9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

Screen shot of your smoking gun flying through the trees

reply to post by shots


It flies behind the tree's. Here is another video of it:




You are basing your belief on a camera illusion. Don't deny fact's the jets were there...

According to the video above, it actually was the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center above the Pentagon.

www.fas.org...

You can see the blue stripe and everything... but why was this jet in the air on 911? I know they had "Drills" on 911, but how is that not some type of evidence of an inside job? I mean what are the possibilities of 911 happening on the same day the US is running "doomsday" drills??


[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

In August 1994, the E-4B assumed an additional role. With the approval of JCS chairman, the E-4B will support the Federal Emergency Management Agency's request for assistance when a natural disaster, such as hurricane, typhoon or earthquake occurs. The E-4B would be tasked to fly the FEMA Emergency Response to the disaster site, and become the FEMA command and control center until the emergency team's own equipment and facilities can be set up. With E-4B support the emergency team's response is a matter of hours as opposed to days.

This is a link to globalsecurity.org that explains the E-4B mission and capabilities. It can be used as a command-and-control center by FEMA as well as the commander in chief and Joint Chiefs of Staff. Given its mission, I would hope to see it in the air during such a crisis.

bspiracy wrote,

How can you say not enough heat?

Like this, "Not enough heat". Please be more specific as to your question.

what is your knowledge of lasers?

Well, I have an electronics degree, an IQ of 154, I read both scientific and military newsletters, have specifically read about the ABL system and other military grade laser systems and have seen tests of them.

Have you seen the demonstration of our particle beam weapon that can knock out three mortars while all in the air at once? Meaning we have the guidance capability.

YES. We have had laser guided weaponry for quite some time. This is not new technology. It was used fairly successfully in the Golf War. The guidance system itself is not the impressive part. The impressive part is that the US has a laser strong enough to knock out missiles. There is a huge difference between even a large missile and a GIANT skyscraper in that a laser would need to heat up tons of steel framing to weaken a structure of that size. There is no laser on earth capable of this at the moment.

Have you heard of Tesla?

YES. Good band. Also interesting scientist.


Yes I've heard of him.

If so, did you know his documents and apparatuses were taken?

Be specific regarding which documents and apparatus'. Show proof.

did you know he gave his secrets to several countries?

Be specific, show proof.

It is possible, maybe not publicly possible but a laser doesn't have to be constructed like the ones you know about in common commercial areas.

I am not referring to commercial or industrial lasers. I'm specifically talking about the ABL and other "weapons grade" laser systems which consists of a high-energy, chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) either ground based or mounted on a modified 747-400F (freighter) aircraft to shoot down theater ballistic missiles in their boost phase.

I could go on but my point is hopefully made.

NOPE. I have no idea what your point is. Please tell me specifcally what you're referring to, including Nikoli Teslas experiments. Again, please show proof or state your are just theorizing.

Originally posted by jfj123
NOPE. I have no idea what your point is. Please tell me specifcally what you're referring to, including Nikoli Teslas experiments. Again, please show proof or state your are just theorizing.

If you did even remotely enough research, you would know that Nikola Tesla invented a "particle beam", that could "end all wars". Basically it could destroy anything in its path. He had a working model of it. Before he died though, he gave all the major countries in the world the blue prints for the "particle beam", but each country had a different part of the blue prints. Nikola Tesla said that all countries must come together as ONE, if they want build the weapon.

Obviously, USA had a great piece of the blue prints, because they have created the particle beam without the blue prints the other countries have.


I know a video is out that shows a particle beam weapon by the government destroy a complete concrete building with invisible force. Also a Navy SEAL claims to have used advanced weapons like this before to take down certain targets...

I will search for the video, I know it was a documentary about Nikola Tesla.

11 11 WROTE,




I would love to see any evidence of this. It sounds very interesting.

reply to post by jfj123


Try actually looking it up. Do I look like Google to you? It's a very well known thing that Nikola Tesla invented the "Death Ray". If you search "Nikola Tesla" in Google video, just watch them all. I'd rather keep this subject on topic, so it is up to you to go research. Or you can take my word for it, which is just as good as research.

Also research "The Department of Energy" and "DARPA" for "particle beam".


[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

actual it's a well known urban legend. You should do your research.

If you're going to make a claim like a death ray and particle beams exist. Put up or shut up.

If I said that pink space monkeys ate the WTC with their tentacles, I would expect someone to say, "PROVE IT".

So show me some proof of your death ray.

oh, by the way 11 11, I was trying to be nice about you presenting your idea as fact by again politely asking you to back up what you are saying. I assumed you would be an adult and not tell me to go look it up myself.

I didn't bring the information up, YOU DID.

reply to post by 11 11


No the plane flew in front of the trees the screen shot clearly shows you can see it was faked by someone, planes are not transparent or made of glass you cannot look through them DOH.

I believe but will not swear to it (when it comes to location but the rest is true/fact) one other video was also presented that claimed a UFO (Might have been France or Haiti) was seen where they used a trick and that trick is what got the video declared a hoax becase UFOs do not fly in front of building one minute and behind them the next.

Also your video has been removed due to terms of use violation no doubt someone complained about it being the porperty of others which would throw suspect on it.

[edit on 8/23/2007 by shots]

reply to post by jfj123


I guess you and I think differently. You see, I present information with some references so that you can get interested and research it yourself, so that you can come to your own conclusion.

I didn't expect to come here and spoon feed the conclusion to you with all the information that I have gathered in my mind over the years.

Anyway... Watch this video at 8:23



You will see video proof of a particle gun being tested by the government.

Originally posted by shots
reply to post by 11 11

 

No the plane flew in front of the trees the screen shot clearly shows you can see it was faked by someone, planes are not transparent or made of glass you cannot look through them DOH. BTW your video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

Wow, you are blind, it did not fly in front of the tree, wth are you talking about?


B.T.W. SOMETHING FISHY IS HAPPENING.

There is no violation. The videos that were posted, are posted by CAMERAPLANET.COM THEMSELVES.

They even tell you:

www.cameraplanet.com...

Among all the archives, Mr. Rosenbaum's video collection may be unique in that it can be sampled by anyone with access to the Web, at www.911archive.net/Google.

SOMEONE REPORTED THIS VIDEO TO GET IT SHUT DOWN, AND THE PERSON WHO DID IT IS IN THIS FORUM.

We have ourselves a GENUINE DISINFO AGENT HERE.

It's ok, there are 100000000000's of copys of the video. It's just a very pathetic move...

Originally posted by shots

Also your video has been removed due to terms of use violation no doubt someone complained about it being the porperty of others which would throw suspect on it.

[edit on 8/23/2007 by shots]

Nice edit. The only thing it "throws suspect" on, is the Government, YouTube, and You.

It's ok, there are more versions of it. Including my own copy of it.

In the mean time, here it is again:

Google Video Link

Nice try though you disinfo agents!!


-edit--

Admins, can you please edit this video above into the first post? I assure you this version is submited as a sample by CameraPlanet themselves.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

reply to post by 11 11


You are really streatching it now by accusing someone this forum of reporting the viedo. I hope you realize that, or do you have a crystal ball up your rear, wondering minds want to know

As for the plane, the picture I posted of the screen shot says it all by showing you can see through the plane and see trees behind the plane only to have the trees in the front of it in the next frame.

Originally posted by shots
You are really streatching it now by accusing someone this forum of reporting the viedo. I hope you realize that, or do you have a crystal ball up your rear, wondering minds want to know

I just find it odd that out of all the videos submitted into YouTube by CameraPlanet, the one I need is being taken down.

Originally posted by shots
As for the plane, the picture I posted of the screen shot says it all by showing you can see through the plane and see trees behind the plane only to have the trees in the front of it in the next frame.

Seriously, I think you need to see an eye doctor. I already explained to you that the JET is in focus, and the tree is not in focus. Thats why when the jet passes behind parts of the tree that are empty, you can see a perfectly clear jet, yet a blurry tree.

Please stop saying its a fake jet before you really really really embarrass yourself.

Originally posted by 11 11

Google Video Link

What exactly are is your point about the video? The grainy aircraft moving left to right after the jet hits the tower? How exactly does this support your smoking gun theory here? Some grainy object at a distance? That could be any aircraft, chopter etc? Recall if you may the FAA order to ground everything in the air had not taken effect yet.

Originally posted by 11 11


I just find it odd that out of all the videos submitted into YouTube by CameraPlanet, the one I need is being taken down.

The one you neeed? You just said there were several copies. What happened did someone appear out of nowhere and steal them?

Seriously, I think you need to see an eye doctor.

My eyes are just fine in fact I have brand new glasses less then a week old

Originally posted by FredT
What exactly are is your point about the video? The grainy aircraft moving left to right after the jet hits the tower? How exactly does this support your smoking gun theory here? Some grainy object at a distance? That could be any aircraft, chopter etc? Recall if you may the FAA order to ground everything in the air had not taken effect yet.

Try reading the first post, maybe that will help you.

If its not obvious in the first post then here:



This beam of light that is only visible in the infrared spectrum that is at the exact location of the jet when it impacts, is the reason the video is important.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by shots
The one you neeed? You just said there were several copies. What happened did someone appear out of nowhere and steal them?

Well, seeing as though I can no longer edit my first post, I really need that video to be available so people can read my first post. Does that make sense?


[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by 11 11
Your calculations are off...

Don't tell me to debunk some other part of your theory when you cannot even debunk mine. Where am I off? If I show that the power needs are too much to be put on a plane, your "evidence" about some light that seems to line up means nothing, because that light cannot be a laser. It's one thing to say that I am off, its completely different to say that I am wrong when you don't give any credence to what I have to say. I find it very disrespectful that are brash enough to say that I am wrong without giving ANY reason why I am wrong. I give hard concrete evidence that no laser could have been used, using scientific facts that are outside the realm of 911 conspiracies, and all you can say is that my calculations are wrong?

The approximations I used gave your theory the benefit of the doubt, and I STILL showed that you were wrong. Seriously, do you think that the siding of the WTC is .2 mm thick? But that is what I used, and it is still COMPLETELY out of the range of possibility to produce that kind of power, or even store that kind of power on an airliner. Get real.