Laser Painting “UAV” Drone Attack on WTC 9/11 Evidence
February 23rd, 2010 | by admin |
NEW VIDEO!! Follow this link!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4BJ89Df5Q
See the “Targeting Laser” dot on the building as it tracks from left to right, continues across the fireball and extinguishes only after appearing on the building next to it. It is turned off when it reaches midpoint of building to the right. This targeting laser was one of the systems that was used to guide the large Boeing plane into the tower. The Boeing was not a real passenger plane with passengers aboard. It is more likely that it was remote controlled and full of explosives. The flash seen just before impact at the nose of the plane was likely some type of proximity device that initiated the explosives upon impact. Later in this video you will see a small jet powered aircraft that was likely used to project the “IR Beam” on the tower that the Boeing used as a homing signal to focus on the target (the South Tower) and make final approach adjustments. It is called a UAV (with laser designation). If you study this and other footage, you will notice that the plane appears to bank 16% port just as the IR Laser homing image appears on the tower. The timing is perfect.
Some have commented on the appearance of “flickering” of the laser image. This is part of the “coding” of the laser so that targeting sensors do not mistake some other image when seeking a target.
The “dot” is not paper or a reflection. This projection does not react to wind or the explosion… it continues undisturbed. Also, if it were a solid object or reflection, it would have appeared on numerous other videos. IR is invisible to human eye, but not to the camera that got the shot of the dot.
It must be noted that the small UAV in this footage is NOT a Global Hawk. It is something else, and I am doing further research (links posted below). *Camera Planet* footage. TURN UP THE VOLUME ON YOUR PC TO HEAR THE HIGH PITCH SOUND OF THE JET ENGINE OF THE 9/11 DRONE! If the audio is too low to hear the UAV jet, check my first upload as I really cranked the audio on that one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZD__qb2uHA
Follow up video/research links:
Download the entire video collection (watch time stamps to fast forward to clips):
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/plane_hits_south_tower.mov
If you have full version of “Quicktime” you can right click on link and download (save target as) video and watch it full screen.
Possible *first* shot of UAV after S. Tower attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG1aaMSjcRk
From the CameraPlanetArchive, same video w/full 3sec of audio of UAV jet engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88
Interesting UAV video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BM6Kq1uluY
Declassified UAV report 1996 describing targeting systems on Global Hawk:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB63/doc5.pdf
911 Commission / Richard Clarke testifies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmATDU5hLb8
Posted on Google, same high pitch jet sound (no visual) at 6:38
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4413646280299413123
And on YT (same time stamp 6:38)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYUgdkTJtDg
*********
“Weapon’s sensors, utilizing SAL to detect a coded laser spot which is created by a target designator illuminating the target. The laser spot clearly marks the target to an aerial attacker or guided weapon.”
“…UAV designation provide(s) effective support for laser targeting.”
http://www.defense-update.com/products/l/laser-guidance.htm
“Predators, equipped with electro-optical sensors and infrared video cameras, flew 50 targeting sorties in Kosovo, defense officials say. The UAVs also carried laser designators to illuminate targets for combat aircraft.”
http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&C=Feat&ARTICLE_ID=191669&KEYWORDS=UAV&p=32
“…after recent combat action in Ko-sovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, UAVs have come closer to proving their utility.”
“…DOD’s FY04 budget includes around $1 billion for all UAV spending…up from only $360 million in FY01…”
“As more UAVs gain laser designators…”
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=402
“…the USAF decided to develop a smaller “Tier 3-” UAV designated the “Darkstar”… powered by a Williams Research FJ-44-1A turbofan engine.” “…a redesigned Darkstar, now formally designated “RQ-3A”, flew in the early summer of 1998.”; length 15ft, wingspan 69ft, cruise speed 345mph
http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_13.html#m4
More research links for Laser Guidance Systems:
http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_12.html#m1
Watch the end of this video. The last part he points out is “another” piece of paper that looks like the laser dot. This is in fact a REFLECTION of the same laser dot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd_AUEldToU
More to come! I am updating this description with more links as I find them (time permitting for research!).
Duration : 0:6:56
25 Responses to “Laser Painting “UAV” Drone Attack on WTC 9/11 Evidence”
By chrophe on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
Then they must have …
Then they must have known about Al Qaedas plan well in advance and helped them on their way. l believe this sequence is an important find to prove some sort of foul play. No UAV. No advance notice..
By chrophe on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
How could the …
How could the military guide something amidst the situation when nobody knew nothing? By knowing well in advance about which flights would be hijacked so that they could prep the jets with a homing device that could override the manouvering and home in on the target guided by a laser. There is no other explanation for a UAV other than a military involvement.
By chrophe on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
If the laser was a …
If the laser was a backup scheme or part of a conspiracy, how could it be used? Commercial jets don´t have devices that home in on lasers onboard.That means the jets had to be fitted with a homing device previously in order to allow for them to home in on a laser. Lasers wouldn´t be used without the purpose of guiding something. In that case that is proof that the military was in on it.
By chrophe on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
They had time to …
They had time to scramble UAVs because they knew about it in advance. Why didn´t they shoot down the jets? They didn´t shoot down the jets because they wanted them to hit.They had anticipated the whole thing. They let it happen.What was the purpose of the laser? Perhaps to guide the jets as a backup scheme, guiding the planes the last few hundred meters in case the hijackers could miss?
By chrophe on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
You can see the …
You can see the outline of the object being consistent with that of a UAV. The military has always said it didn´t have time to scramble interceptors but they obviously had the time to scramble UAVs.They didn´t use the UAVs to shoot down the jets preventing the whole thing. Even after the 1st hijacked plane hit and they knew there were more hijcked planes loose? It shows that they didn´t try to stop them even though they had the chance.
By chrophe on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
In fact enormous rc …
In fact enormous rc toys consistent in size with their real counterparts aren´t very common. It is no scale down model. It is a big object capable of very high speeds seen from afar. It is probably more or less travelling at the same speed as the jets at about 400-450 mph and that wouldn´t be possible with an rc toy, much less to steer in such a straight line.
By chrophe on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
To be caught on …
To be caught on film as a closeby object, then the towers would´ve been very small in the distance. If an rc toy would´ve been used flying close to the towers it would have been an enormous rc toyseen from a distance, consistent in scale with the towers. And huge scale rc toys are rarely flown close to high rise buildings as they tend to be lost from view.
By chrophe on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
@airsoftsniper3
…
@airsoftsniper3
Yes they use IR lasers today. Back then was almost ten years ago when red lasers were the standard to guide smart bombs for instance. Birds don´t fly in straight lines. Paper is carried by air and doesn´t fly in straight lines. Fighter jets don´t look like that. UAV´s look like that. it´s been very very well reported that the military said it couldn´t scramble jets to get there in time.
By chrophe on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
The trajectory of …
The trajectory of the object is straight, as it whizzez by at high speed. From that distance it travels very quickly across the sky. If that object would´ve been in close proximity to the photographer and if it had been a scaled model, it wouldn´t have been visible in the shot, since the photographer zoomed in on the towers rather than zoomed out and with a scaled down toy being visible in a zoom out, the object would´ve been very large in frame.
By Theshadows99 on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
the “UAV” sounds …
the “UAV” sounds more like it is prop driven by a petrol or nitro, not jet. R/C enthusiasts use such in their models.
besides explain how the uav manged to target the building then get around the back of it in time to be seen on the video. plus at that level im sure people would have noticed a jet powerd uav or model.
By airsoftsniper3 on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
1.drones use IR …
1.drones use IR lasers or even no lasers .
2.thats a bird or paper .
3.their were fighter jets flying arround the towers to see whats going on soo theirs ur noice and the plane .
did u prove anything?
no, u ‘ve wasted seven mins of almost 75 thousand people… be proud…
By BreezyHawk on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
That’s not a drone …
That’s not a drone whistling at 5:11, that’s the sound of brakes squeaking on a car or truck. Whatever.
By xXxCroocklyNxXx on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
omfg you …
omfg you brainwashed dumb bush knocked down the towers.
By BobAndGeorgia02 on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
Im pretty sure it …
Im pretty sure it was Elvis that was controlling the drone plane, I saw him, he looks good, lost a fair bit of weight though….really just a skeleton of his former self.
By BobAndGeorgia02 on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
Its not a laser …
Its not a laser pointer, its a bird.
By ridebmxx3 on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
right after the …
right after the noise u can see a jet fly by the towers WTF
By lashlaroo on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
i never seen such …
i never seen such bull in all my life give it up bush did not blow up the towers you dumb asses
By 92ty1524 on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
Couldnt watch the …
Couldnt watch the entire vid. I stopped at the point where “some people” heard the sound of a jet powered UAV. Couldnt take much more of your conspiracy theory bullshit. F’n please. They dont even operate at an altitude where then can be heard, dork! Get out of your basement and get a life. Safe space on the server for something that has substance. Did your parents ignore you? Were you the fat kid in class that got picked on? ugh.
By ledzep13 on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
morons.
morons.
By Delly117 on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
did they give the …
did they give the names of the passengers who died aboard the flights that crashed into the towers? If so, then woudn’t that prove whether it was unmanned or not?
By slskish on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
reflection of plane
reflection of plane
By dasturdly40 on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
The official story …
The official story changed more than MIchael Jacksons face. HIJACKERS still alive, how dumb do you have to be not to kill all the fall guys in your grand scheme. WE NEED AN AMERICAN REBOOT!!! IF NOT WERE NOT AMERICANS, WE MIGHT AS WELL BE HAITIANS. ITS NOT GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE THATS KILLING YOU OR TAKING YOU TO THOSE NEWLY FENCED FEMA CAMPS. IF THINGS KEEP GOING THIS WAY 2012 LOOKS MIGHTY GOOD TO ME. ALSO BIN LADEN IS DEAD HAS BEEN FOR YEARS. BHUTO TOLD THE WORLD THEN SHE GOT BLOWN UP
By dasturdly40 on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
If a UAV is an …
If a UAV is an unmanned aerial vehicle and a commerical aircraft for anyone who as bothered to look it up will know. Have been able to be remotely controlled to take of and land for over 20 years. (NASA STUDIES). If no man/woman is in the plane that would make it unmanned.
By pmar78 on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
in my opinion just …
in my opinion just a piece of papper..
By xSkarprox on Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
Thank you for …
Thank you for clarifying that with me. I now understand your point.