Video: Laser-guided Uav(s) Hit Tower(s)?, thus the flash prior to impact, merged Options

[George Hayduke]

[dMz]

Wasn't that a visible whitish signature in that video?

Most of the current US military laser targeting devices use near infrared, which would have been more strategic for invisible targeting:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/an-tvq-2.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/lgb.htm

Here's the 1991 DoD Laser Designation Procedures manual from the link above:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jp3_09_1.pdf

No matter though: lasers exist in many frequency ranges- here's a [mostly] UltraViolet (UV) Nd:YAG industrial/military laser head that probably has an intense visible component depending what surface it reflects off (from my experience with YAG UV lasers before):

http://www.laserpathtech.com/OEMQswitchModule.htm

The laser technology is very real though, and existed for at least ten years pre-9/11 as I recall.

EDIT: Here's the links on the drone/remote/UAV part of that equation:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10671830

EDIT2: Technically, I've just proved this thread doesn't belong in Alt. Theories, but... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

EDIT3: The Nd:YAG lasers apparently vary from IR through visible to UV depending on doping compounds, but "white" lasers don't make a lot of sense optically:
http://www.piacton.com/products/optics/ndy...cs/default.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nd:YAG_laser

EDIT4: OK, rewinding- if the original footage was taken with IR-capable equipment, here were the research notes from those early titles:
Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar-T lens
"Laser Evidence Video", Jennifer Spell in Brooklyn, NY

Reason for edit: Added links

[lunk]

Wasn't that a visible whitish signature in that video?

That was a near infrared laser,
not visible to human eyes,
but to normal electronic video cameras.

Take any remote and shine it into the lens of
a camera and push a button on that remote,
you can see the led light (and it's white!)
You can't see it with your eyes, only through
an (non-film) camera.

Whatever it was that hit the tower
was targeted there with a laser!

GH awesome find!

This is how they did it
and it's all captured on digital memory.

I guess power mad, greed ridden, hyper-intelligent psychopaths
can make mistakes too.


imo, lunk

(edit) added picture and a few words
(IMG:http://www.prc68.com/I/Images/Eye-Silicon.jpg)

dotted line: what the human eye sees
solid line: what a silicon photo cell sees

Digital cameras see more than the human eye.
A person looking at the building would not see the light,
but the digital video camera does!

This post has been edited by lunk: Sep 14 2008, 05:38 PM

[George Hayduke]

On both towers? Remember the flash is visible in the Naudet Bros. footage as well.



There's other anomalies in the footage. I'd say we're seing something hitting the bldgs that was indeed laser guided but maybe not a UAV or plane for that matter. ICBM with a video overlay? ICBM with a hologram over it? Dunno.

This post has been edited by George Hayduke: Sep 15 2008, 10:54 AM

[dMz]

I should have been more clear before. Do we have legally-binding traceability and specifications on that video and the camera equipment actually used?

I think lunk technically meant a silicon Charge Coupled Device (CCD):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device

http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/sDefin...i295633,00.html

Of course I'm personally nearing that "classified" "national security" neighborhood now, but feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. [I'm not really interested in moving to GITMO or Ft. Leavenworth KS (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ]

Also I believe that lunk's dotted spectrum for the human eye peaks somewhere in the yellow (kinda like our yellow sun strangely enough), but I don't recall the precise wavelength.

EDIT: One more question- why don't more WTC videos show the IR targeting dots? [Oh gawwwddd, here comes my "favorite" word "fakery." (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif) ]

[lunk]

One more question- why don't more WTC videos show the IR targeting dots?

The targeting laser might not have been visible in sunlight.

And some cameras, (probably the more expensive ones) may be better
at filtering out the IR spectrum.

[Omega892R09]

Whatever it was that hit the tower
was targeted there with a laser!

That has been my thought on this all along, that whatever hit the towers was guided remotely.

Now the designator would have to be on a tall building or airborne.

But I figure that this laser designation was in the final stages and that control for most of the flights, from wherever, was by somebody in a control position in WTC 7 and/or airborne.

WTC7 was also probably used for the base controlling the destruction of 1 and 2 and is why it had to be destructed before the end of the day. That is how RG knew what was coming, he was in the local command and control position.

I know I am stating the obvious here and appreciate all you people already figure this too.

[Omega892R09]

Also I believe that lunk's dotted spectrum for the human eye peaks somewhere in the yellow (kinda like our yellow sun strangely enough), but I don't recall the precise wavelength.

The spectral sensitivity distribution diagram that lunk posted is for a non-filtered CCD sensor, and as we see it is very sensitive at the red end of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. As that statement implies the CCD sensor in digital cameras is filtered to avoid such bias else images would have reds burned out – as could happen with a specialist Extended-Panchromatic film. Some of us are old enough to recall using both Panchromatic and Orthochromatic emulsion films, the latter not being at all sensitive to reds which reproduced as dark tones instead of the mid-tones of Panchromatic images and thus did not look natural.

This is not to say that infra-red would not register on a CCD device. Photographic sensors are now more often CMOS based devices but back in 2001 these were not so common.

As for the spectral sensitivity of the human eye, these may help:

http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/6d.html

and

http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/6d.html

[lunk]

If you look deep into the lens of your web cam,
you might see a hint of pink,
this is the ir filter on or behind the lens.
This is supposed to filter out the ir spectrum.
Some web cams have better filters than others.

Here is a way to turn your digital camera into an infrared one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMpgeFoYbBI

[dMz]

SWEET lunk!

I just took this with my old (though excellent) camera:

(IMG:http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1848/ir062af2.th.jpg)

Sincerely,

Dr. Lunkenstein's New Monster

ARRRRGGGHH!!! [Can't find the right monster smiley]

EDIT: No worky so good with autoflash BTW. Also, the flicker rate might take a few tries for pulsed IR (like this remote).

EDIT2: That's repeatability, by independent experiment, folks- Aristotle and I are now "down" with this IR laser WTC targeting business.

[Quest]

Could the "light" actually be a laser that was shown along with a CGI plane in order to bolster the "planes hit everywhere" meme? After all, regardless of what anyone thinks of this particualr video, many here and elsewhere question many of the videos and photos REGARDLESS of wether of not they think a plane hit. I think it's entirely possible, even likely, the "laser" serves the same purpose as Ruppert Mudoch's Lone Gunman opening episode pushing "radio controlled planes".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUKQz-xm0is

Rather neighborly of Murdoch to 'help' the truth movement, doncha think?

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by Quest: Sep 16 2008, 07:48 PM

[lunk]

Could the "light" actually be a laser that was shown along with a CGI plane in order to bolster the "planes hit everywhere" meme? After all, regardless of what anyone thinks of this particualr video, many here and elsewhere question many of the videos and photos REGARDLESS of wether of not they think a plane hit. I think it's entirely possible, even likely, the "laser" serves the same purpose as Ruppert Mudoch's Lone Gunman opening episode pushing "radio controlled planes".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUKQz-xm0is

Rather neighborly of Murdoch to 'help' the truth movement, doncha think?

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10750669

There is a difference between predictive programming and
how the attacks were carried out.
(different scenarios)
In the case of the predictive programming show, The Lone Gunman,
The airplane was remotely controlled to crash.

In the actual attack, an invisible laser targeted the airplane (whatever it was)
at the tower.

The targeting laser was probably beamed from a UAV, behind and above.
After targeting the tower, the UAV was seen in its' continued flight path, in the vid.

A rough estimate of the speed of the UAV going across the video screen, with the angle
of the IR laser, could give us an idea where that UAV was, at the time it targeted the building.

imo, lunk

[Quest]

I think you missed my point, Lunk. There are still those that believe Ruppert Murdoch gave them a "tip" as to the method used to create the gash and subsequent fire. Then there apparently are those that think the taker of the laser video gave us truthers a "gift". These gifts seemingly OPPOSE each other. Which gift is actual and which is BS? I see using something from Cameraplanet (who makes propaganda movies) and Ruppert Murdoch
(no explanation necessary)as like trying to chose between the false opposition, ie; Coke and Pepsi (probably owned by the same company) , democrats and repugs, or Bush and Kerry. Follow my drift? In reality, most likely, neither is the answer. More than likely, the video is a fake and another smaller type of plane hit or a missle hit - or no plane hit at all.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif)

This post has been edited by Quest: Sep 17 2008, 09:03 PM

[lunk]

I see, we are given 2 sides of the same hypothesis,
and we all follow somewhere between them.

I wonder though, would the public have gone along
with the OGT as well if there had never been a "Lone Gunman"
show.

I guess their answer would be,
the fiction gave the bad guys an idea,
and they carried it out.

TV is so corrupting.

imo, lunk

(edit) 1+1

This post has been edited by lunk: Sep 17 2008, 09:33 PM

[amazed!]

Fascinating stuff! I have long felt that laser targeting was involved, and this certainly explains the hard left turn right at the end.

I have a problem with the UAV part, or at least its flight path as shown in this video clip. He made it look like the thing went whizzing by at low altitude. I thought those things flew slowly at higher altitudes to give the camera operator and weapons guy a more stable platform and view?

[dMz]

[cough * cough * software algorithms * cough] (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

[lunk]

I seem to remember lots of UFO stories going around
after the towers collapsed,
also a tv commercial with a UFO, (predictive programming?)
from beforehand.

UFO cover stories to explain UAV(s),
just in case anyone happened to see one?

dot connector, lunk

[dMz]

For comparison, here is an IR laser-guided munition (around 0:50 in the video)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=erVVbNSM-j4&...feature=related

[lunk]

Follow the dot.

That video utterly depressed me, though.
I like fireworks, but not ones that hurt.

imo, lunk

[dMz]

For comparison, here is an IR laser-guided munition (around 0:50 in the video)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=erVVbNSM-j4&...feature=related

"We're sorry. This video is no longer available."- You Tube

EDIT: It looks like GH called this one long ago. An apparently very interesting old thread can be found around GH's post #20 at:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....t&p=7008535