9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

Originally posted by 11 11
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.

Ok 11 11, I'm going to be nice and give you the benefit of the doubt on missing my questions, as I know that you've been busy defending your views endlessly over these past few pages. I'll repost them in a minute.

Right now though, I'd like to make a point. When anyone comes here, regardless of who they are, and submits something such as this, we at least suspect that they did their homework, and have it readily available for if we ask. If they cannot provide said information, then it makes us all become suspect of the poster. If you can't give more than speculations to support this, then we're left to do nothing but to disagree. Please, don't take this as an insult, as I'm not trying to insult you at all. I'm merely trying to let you know how people perceive others' arguments.

Now, onto the questions, for the 2nd time:

How could the targeting laser be able to make contact with the plane in that position? It appears, even in the IR image, that the "contact" is occurring below the airplane, which would mean that the laser would have to be ground-based to make any kind of contact. Wouldn't that mean that the airplane flying above isn't carrying anything of value to this situation? All of the pictures here that are being discussed are being taken from below the aircraft, while the big white airplane is high above, looking down on the situation.

Do my eyes deceive me, or am I correct in assuming that the "laser" couldn't have been being shot from above the aircraft?

If you could answer these for me, I'd greatly appreciate it. Again, please understand that I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, even though I vehemently disagree with you. After all, the burden of proof is on you since you brought this forward as a possibility. I won't discount it as being possible at all, especially if you can give me some conclusive evidence to support it.

Now, I also want to mention that lasers CAN be redirected around buildings by mirrors. Remember also that NYC is nothing BUT buildings with, you guessed it, mirrors all around them in the form of shaded windows. These are the perfect mirrors, as they are very reflective, particularly from an angle. So, theoretically, it would be possible to shoot a ground-based laser from a secret location and hit the "mirrors", and get the right location. Just a suggestion though.

TheBorg

I actually got the video to play on my work comp...finally...and wow.

That was the strangest thing I've seen so far in terms of the more unusual elements in the videos of the attacks. It literally looked like a glowing orb or something that was right in the area the strike happened and it was not a fragment after the fact or didn't seem like floating trash (paper or bag) it looks eerily like the orbs I've seen in some UFO videos online.

Whether or not it's from some kind of laser tech I don't know but it certainly is a very bizarre piece to the 9-11 conspiracy puzzle.

I wonder why no one saw this before?

Keep it up, 11:11!

flagged...stars...

Originally posted by ag2000

Again, This is the first 9/11 related topic that I have ever found interesting enough to think about, let alone actually post my thoughts on. I don't have any idea what it is but think it is definitely worth trying to find out.



P.S.- thanks for the Condescending remarks.

Sorry didn't mean to be condescending, kinda close to home when you live in NYC saw the event happen, and had friends that died in the WTC, while other friends were in the air circling waitng to get cleared to land without knowing what was going on. I had a friend flying in from LA that day that was stuck in the air a bit. It gets frustrating to me that somone sees an obscure white object in a home made video and says "Thats the government plane with radar that helped blew up the buildings"

You see unlike most cities in the US NYC has ALOT of air traffic, not just the news helicopters, but also three major airports. Laguardia, JFK, and Newark. From the city you can see plnes flying holding patterns all day from most angles, and everymorning there are the news helicopters, and police copters. (Extra on 9/11). So to say an obscure movig white blip on a video that was taken before NYC airspace was cleared (that din't happen for an hour later) is illogical and borders on the obsurd. This is all from personal experience, living in NYC. No disrepect but there is no proof in this thread that the plane in the background of the WTC is a government plane.

Oh and a fact for you 11 11. Air traffic was normal in NYC the morning of 9/11. it wasn't untill after teh second plane hit the WTC that airtraffic was stopped (no planes taking off) and then it took aout an hour to an hour and a half after that to get all the planes in the NYC area safely on the ground.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Torlough]

what about this?

STEEL STRUCTURES turn into dust.

not controlled Demolition.

Micowave weapon.

The "turns to dust therefore isn't demolition" argument is getting old IMHO. The reason the dust is there is because the concrete was pulverized in the demolition. The dust hangs in the air as each tiny bit of dust isn't heavy enough to just drop like the large steel segments it is claimed it came from.

The steel drops because it is ##### darn heavy! The dust does not because it isn't dense enough. If you look carefully, it gets carried off in the wind and the draft caused by the larger parts of the collapsing building.

As for the steel itself apparently turning to dust, I guess you never get dust in your house then. The dust from the rest of the collapse has settled on the remaining structure, and when it collapses, leave the dust suspended in space for the reason above. There is no smoke and mirrors here folks - just the laws of physics.

No "super weapon" was used - it was demo charges plain and simple. There is plenty of footage of CDs on the 'net - go and watch them.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

hm,



drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/dustspire.gif

drjudywood.com...


drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/spire_1.mpg
drjudywood.com...


well, we must be carefully.
till last week I favored the CD theory, but if this is real, its the BETTER
, specific one.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by anti72]

[edit on 24-8-2007 by anti72]

[edit on 24-8-2007 by anti72]

Originally posted by 11 11
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?

No it does not make any sense at all considering what you stated earlier which was

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

Now you have you a reminder to jog your memory, kindly explain what happened to your copy or the rest for that matter, you are the one making the claim ther were more copies and wondering minds would like to know what your problem is.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by shots]

reply to post by Torlough

Sorry didn't mean to be condescending, kinda close to home when you live in NYC saw the event happen, and had friends that died in the WTC, while other friends were in the air circling waitng to get cleared to land without knowing what was going on.

No problem. Maybe it was just my perception. I am sorry you had to go through that day...

I visited NYC in '05 just before Christmas. My wife fell in love with that city and I have to say that I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. I live on 15 acres in Texas so I really didn't think I would like a huge place like NYC but it was a really enjoyable trip. I noticed the air traffic while I was there. So I get your point there.

My point all along is, while I don't think it was the ABL thing, I personally don't know what it is and would like to find out. Doesn't really matter to me one way or the other, just find it interesting.

Take care.

reply to post by shots


SHOT's the more you post, the more I am certain you are only here to be a straw man.

I have many legal copies of the video. The only reason I "needed" that video to be available was because it was the video used in my first post, which I couldn't edit. Now I don't need that video because an admin kindly put the new copy of the video in the first post.

Does that make your mouse run faster?

b.t.w. shots, thanks for reporting the legal video and getting it shut down because it doesn't match your belief system. Thanks for continuing your rant about the video as well, this only supports my theory that you are the one that reported the video, since you are so stuck on it still.



[edit on 24-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by anti72
no.

look at this one.

What in the world?

I've never seen that angle nor the structure that looks to evaporate. I am really surprised because from what I am seeing the structure literally turns into dust. That makes no sense...is there an explanation for this happening?

I'm not freaking out I'm just a bit confused.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by lee anoma]

Originally posted by 11 11
b.t.w. shots, thanks for reporting the legal video and getting it shut down because it doesn't match your belief system. Thanks for continuing your rant about the video as well, this only supports my theory that you are the one that reported the video, since you are so stuck on it still.

Let me get this right you are accusing me of shutting down or requesting that the video be shut down? I will await your publi appology to the whole board for your false claims. Thank you.



Typical of a new poster who makes claims only to get his theory shot down and then crys fowl without any proof. Why do I say that for certain you ask becasue I had nothing to do with it thats why.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by shots]

I've never seen that angle nor the structure that looks to evaporate. I am really surprised because from what I am seeing the structure literally turns into dust. That makes no sense...is there an explanation for this happening?

I've seen this collapse from multiple angles, and it is clear it is collapsing and the view is being obstructed by the dust, giving the illusion of it instantaneously turning to dust, when in fact it is not.

11 11,
I assume you have proof that SHOTSs had your video shut down. Otherwise that claim would be outrageous and insulting. Even slanderous. In my opinion, if you don't have proof that SHOTSs had the video shut down, you have lost all credibility you may have had.

I would like to see the proof regarding your allegations about SHOTS or
A PUBLIC APOLOGY on this thread so we can move on.

Am I right everyone?????

Originally posted by shots

Typical of a new poster who makes claims only to get his theory shot down and then crys fowl without any proof. Why do I say that for certain you ask becasue I had nothing to do with it thats why.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by shots]

Want to know what's more typical? A disinfo agent like yourself derailing my thread by continuing your rant about a video that was taken down for false reasons. Then, posting the post above.

I have video proof of a infrared light beam (laser) on buildings, yet the disinfo agent here is derailing my thread and claiming I have no evidence..

I will never apologize to a disinfo agent.

b.t.w how cleaver of you to register on 9/11.


who had the video shut down then? So far SHOTS was the only one that knew it was shut down, the only one that cared.



[edit on 24-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by lee anoma

I've never seen that angle nor the structure that looks to evaporate. I am really surprised because from what I am seeing the structure literally turns into dust. That makes no sense...is there an explanation for this happening?

I'm not freaking out I'm just a bit confused.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by lee anoma]

me,too... I just found that on the site:

drjudywood.com...

there are much more strange, jet unexplained details. there were over 1000 damaged (´toasted´)cars found , near and more far from WTC, literally toasted.what can cause that?

just look at that site.

then, we have to think what is possible with that theory?
I mean, is it perhaps a disInfo thing ?

Oh oh the POD people are at it again. Sigh



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
Oh oh the POD people are at it again. Sigh

If you can explain this infrared light beam on the buildings:



...then please do.

Or else, don't post one liners that do nothing but derail this thread even more than it already has been by SHOTS.

Anyone have any plausible explanations for this infrared beam? It seems to follow the exact flight path of the jet. Looking at other videos, you can see the jet comes from the left side of the WTC and hits the right side of the WTC. All in a downward movement, exactly like the light beam does on the building.

Originally posted by 11 11
Anyone have any plausible explanations for this infrared beam? It seems to follow the exact flight path of the jet. Looking at other videos, you can see the jet comes from the left side of the WTC and hits the right side of the WTC. All in a downward movement, exactly like the light beam does on the building.

I expect a beam not a dot. Wheres the rest? NVG can see infrared, and its like a laser beam. The camera should have done exactly that if it has infrared capability.

reply to post by deltaboy


Actually, the camera is not fully infrared, it is only infrared assist. This means you only see a certain small range of infrared light, and not ALL infrared light. When a laser beam is flying through the air, it does not come in contact with anything solid. This means the beam itself is in another infrared range. Once the light beam hits the building, it reflects off, into a different range of infrared. That range is visible in the video.

This is basically how CD players work. They shine a laser at a compact disk, and whatever reflects off the disk is the information from the CD.

Originally posted by 11 11
I will never apologize to a disinfo agent.

Well if that is the case then you are in violation of ATS Terms and service for knowlingly posting false information.

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Just for the record your theory has been questioned by more then just me in case you haven't noticed.