9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

Originally posted by jfj123
I posted the 707 vs 767 specs and they are not similar. You are reading specs for a 707-120B and/or 707-320B.
I am referring to the 720 (707-020) which is the one the port authority is referring to.

The only reason port authority would talk about that version is because it is a smaller lighter version, they want the illusion of being correct. The fact is, I was reading the specs for the most popular model of the time.

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, the model you are talking about did not sell well.

This model had few sales

First flight was on 23 November 1959 and 64 of the original version were built.

Now this is when the WTC's were built.

Initial plans, made public in 1961

In 1970, construction was completed on One World Trade Center, with its first tenants moving into the building in December 1970. Tenants first moved into Two World Trade Center in January 1972.[13] When the World Trade Center twin towers were completed, the total costs to the Port Authority had reached $900 million.[14] The ribbon cutting ceremony was on April 4, 1973.

Since the boeing 707 is faster than the 767, then that would mean it would hit harder, making up for the small size difference.

Even then, I have video proof that the towers withstood the impact of the jets, so you have no argument. It is fact the towers did NOT fall because of the jets.

OK, here are some additional points I would like to make.

First, to help prove my point that if the light was a targeting laser, it wouldn't be as large as 12 ft in diameter

Here is a video of a targeting laser and laser guided bomb impacting a target. Notice how the laser dot isn't even close to 12 ft in diameter?
www.youtube.com...

Now typically in these bombing runs, F-117's are used for high value enemy targets and hard targets where precision is essential. F-117s drop drop laser guided ordinance at approx. 25,000 ft which is approx. 1/2 mile up.



They drop bombs as high as possible to minimize enemy ground fire.

Now the interesting part of the quote is that it is capable of hitting a one square meter target at a height of approx. 1/2 mile. That being the case, the size of the laser is essential. If it were 12 ft. or even close to 12 ft., it couldn't hit a target less then that. Now that being said, one can easily assume that all military targeting lasers would need a precise beam for the same or similar reasons.

Again, my point is that precision is king with any targeting system. The military designs these systems to be as accurate as possible. Thats the only way you can get a laser guided bomb to fall within a meter of the target.

Yes we're going over the same points because it's necessary to get my point across.

Here's another thought. Although I don't believe it was a targeting laser, lets just say for sake of argument it is. The people here that do believe it is are assuming it's proof of the government blowing up the building.
So, here's another thought. Could this "targeting laser" be an attempt to destroy the plane before it hit the building to save the building? Even if you think it is a targeting laser, you still don't know what the intent was, right????

Originally posted by 11 11
You are correct I did speculate that the camera had a green tint, and that was a sign that more IR light is being let in. Not that it has "IR assist", just the simple fact that more IR light is reaching the image sensor.

Well, if that speculation is true, then the greener that the film is, the more IR should be getting through, correct? If that's so, then why does the film clip I've provided not show an IR light as it should, if your previous assumptions are to be believed?

I'm sorry if I'm missing things in what's being typed, but I am reading all of the replies. Feel free to point out anything that refutes my greenly-tinted film clip in comparison to your's.

Regards,
TheBorg

Originally posted by 11 11
Even then, I have video proof that the towers withstood the impact of the jets, so you have no argument. It is fact the towers did NOT fall because of the jets.

No. It is a theory, by your own admission that the South Tower was targeted by an IR laser from some as yet undefined location. There was no mention, until now, that the North Tower had any laser assisted crash. If you would be so kind, could you show us a clip of the North Tower being targeted by a "laser"? That would greatly help your argument.

TheBorg

reply to post by TheBorg



TheBorg, sorry for the wait. Upon further review of the video provided I have come to the conclusion that the recording you see has been altered.

Look at the screen captures I have taken during the exact moment you can see the mistake in the video's source.









As you can see the picture gets perfectly clear for a split second, then goes back, then during the jets appearance if flashes clear again, then back. It is some sort of analog flaw, and not an IR light source.

reply to post by TheBorg

Originally posted by 11 11
Even then, I have video proof that the towers withstood the impact of the jets, so you have no argument. It is fact the towers did NOT fall because of the jets.

When I said the quote above, I was talking about the pure basics of 9/11. It is fact that the towards remained standing after the jet impacts. This means, the towers withstood the impact of the jet. According to the "official" theory, fire finished the building off. If that was true, then that would mean the towers would still be standing today if the fire had been put out.

That means the jet alone, did not cause the collapse of the towers, including wtc 7.



[edit on 5-9-2007 by 11 11]

(Quote Removed)

Try learning to research and finding the answer to this following question...


What is the "dot" in this picture?



...Once you get done saying its "debris" or a "bird" I will debunk that theory and we will come back to this same spot we are now...



Mod Edit: Removed Quote



[edit on 5-9-2007 by chissler]

Originally posted by OutoftheSky

all apologies. I got a little heated about the thread.

I made up the who ABL laser thing to irritate disnformationalists only having them use it against truth seekers.

But atleast the general population gets to learn that the u.s and israel share war technology and that most of it is made in israel.


Israel having laser and magnetic weaponary should not be considered a theory but fact.

Last year when israel lost its offensive against the innocent people of lebanon, killing more that 1000 civilians, israel accused the Lebonese of firing katyusha rockets. If that was true the israelies had the technology to stop thos missiles easily, but they didnt, so therefore they allowed it or atleast fired them themselves.

Since the boeing 707 is faster than the 767, then that would mean it would hit harder, making up for the small size difference.

This statement shows a complete lack of of understanding of both the towers and aviation.

First of all, the towers were designed to take a hit from an approaching 707 low on fuel and 'lost in the fog'. You know how fast a 707 approach speed is? Around 130 knots depending on weight, which is a true farcry from a heavier 767 full of fuel going at almost 500 knots. That (the 767) is over four times the force.

Even if it were designed to take a hit from a 707 going at 250 knots (the speed limit under 10000 feet for ATC safety) which is not likely since airliners don't usually fly at 250 knots 1500 feet high. A heavier 767 going at almost 500 knots is atleast nearly twice the force. And two, that article you linked us to was complete BS.

The article:
First of all, cruise speed means nothing to how hard an airplane can hit a building when the plane's decending with its engines going flat out. Infact, it hit at almost 500 knots, far greater than its structural 'speed limit' of 350 knots down low at sealevel, this shows that 'max speeds and cruise speeds' mean little. Are they saying that terrorists really care about operational '(safety) limits'?

Considering that the website states:

• T/W ratio is the all and be all about speed
  
• the engines of the 767 generate little over half the thrust they actually do
  
• and that the 707 approach speed is faster than a 767s from thrust to weight ratio
  

Tells me that that website obviously has an agenda and wants to bend anyone who reads it to there agenda. Nearly all of that article is one big lie and the only thing they did get right was the weights for the aircraft.
___

Second of all, since when do lasers make orbs? Go get a laser pointer and see if it makes orbs.

___

The ABL was completed in 2002 and if you want to debate that then you'll need to substanciate evidence to prove otherwise. Until then, the burden of proof is on you.

I do beleive that something was up with 9/11, but creating retarded arguements about orb lasers, planes which didn't exist in 2001 (and then trying to back it up by asking 'You know the capablities of a classified system?') is not the way to go about researching 9/11 as all it does it takes people AWAY from the truth.

Thanks.

[edit on 5/9/2007 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
This statement shows a complete lack of of understanding of both the towers and aviation.

This statement above shows your lack of understanding about EVERYTHING that has to do with 911.

Originally posted by C0bzz
First of all, the towers were designed to take a hit from an approaching 707 low on fuel and 'lost in the fog'.

See this is lie number 1 that you believed from your failing theory. It is FACT that the WTC's were designed to have a fully loaded Boeing 707 crash into it. You see, I have proof, you don't.

Google Video Link

Your "low on fuel", "lost in fog", "on approach" BULL CRAP is just a lie, and you don't have proof to back it up.

Originally posted by C0bzz
You know how fast a 707 approach speed is? Around 130 knots depending on weight, which is a true farcry from a heavier 767 full of fuel going at almost 500 knots. That (the 767) is over four times the force.

Yes 130 knots, that has nothing to do with anything. Why on Earth would they only design a building to get hit by a "slow" Boeing 707? What happens if it just happen to be flying faster? Where is the logic in that? There isn't because its a lie. The WTC were designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. Do you know how fast a fully loaded 707 has to fly to stay in the air??

You also state the 767 was full of fuel???? This totally tells me you know NOTHING. It is a FACT the jets that hit the WTC's were only carrying 10,000 lbs of jet fuel. That is LESS THAN HALF EMPTY, meaning it was lighter in weight.


That all is besided the point anyway because THAT FACT STILL STANDS THAT THE WTC'S SURVIVED THE IMPACTS OF THE JETS. Remember they stood standing for about an hour after impacts.

Originally posted by C0bzz
Second of all, since when do lasers make orbs? Go get a laser pointer and see if it makes orbs.

Only straw men with ZERO arguments debate semantics. Get real, I am talking about a "laser dot" that you see in the video, you want to ignore that FACT too?

I suggest you read the entire thread, and figure out what this object in the video is, until then, I will ignore everything you say as I have already heard your regurgitated pile of lies called the "official" theory.

Originally posted by C0bzz
The ABL was completed in 2002 and if you want to debate that then you'll need to substanciate evidence to prove otherwise. Until then, the burden of proof is on you.

This shows that you did not read the thread, and I will ignore you until you do.

The fact still stands, there is a laser in this video. I don't care if its and ABL or a Laser Designator, there is a laser in exactly the spot the jet hits the towers...

Google Video Link

If you can't debunk the video above, don't even bother posting about the theory.

You can't debunk a theory without looking at the evidence, only blind lemmings do that.




[edit on 5-9-2007 by 11 11]

Jack Tripper was one of if not The first to put forth the "laser dot" theory here on ATS. It didn't stand up then and it certainly hasn't changed much since. That which has been claimed as such is nothing more than falling debris, doesn't follow Any straight line, and in fact contiues to fall well after the plane had struck the building. Those who wish to hold on to said theory are more than welcome to, in my opinion. Though, that doesn't change that it is Not a constant "light" being cast to "guide" the plane to it's ultimate destination. Actually, if you look at the original hi-res version of those videos, it is clearly obvious that it is falling haphazardly, twisting and turning, reflecting sunlight at times and not at others, well past the point of impact and can be followed nearly all the way to the ground.

I have a hard drive here somewhere with something like 40-50 Gb of the original archived footage, before it was initially pulled from the .org servers. I'll have to pull that clip and post it here. No. It won't be a YouTube or Google vid as their compression rates turn decent video into crap. I'll put the clip in DivX format to retain as much quality as possible. Check back later today.



[edit: to add - "the"]

[edit on 5-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by 12m8keall2c



I have a strong feeling you are wrong. For 1, the "debris" come from behind the WTC, and magicaly travel 1000's of feet to be shown on top of another building.

It is not opinion but fact that this is not possible by something "falling".

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
That which has been claimed as such is nothing more than falling debris, doesn't follow Any straight line, and in fact contiues to fall well after the plane had struck the building.

Doesn't follow any straight line?!?!?!?!?!?!



I find it mind boggling an administrator would ignore simple facts..

Your "image" doesn't show where it started from nor where it ended up. It's true start to finish path is far from a straight line ...

I'm still looking for the .avi and will post the clip once it's done.

[edit: to add]

Originally posted by 11 11
I find it mind boggling an administrator would ignore simple facts..

I'm not an administrator, and please don't be boggled with misinterpretations regarding facts and opinions.

 

[edit on 5-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by jfj123
OK, here are some additional points I would like to make.

First, to help prove my point that if the light was a targeting laser, it wouldn't be as large as 12 ft in diameter

Here is a video of a targeting laser and laser guided bomb impacting a target. Notice how the laser dot isn't even close to 12 ft in diameter?
www.youtube.com...

This will be the last time I address the "12 ft" remarks you make, as I have addressed this MULTIPLE TIMES, and I don't like to repeat myself.

Listen, the laser being "12ft" is an ILLUSION. What appears to be "12ft" is the REFLECTION SPECKLE from the laser. The video you show is of a laser guided Hellfire missile, from the Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) camera mounted on the nose of the missile. In the video, the camera is getting closer and closer to the laser dot. Unlike the 911 video where the camera is at a fixed distance miles away from WTC.

Look at the following images:




As you can see when the FLIR camera was further away from the laser, the "reflection of the laser dot" appeared to be bigger, almost the size of the window's. As the camera got closer, the laser dot got smaller and small in size.

This happens, because the the reflection speckle is expanding at a different divergence rate, and the further you are from it, the more it expands and appears bigger.

Look at this Laser safety sign:



You see the red dot with the red lines coming out? Well the solid red dot in the middle is the "laser dot" and the lines coming out are the "light rays" or the "reflection speckle" that make the laser dot appear larger.

Read this entire web page:
www.repairfaq.org...

Specifically the "Speckle, Coherence, Stability, Polarization, Noise" part.

It explains how "speckle reflections" are undesirable, and even in applications where a laser is to be focused, we still see the speckle reflection.

Note that the effect exists equally strongly whether you are focused on the surface or not. Where the laser spot is large compared to the speckle pattern, the direction and speed of movement of the pattern will be affected by whether you are focused in front (opposite direction, nearsighted) or behind (same direction, farsighted). However, if you are far enough away to not resolve structure inside the spot, you get one big speckle which will get brighter or darker without appearing to move.

For those applications where the laser's bright light and its ability to be sharply focused or easily collimated are important but coherence is irrelevant, speckle is an undesirable side effect to be avoided.

As you can see, the further you are away from the laser dot reflection, the larger the "speckle" will appear to be, which makes the "laser dot" appear larger.

While the "reflection speckle" appears 12ft, the laser itself is smaller. I am 100% positive if the camera on 911 was closer, the "reflection speckle" would be smaller than 12ft.

Originally posted by jfj123
Again, my point is that precision is king with any targeting system. The military designs these systems to be as accurate as possible. Thats the only way you can get a laser guided bomb to fall within a meter of the target.

They can have the sharpest most focused beam in the world, and no matter what, once that beam hits a wall the reflection will appear larger than the beam itself.

Simple FACTS.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Your "image" doesn't show where it started from nor where it ended up. It's true start to finish path is far from a straight line ...

I HIGHLY suggest you watch the video again. My illustration shows the EXACT path of the "object", from Start or Finish.

You see:



..the image above was created by me using special "superimposition" methods. I assure you that path of the "object" was an incredible one that can only be caused by one thing. A LASER.

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 5-9-2007 by 11 11]

I forgot to mention this quote from the source:

www.repairfaq.org...

The existence of a noticeable speckle effect is one indication that the source is a true laser and not just a light bulb or LED.

I notice a "speckle effect" on the 911 video in my original post. When the "object" moves across the city block length of the WTC, the intensity changes constantly, yet always reflects. This is a pure sign of the "speckle effect" which can only be caused by a laser.

Originally posted by 11 11
[You see:

..the image above was created by me using special "superimposition" methods. I assure you that path of the "object" was an incredible one that can only be caused by one thing. A LASER.

If that be the case, then why don't we see it tracing across the facade (upper left to the lower right) in this video from a more head-on angle/vantage point?



In all honesty, if it be as you claim, a laser, wouldn't it appear even more prominently in the video above? ... from a more head-on angle/vantage point. (?)

Reflections vary. Light, on the other hand, (lasers, if you will) seems to be quite viewable from all angles, vantage points and or sides.

For that matter, lasers are typically invisible to the human eye. Do you honestly think that They would be so careless as to make it that obvious? ... from only one angle?

???

Why is that that particular "whatsit" is only seen in the Camera Planet footage? Could it be that it's simply falling debris from the first tower strike, and that the camera angle and position of the sun briefly and periodically illuminated said debris on it's way to the ground?

I'm still looking for the .avi, but, in the meantime, would you please consider the above, And find a video from another vantage point which shows the "laser" tracing across the facade prior to impact. (?)