It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Publishes 9-11 Pentagon Attack Photos on 3-23-17... With Faces Blacked Out

page: 10
72
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: sageturkey

with as many that were on the building and the small building, they got something. why they didn't or don't release them well...

i know let start a petition at whitehouse.gov for trump to get the tapes released. bet that would piss the swamp off real good if he did.


Things like that were done for years..trust me..we were laughed at..scoffed at then when things were really getting hot suddenly the few frames were released.....

Which showed no plane of course...

Too believe its better too not show the other cameras is stunning...we would at least see something no matter which way they were pointing...but noooooo can't do that.

Like it or not enough miracles occurred just at the Pentagon for all this to have happened this way it literally defies all odds..and logic.

We are told multitudes of lies yet ALL of this story is true...and has to be in the believers mind.
edit on 1-4-2017 by ParasuvO because: Spelling




posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO
Even if more footage existed, CCTV sucked at the time. The footage I’m aware of shows two blink-and-you’ll-miss-it frames of AA77’s last moment. If more footage exists, it’s just the same thing - still not enough evidence to convince Truthers, they could still go, “It’s choppy enough that it could have been tampered with,” or, “There’s better-quality footage around here somewhere, I know it is…”



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

cctv in 2001 absolutely did not suck. There IS better footage of this out there without a doubt, it just will never be released.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: D8Tee

cctv in 2001 absolutely did not suck. There IS better footage of this out there without a doubt, it just will never be released.

Doubt it.
Link


"A Pentagon spokesperson tells Popular Mechanics that the video was taken with a Philips LTC 1261 security camera and recorded at one frame per second. Jerry Housenga is a technical product specialist with Bosch Security Systems, which bought the Philips camera division in 2002. According to Housenga, it was unrealistic to think that the low-quality security camera footage would reveal the crystal-clear image of a Boeing 757 traveling at 780 feet per second. While most advanced security and surveillance cameras can be set to capture real-time video, the attached recording systems are almost always set at signif­icantly slower frame rates in order to conserve storage space. As a result, it is unlikely that the recording system of any nearby security camera would be set at a rate high enough to capture the speeding plane with decent resolution."



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Video security systems in 2001 bear little resemblance to what we have now. They were analog and fed a lo-res wide angle image composite signal back to the control centre via coaxial cable where it was usual to multiplex multiple cameras for recording on VHS tapes unlike the digital wireless IP cameras and solid state recording we see now. 1 frame/sec is adequate for recording personnel movements and slow moving vehicles.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:42 AM
link   
The military relies on round the clock manpower, staffing, and manned barriers to guard institutions. Why do you need lots of cameras when you have guards who will stop, capture, and retain your ass?

Secondly. How were all the military financial records supposedly destroyed form the pentagon attack, yet all security footage would have survived?

Oh, the false logic!



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Do you really believe a camera from 2001 recorded at 1 FPS?

Really?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

Digital recording existed in 2001. To say otherwise is ignorant. Hi-def? no, absolutely not. To think the cameras recording the pentagon were analog ancient time pieces is kinda silly.

Hmm, I'm one of the most heavily guarded facilities in the US, I'll buy my camera's from walmart.

No.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

The model number (Philips LTC 1261) kindly provided by D8Tee is indeed analog colour output (NTSC no doubt) 1Vpp into 75ohm coax via a BNC connector as I said. Unless you can provide better info on the camera type and capabilities?

The camera itself doesn't record, the signal goes back to the control centre via coax where it's recorded on a VHS tape. The usual setup had multiple camera inputs multiplexed onto a single tape cyclically with an adjustable time delay between scans. If you were sitting at the control console you could watch live video in real time but it wasn't recorded that way.
edit on 1/4/2017 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: TrueAmerican

That light pole sure is strange, almost like something without wings hit the pentagon. I wonder what flies without wings that could have done that.


No...Superman couldn't have gone rogue...he just wouldn't do it.

Please say it isn't so.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust



Where are the pictures of where the wings and engines impacted the building? Out of an entire airliner, that's the ONLY pic of debris? No, that's not fishy at all.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

Did you bother to actually read the post?

The part that IF the camera was actually on and recording at the time and there was nothing on the video, then the tape would have probably been reused?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Shangralah

Now why do people like you insist on believing that a business, sitting across the highway from the Pentagon would invest in security cameras and then point them at the building across the road rather than their own business? You want to start thinking about logic, you might want to examine your own first.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

your welcome, i figured it would be easier. lots of folks fuss over long videos.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Shangralah

Now why do people like you insist on believing that a business, sitting across the highway from the Pentagon would invest in security cameras and then point them at the building across the road rather than their own business? You want to start thinking about logic, you might want to examine your own first.


If one happens to be a curious soul, the larger question related to yours is why the FBI found it necessary to confiscate the videos from those surrounding businesses? Why?

If the government already knew exactly what happened, what more could those civilian videos prove? Nothing.

The reason they confiscated those videos is very simple: a magnificent deception had just been performed, and a more magnificent cover-up was just beginning. The government had something to hide, as it usually does, and took action to confiscate evidence related to what it wanted to hide.

Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
When Osama Bin Laden was caught/killed and his computer and documents confiscated, was there any indication WHY the Pentagon was chosen as a target for one of the planes?



When he was killed, and thrown in the sea, rather than trialed for his crimes and the aftermath of the team that 'found' him.
People forget how fishy all that was.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Shangralah

Now why do people like you insist on believing that a business, sitting across the highway from the Pentagon would invest in security cameras and then point them at the building across the road rather than their own business? You want to start thinking about logic, you might want to examine your own first.


the reason is not where they are pointed, it was what it picked up in the back ground. the cameras were more than likely pointed at the pumps. but they still can pick up things going on in the back ground. you know like when your watching something on tv, like a football game, news, and they are interviewing someone, and people walk by behind them that you notice something about them or they act a fool for a couple of seconds. or the fake cnn news cast where they pretend to be at two different locations and you see the same vehicles pass by within a spit second of other.

so maybe you need to think about logic and examine yours.
edit on 1-4-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Hydraulic cranes are not 'hollow' like lattice-style cranes:


Yes they are hollow. Not like the latice type of course but they are hollow. Tube steel not solid steel



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
Yes they are hollow. Not like the latice type of course but they are hollow. Tube steel not solid steel


Which is why I put that word in parentheses.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




Do you really believe a camera from 2001 recorded at 1 FPS?

The recorders of that time (I used to repair them) were nothing more than modified consumer VHS decks.
You could feed 4 cameras into them and they would mix all four into one display.
Then to make things worse They could be set to record in a paused like fashion. 1 FSP or 2 FPS or higher. The reason was simply due to the total record time available on one tape.
You can't have an employee swap tapes on multiple decks every 6 hours.
16 cameras = 16 tapes per 24 hours. 16 times 7 days = 112 tapes per week.

If you buy one of these new 8 camera digital home recording systems you have the same exact thing.
Not all of the cameras can record full resolution at 30FPS. Some must be reduced to a few FPS.



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join