength (lambda) of 633nm and having an wo of 0.50mm. We will compute
the value of the intensity (I) of the beam at 100m.(L)
w(L) = Theta * L = lambda * L / (pi * wo) = 40mm
A = pi * w(L)^2 = 0.0051 m^2
I = Io / A = 1.96 W/m^2
In comparison, the intensity of Sunlight on the surface of the Earth is
about 1000 W/m^2.

I appreciate that you actually spent time looking up information. Thank you.

If you notice this particular equation utilized a 10 milli watt He-Ne laser.

The ABL tracking laser is described as follows

Notice the key points:
BASKETBALL-SIZED SPOT
HUNDREDS OF MILES AWAY.

Additional info:
Also, a reflective mirror was left on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions so a laser could be bounced off it for various experiments. Do you expect a dispersion the size of the moon based on the distance? The mirror element on the moon is small so if a laser at destination did disperse that much, the mirror would be useless but it's used to very accurately show distance between earth and moon and other experiments.

Originally posted by TheBorg
reply to post by jfj123

 

Before 11 11 comes on, I'd like to add that he is right that lasers do disperse over an area. There's even an equation for it provided here.

The example we will use is that of a 10mW (Io) He-Ne laser operating at a
wavelength (lambda) of 633nm and having an wo of 0.50mm. We will compute
the value of the intensity (I) of the beam at 100m.(L)
w(L) = Theta * L = lambda * L / (pi * wo) = 40mm
A = pi * w(L)^2 = 0.0051 m^2
I = Io / A = 1.96 W/m^2
In comparison, the intensity of Sunlight on the surface of the Earth is
about 1000 W/m^2.

So, as you can see, lasers DO disperse over an area over a given time. What would be required now would be to try to figure out how far that this supposed laser must have been away from the building to have been that large. If we can find this, then maybe we can locate the general area that the supposed laser was fired from.

Just some thoughts to ponder...

TheBorg

You're right, lasers eventually disperse slightly over time, however they can also be focused to a point. If someone was attempting to 'heat up the World Trade Center' (as silly as that sounds) like 11:11 suggests, they would want to focus the beam as tightly as possible on the target, much like starting a fire with a magnifying glass. After the focal point, the beam would again diffuse. As I said in my previous post, that 11:11 has yet to answer, this link describes the process.

How does the laser beam focus on the target?
The third laser that fires in the ABL engagement sequence, the Beacon Illuminator, bounces a
beam off the missile to measure the amount of atmospheric disturbance between the missile and
the aircraft. After the amount of disturbance has been determined, a deformable mirror, which
has a thin, flexible face, is used to correct for it. Small pistons, called actuators, behind the
mirror surface, warp or deform the mirror to pre­distort the high­energy laser beam. As a result,
when the high­energy laser beam is fired, its beam leaves the aircraft in a deformed state. But
the disturbances in the atmosphere act as a lens so the beam is re­focused by the time it gets to
the target. When the beam leaves the aircraft it is about five feet in diameter; by the time it
reaches the target, it is about the size of a basketball.

The size of a basketball...not quite the 12 foot dot we're seeing. But all this is really beside the point, because this camera is NOT PICKING UP INFRARED LIGHT. Absolutely nothing about the footage even closely resembles a 'night shot' or 'infrared' mode, and 11:11 has yet to provide ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER that this is what were seeing, or even a camera that has this option.

I am disgusted at the lack of respect for others. From the first page, the OP has questioned the intelligence and literacy of other members, made wild and baseless accusations, insulted, laughed at, and ignored valid questions, all while referring to his own theories as FACTS.

Lastly, 11:11 - Your statement: "The difference between you and I, is that I know how everything in this entire universe works," is one of the most foolish and arrogant things I have ever heard anyone say. Until you can adequately answer the questions posed by myself and others, I'm removing myself from this forum.

Thanks for the debate.




[edit on 28-8-2007 by InnocentBystander]

I tried to edit this into my last post, but screwed it up.

Thanks to Borg, jfj123 and Fred for some interesting reads. You guys remained cool and objective, and brought a lot of info to the table.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by InnocentBystander]

It's been a pleasure, and I hope that 11 11 doesn't give up on this. He may be onto something. He just needs to articulate his thoughts in a more respectful manner if he wants anyone to take him seriously. Don't let it ever be said that I don't give someone a chance.

TheBorg

Innocentbystander,
Thank you for the kind words. Sorry to see you go but I completely understand. I have noticed that this forum has become VERY quiet as of late. I assume we have determined the following:
NO LASER.
BIG PLANE MAKE BIG BOOM.

Here's another article clip from ABC News regarding pilotless aircraft.



Complete news story here:
www.abc.net.au...

Again my point is, no laser to "paint" a target is needed.

Originally posted by jfj123
Here is the definition of a laser. This definition contradicts the laser expansion at distance theory.

LASER
(Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation) A device that creates a uniform and coherent light that is very different from an ordinary light bulb. Many lasers deliver light in an almost-perfectly parallel beam (collimated) that is very pure, approaching a single wavelength. Laser light can be focused down to a tiny spot as small as a single wavelength.

LOL, wow, reading is not your best asset. Here let me point out what you missed. "almost-perfectly parallel beam". You want to know why it is NOT perfect? Because of the lenses used to create the beam. No matter what lens setup you use, you will ALWAYS have "focal length" issues.

en.wikipedia.org...



When you copy and paste something, read it first.

Originally posted by jfj123
Now here are my key points against the "1 story" tall laser dot.
1. Many lasers deliver light in an almost-perfectly parallel beam.
2. Laser light can be focused down to a tiny spot as small as a single wavelength.

1. Almost perfectly = not perfectly parallel beam.

2. Yes, laser lights CAN be focused down to a tiny spot as small as a single wavelength, because lasers have "photons" traveling in one direction like Direct Current. Flashlights however, are Alternating Current streams of "photons". If you used lenses to focus a laser, the "focal point" of the laser could be smaller than a flashlights "focal point" just because the laser "photons" are in a single file line.


No matter what though, you have to manipulate the glass lenses in order to get this tiny stream of light. Not only that but you have to know the distance you are away from the target to find that focal point. If you are to close, the laser will be bigger, if you are to far, the laser will also be bigger.

Here is an illustration I made so you don't have to read:

Originally posted by jfj123
a parallel beam would not expand.

You are right, a perfectly parallel beam would not expand. However, lasers don't make a perfectly parallel beam.

Originally posted by jfj123
The light can be focused to a TINY SPOT. If it can be focused to a smaller spot, why wouldn't they opt for that as a TINY SPOT would be much harder to spot.

Thats a good question, and I will tell you. The TRACKING LASER can be used to measure distance. How? Simply by determining the size of the laser when it hits an object. If you have a not perfectly parallel beam of laser, you can use that to your advantage to find the distance of an object with an equation. If for instance the TRACKING LASER made a "1 story tall" laser circle, you can use that measurement to find out how far or how close you are to the object the laser is hitting.

If the "focal point" made a laser dot that is known to be 1 inch in diameter, at 100 feet. Then what would that mean if the laser was 2 inches in diameter when it hits the object? That would probably mean the laser is 100 feet away from the focal point. Meaning you are 200 feet away from the object.

So you can see why you wouldn't want the tracking laser to be focused, it will help determine the distance of an object.

The weapon laser though, that's the one we DON'T see in the video. That is the one you would want to focus, depending on how close you are.

Originally posted by jfj123
Also,
I still disagree that it would be theoretically even necessary to "paint" a target as this is not needed for Predator Drones and they are able to fly ANYWHERE they want through remote control. The predator drone is a perfect example of why early 1990's technology (ie painting a target) is no longer needed for something like this.
To back up this further, the US government has publicly announced that the F-22 Raptor will be the last generation of manned aircraft. They didn't make this announcement without the ability to carry it out.

So just to be clear, my point is a laser would not be necessary and an extra step that could cause problems THEORETICALLY.

Oh yeah, they could have used remote piloting, but theoretically that is the biggest mistake anyone would make. Of course, when you remotely pilot an aircraft, you have multiple electronic signals traveling over the airways.

In order to fly the jet you need a video feed coming from the jet. This video feed can be picked up by ANYONE with the right equipment, especially the News Media equipment. Also, flight controls, and other signals are over the airways too, all of these could be detected and picked up by other sources on accident. Just like how Russia and other radio experts were able to listen in during the entire "moon landing" of NASA.

A laser guided jet though, all the risk you take is someone having the right camera in the right place. There is no electronic signals that could possibly be recorded. The jet sees the red dot, the jet flies to the red dot. The whole "you don't need to paint the target' is a moot point, because jet's don't fly the same as Hellfire missiles, they need to be guided differently, and the best bet would be manual laser designating, instead of automatic laser designating.

It is however still possible that the jet WAS remotely piloted, hence the reason the government lies to us about the "flight recorders" from the jets that hit the WTC's. That would mean the laser is something else, a new type of weapon perhaps.

All I know is, that video DOES have a laser in it.



[edit on 29-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by jfj123
The ABL tracking laser is described as follows

The ABL is the first airborne megawatt-class laser weapon system. The ABL is a specially configured 747-400F aircraft, designed to autonomously detect, track and destroy hostile ballistic missiles during the boost phase.
The high-power laser is coupled with a revolutionary optical system capable of focusing a basketball-sized spot of heat that can destroy a boosting missile from hundreds of miles away.
The laser and optical systems are controlled by a sophisticated computer system that can simultaneously track and prioritize potential targets.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Notice the key points:
BASKETBALL-SIZED SPOT
HUNDREDS OF MILES AWAY.

The problem once again, is that you don't read correctly. First you say "The ABL tracking laser is described as follows", then you proceed to tell use that the weapon lazer is basketball-sized.

Do you know the difference between the tracking laser and the weapon laser?? If it wasn't already obvious in my first post, I have claimed that the video of the "orb" is the tracking laser, and NOT the weapon laser.

So, you are either not reading things correctly, or purposely fogging information to make people believe you.

Originally posted by jfj123
Additional info:
Also, a reflective mirror was left on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions so a laser could be bounced off it for various experiments. Do you expect a dispersion the size of the moon based on the distance? The mirror element on the moon is small so if a laser at destination did disperse that much, the mirror would be useless but it's used to very accurately show distance between earth and moon and other experiments.

Once again, its all about how you focus the laser. Since NASA know's how far away the moon is, they can actually find the "focal point" of the laser and point it at the mirror. However, if they didn't know the distance, it would be really hard to focus the laser on that object.

Laser's do not travel in a perfect parallel line no matter what your imagination thinks.


Read this about the mirror on the moon:

sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Lunar ranging involves sending a laser beam through an optical telescope," Dickey said. "The beam enters the telescope where the eye piece would be, and the transmitted beam is expanded to become the diameter of the main mirror, then bounced off the surface toward the reflector on the Moon."

Wow, the laser expands. Go figure.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
You're right, lasers eventually disperse slightly over time, however they can also be focused to a point. If someone was attempting to 'heat up the World Trade Center' (as silly as that sounds) like 11:11 suggests, they would want to focus the beam as tightly as possible on the target, much like starting a fire with a magnifying glass. After the focal point, the beam would again diffuse. As I said in my previous post, that 11:11 has yet to answer, this link describes the process.

You see, I never once said the laser in the video was the weapon laser. The laser in the video is the tracking laser. You confusion is what messes up your reality.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
But all this is really beside the point, because this camera is NOT PICKING UP INFRARED LIGHT. Absolutely nothing about the footage even closely resembles a 'night shot' or 'infrared' mode, and 11:11 has yet to provide ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER that this is what were seeing, or even a camera that has this option.

Once again if you had read anything in this thread, you would know that you don't need "night shot" or "infrared mode" to see the infrared with a normal camera. Heck I even posted a link about "infrared" and it even shows a normal camera picking up infrared.

en.wikipedia.org...

Look at all the pictures on the page above and focus on this one:



Obviously there are ZERO signs of "infrared mode" or "night assist" on this camera, yet it can see the infrared light our eyes can not see.

So I have proof, without a doubt, that cameras can see infrared, modified or not.

If you had any clue about the difference between human eyes and mechanical cameras, you would know that our eyes can not see infrared. Camera's however can see ALL LIGHT, unless of course they have a strong ICF which TRIES to block infrared light from the camera.

Our eyes only see visible light, so there for our camera's only need to see visibile light for pictures to be created for human..

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Lastly, 11:11 - Your statement: "The difference between you and I, is that I know how everything in this entire universe works," is one of the most foolish and arrogant things I have ever heard anyone say.

That's because everyone is stuck in thinking the entire universe is so complex and mind boggling that we will never know everything about it. When in reality the whole entire universe is based on 1 easy concept that everyone already knows.

I can explain, with this 1 easy concept, everything in this entire universe, and how it works, and I will never be wrong. Try me.