Laser Targeting UAV, Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11 (original)

Back


Thanks for all of the comments and research assistance in the past several months since I first uploaded a raw version of this evidence. I hope this is presented in a way that creates more understanding in what occurred at the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Please rate, leave your comments and pass this on to everyone!

UPDATE:
Also now on Google Video:


Here is a very interesting link I found pertaining to remote control aircraft and military drones:


And:


**********************************
Added July 25, 2008 -Reply to FAQs:

The laser movement was one item that confused me for awhile as I do know that LDs are typically stationary. It wasn't until I found the UAV moving at high speeds that it made sense. Also finding the reflections from above (in the smoke) and on the FNM building exposed the angle and approach of the source (the airborne platform). Observing the flight path and timing of the UAV makes this more clear. Had the UAV been following (behind) the Boeing it (the Laser signature) would have been stationary.

Here is where I have to insert my own theory: the UAV was off of the intended flight path and approached from the SW instead of S as the Boeing traveled. It may have been late to the target and in order to catch up, it cut the angle and projected the laser just moments before impact. Also, this UAV drone likely equipped with a Williams Research turbine jet has a max speed of approx 250mph and the Boeing was traveling at least twice that fast. Because of the laser appearing on the building in the foreground (appears to be next to towers) I have estimated that the UAV must be at a much higher altitude and actually out over the bay at the time of the targeting operation.

As you can see in the video, the moment sensors on the Boeing pick up the laser, the remote controlled plane banks to port (left) and hits just below the laser. The plane appeared to be slightly off course as well. Had the laser been done correctly and timely, the plane would have had more time to correct and would have hit the target on center just like the N Tower job.

This would explain both the moving laser AND why the plane suddenly turned. Had a human pilot been on the plane, there would have been no way at those speeds to detect and correct an off-target approach. The maneuver was entirely mechanical.

You may find it interesting that I give credit to Killtown for helping me find the reflections of the laser. He did a "hit piece" video to show the reflection (paper) on the FNM building. Seeing this I postulated that there may be another reflection in the smoke and I knew where to look now (45 degrees up and to the left). I looked closely and viola! There it was! Perfect timing and brilliance. It all came together.
This confirmed for me at least that all of these associated pieces meant that the plane was real, remote controlled and laser guided.

Here is another FAQ "what happened to the passengers?"

Reposted here:

And here:

Video links:



More analysis of the "dot" by "ABC1416" here (thanks for the lead SpudXXXX!):


One other FAQ:
"why does the laser appear to 'go through' the tower? It couldn't possibly be a reflection!",
and response:
I made the same mistake at first!
You are seeing an optical 2D illusion that makes it appear to "go through" the building. First thing I had to do was to identify that green top building. I looked long and hard on Google Earth for that building and discovered the "Federal National Memorial Building". Turns out it is about six blocks away to the SE. You are actually seeing the reflection off the south side of the south tower to the west side of the FNMB. Most people confuse this building with the Woolworth Building, but upon closer inspection you can see the differences. That is why I point out the two in the video. Pay close attention to the annotations.

Explanation of Laser Designation:


***********************************
Northwoods Document:

"drone (unmanned)" on pg 8 (3/b). Page 9 section 6, "military drone aircraft" and "modifying an aircraft" to appear as a Cuban Mig. Page 10 section 8 describes how a "passenger" plane would be disguised and shot down with a fake passenger list.
Also on page 8, section 2/a/11 "mock victims". More about fake passengers...
*******************************

Please feel free to comment!
Peace
FL911

****************************

Channel: News & Politics
Uploaded: April 16, 2008 at 2:55 am
Author: Freedomlover911

Length: 00:08:31
Rating: 4.15
Views: 35593

Tags: 9/11 UAV Laser Military War Bush Cheney RNC September WTC Osama Obama Clinton Iraq Iran Afghanistan Terrorism Islam Air Force Navy Blackwater McCain TV Fakery Debunked Hologram Theory Muslim Christian Israel Religion Rapture 2012 Pisces Aquarius Pakistan Al Queda Democrat Republican 2008 Election Marines Combat Army Pentagon Rumsfeld Feith Commission Investigation Hydrogen HAARP Aliens Weather China Russia Europe Britain SSP Amero Alex Jones Loose Change UA175 93 11 77 Impeachment Hearings

Video Comments:
INSPECTOR19741 (October 12, 2008 at 9:29 pm)
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
TinaFeyForVP2008 (October 12, 2008 at 6:52 am)
It means that a beam must have reached the ground no farther from the bldg than the height that it hit the bldg.

So even if we're generous and say 800 ft up, a beam could not reach even the base of the FNMB bldg 1500 ft away (assuming, of course, it could have passed through the bldg to the SW face as we have already discussed).
TinaFeyForVP2008 (October 12, 2008 at 6:42 am)
Now, here's where the 45° IS important and also proves that the FNMB dot cannot be a reflection -

If the light beam is coming into the WTC at 45° to the ground, when it reflects it is still 45° (because the WTC face is a right angle to the ground).

So the light beam, WTC face and ground make a triangle with the beam as the "hypotenuse" and the face and ground as "opposite" and "adjacent" sides.

In a 45° angle, the opposite and adjacent side must be equal so what does this mean ???
TinaFeyForVP2008 (October 12, 2008 at 6:25 am)
In the video, the shaded SSW face of the WTC faces and is parallel to Liberty St. The shaded SW face of the FNMB faces and is parallel to Wall St. Liberty is 3 blocks BEHIND Wall St. If one was to draw a line along that SW face of FNMB toward WTC, it would not intersect Liberty St. until well west of the WTC (over Hudson).

Besides Google maps, there is a great satellite photo at -

3(w)s(dot)directionsmag(dot)com/gisresponse/images/maps/nyc/09_manhattan_before_psh(dot)jpg
TinaFeyForVP2008 (October 12, 2008 at 6:17 am)
So lets pretend the plane of the SW face of the FNMB is the ground and the windows are holes in the ground - if you stick your head up out the window and look up, the bldg face is your horizon.

Turning and looking NW you would not have seen any part of the WTC - its below your horizon (on the 'inside' side of the plane).

As a result there is no direct line of sight for a beam of light to reflect off the SSW face of WTC to hit the ouside of the SW face of FNMB. It would have to pass through
TinaFeyForVP2008 (October 12, 2008 at 6:05 am)
"not following you"

I'm answering your assertion -

"...the laser originates from a point above at an approximate 45 degree angle...making the reflection if only briefly possible."

This makes it sound like the light can somehow sneak over the top of the FNMB from behind, but -

The 45° angle is relative to the "horizontal" plane (the ground)so the totally different plane of which I speak is a vertical plane at a right angle to the ground (the SW face of the FNMB)
jackson32 (October 12, 2008 at 3:15 am)
This is another piece in a long line of evidence showing that 9/11 was an inside job.

I think this is real. The ONLY question is; has this footage been doctored. I don't think it has been.

It was always obvious to me that the planes were guided by remote control.

Folks, these people left a lot of evidence, much of it beyond dispute that this was an inside job. It was a Zionist job through and through. They are very vulnerable to any kind of a logical debate.
skeetrosauce (October 12, 2008 at 2:25 am)
Yeah I didnt follow that either.
TinaFeyForVP2008 (October 10, 2008 at 3:28 am)
P.S. If you would answer questions to the point they are trying to raise (i.e. locations and orientations of the bldgs in question) rather than injecting extraneous info (i.e. angle of beam relative to the ground - a totally different plane than the plane represented by the SW face of the FNMB). Maybe these other folks wouldn't question your credibility.

Remember, "sending a response" dosn't necessarily mean you're "answering the question".
Freedomlover911 (October 10, 2008 at 7:52 pm)
"a totally different plane than the plane represented by the SW face of the FNMB"

I'm not following you on that statement. Please explain.