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.

 

Weren't there any cameras on the roof of the Pentagon?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


I think you missed the point which is that cameras are not a defense mechanism but act as a deterrent to nefarious ground based activity IE surveillance (a Brinks heist if you like). The Pentagon's primary defense systems were elsewhere like Andrews AFB. Getting a clear pic of a high speed aerial attack requires a highly specialised camera which I doubt these would have been in 2001. Typical NTSC CCTV composite feeds are 30fps and at AA77's speed in the last seconds of flight it was travelling near 26' per frame making a sharp picture a virtual impossibility.

Maybe they did catch something identifiable and I'm as keen as anyone else is to see what is or is not revealed but lets face it, we're all the last on list of people it will be released to. I have hopes that the current 'spacebeam' type court cases will force some more of the withheld evidence to be released.




posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Here's what I believe....Airplanes definitely crashed at the WTC, Pentagon and in Shanksville. They were flown by arab terrorists. It's possible the terrorists may have had the tacit backing of elements within our government. Its also possible they had no backing, but the plan was known to elements within our government and allowed to happen. It's also possible it was exactly what it appered to be.


Well as you stated its what you BELIEVE happened, i am looking for facts and evidence of what really happened.


I don't know which of these scenarios is closest to the truth, but I know this....Airplanes crashed, buildings collapsed because of the crashes (not because of explosives), and people died.


Yes, but what caused the buildings to collapse, specailly building 7? No steel building has ever collapsed from fire no matter how severe.


I have a terrible gut feeling that the government new about these attacks in general terms (no exact date...no exact targets) and did nothing to stop them because of the doors it would open.


So you agree that the government did have warnings and knew it was coming. At least you are willing to admit that much.

Now we have to look at why the government did nothing.

1. They underestimated the information they were given.

2. They let the attack happen as an excuse to go to war, just like the government did with Pearl Harbor.







[edit on 25-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Nice work on those pics. Can't tell you how amazed I am just to see these photos of the cameras and removed cameras. You should be one of the 911 investigaters along with Ivan, and then we'd really have a public case against those criminals.


Thanks for the kind words, i usually do not get too many of those. I usually get insults simply becasue i do not go along with the official story.

I have been doing research for a while trying to find out what really happened that day. I file FOIA requests and e-mail companies.

I think more people should do this if they really cared about the people that died that day and want to know the truth of what really happened.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


To assume that in 2001 they (military) didn't have that type of camera at work at the Pentagon is naive, because the question would be---"why did the confiscate any video's from nearby hotels etc?!". There is no *GOOD* reason to have so many useless cameras that are only designed for slow moving (60mph) Trucks.

BTW Michael Moore filmed previous to 9/11 and he knows a thing or two about camera's, he is of the opinion after having been there that *The Military is hiding something*, it is obvious to him after seeing the situation with his own eyes and the position of the cameras.

There of course is a point in filming an aerial target, since that is how one would assume the Pentagon would be attacked.

So far from the de-bunkers I am hearing blanket denial without any logical frame of reference and a denial that fly in the face of reason.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


If they wanted to film it, having the camera somewhere other than on top of the target would be advisable. You want your defense detection to pick up the incoming object early enough to take defensive action.

I hope you're right because it means we'll see crystal clear pictures of what hit the building some time in the future instead of the grey blur I'm expecting.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by talisman
 


If they wanted to film it, having the camera somewhere other than on top of the target would be advisable. You want your defense detection to pick up the incoming object early enough to take defensive action.

I hope you're right because it means we'll see crystal clear pictures of what hit the building some time in the future instead of the grey blur I'm expecting.


Listen here to Micheal Moore. (about 20 seconds in)
www.youtube.com...

he saw not only cameras on the roof, but all over the place, which included the grounds etc. There is no way with so many angles covered that they only had cameras that were designed for slow moving targets. Why have so many of those type of cameras? Why cover so many "ANGLES" unless you are prepared for what we are talking about?





[edit on 25-5-2008 by talisman]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Just my take on it but having worked in a place with extensive motion sensing video coverage of every square inch of the property (no it isn't a prison) there are a lot of cameras so that they overlap the whole of the grounds including all the boundaries. The control system detected any movement and sounded an alarm, bringing up the subject camera on the control monitor. Even rabbits getting under the fence used to set it off as an example of how sensitive it was. The camera capabilities were very ordinary though with a standard PAL CCTV composite signal being fed back via coaxial cables to be multiplexed onto VHS tape but the more cameras in the system, the less often frames from a particular camera would get recorded making for a 'jerky' playback. Of course any camera's output could be watched in full live motion on the control monitor but it didn't get recorded that way as a dedicated VCR would be needed for every camera.

Being the Pentagon, I don't suppose intimate details of their video security system pre 9/11 would be available? Highly unlikely



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I just want to add that the terrible 'gate cam' video is a perfect example of what the type of surveillance system I described above typically captures. There are other variations in smaller setups that record all cameras or a selected subset of the larger group using 'picture in picture' methods at the cost of resolution but all cameras recorded are at the full frame rate (25fps PAL or 30fps NTSC) and the CITGO security recording appears to be of that type.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I just want to add that the terrible 'gate cam' video is a perfect example of what the type of surveillance system I described above typically captures. .


But the cameras that were farther away would catch more.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Possibly

Then it comes down to how many private enterprises in the area felt the need to monitor the sky (I'd say none) so we'd be dependant on 1 or 2 cameras having the right part of the skyline in the field of view purely by chance from their wide angle surveillance cameras. There may be something captured but it would be very small, having the advantage of being visible for a number of frames, if there is something distinguishable from a sparrow that is.

I'm keen to see but I can accept having to wait the same as everyone else and I really don't expect much at all.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Then it comes down to how many private enterprises in the area felt the need to monitor the sky


Well as low as the plane was supposed to have been the cameras would not have had to monitor the sky.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join