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.

 

Why no cameras at the Pentagon?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
DoubleTree Hotel


Russell wrote:


We went to the Doubletree Inn since it is rumored that this is the location that employees actually watched the video prior to it being confiscated. The quotes about employees watching the film never names the Sheraton specifically. It has just been assumed to have been the case.

Dylan had heard suggestions it may have been the Doubltree Inn and I confirmed this to my satisfaction in a phone call prior to the trip with a security employee. Their video according to my phone call was confiscated on the 12th and the FBI "canvassed" the area through the 13th. So we went there to see for ourselves.

We actually got our foot inside the camera office and I scanned all of their monitors. There was no camera showing the Pentagon at all now. But the security guy we talked to indicated there may have been camera changes since 9/11. This would make total sense in light of the fact that cameras have been removed from the Sheraton and the Citgo. My guess is he was correct.

He was helpful and called the security supervisor who could not meet us at the time. Then while on the phone in my opinion he toned down and ushered us out of the office and shut the door on us. After he was off the phone he said the security manager would call us and took my number. NO CALL BACK!


Can't really see much since the hotel is not facing the alleged impact side and is across the massive 395 highway.




Here is a camera that was on the next door neighbor's top secret building, 400 Army Navy Dr.


Of course they eventually released the security video from the first floor.



Yet of course the horrible quality released video had no view of the plane or the alleged impact point at all while a tree blocked any possible view of the flyover.



Obviously our only conclusion can be that no government provided information will be conclusive.

Period.




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I'm not talking about security cameras, I'm talking about MSM here, not to mention independant journalists.

I totally appreciate all the evidence of cameras presented by Craig, but that is another topic.

What I want to know is if the media was there why no video/pictures, and if they werent there how the hell did they get there within minutes?

It cant be both ways and either way by itself is incriminating.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
I'm not talking about security cameras, I'm talking about MSM here, not to mention independant journalists.

I totally appreciate all the evidence of cameras presented by Craig, but that is another topic.

What I want to know is if the media was there why no video/pictures, and if they werent there how the hell did they get there within minutes?

It cant be both ways and either way by itself is incriminating.




Your right. The media was there in some form, and it doesn't take much for someone to pop out a camera, the Jet would have been heard that close to the ground.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Wow, that certainly takes care of the camera issue. There are plenty of cameras to cover what happend. So now where are the tapes and why? What is the official reason that we have only seen the one crappy 3 frame shot?

These anomolies such as the missing camera and frightened manager are rather suspicious. What do the debunkers say about stuff like a missing camera and lies about it ever being there and other such strangeness?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
I'm not talking about security cameras, I'm talking about MSM here, not to mention independant journalists.

I totally appreciate all the evidence of cameras presented by Craig, but that is another topic.

What I want to know is if the media was there why no video/pictures, and if they werent there how the hell did they get there within minutes?

It cant be both ways and either way by itself is incriminating.



In case you missed it, I asked about cameras on the pentagon, security or otherwise so I really appreciate Craig's response. Perhaps it was not to you exactly.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
It would take an incredibly naive mind to not think the Pentagon has every state of the art security/cam systems.

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by jpm1602
Trust me. There are cams there to inspect every meter of ground and building.

Trust you, huh? On the basis of what exactly?

Perhaps you could make it a little easier for us, you know, by identifying exactly how it is that you have access to this knowledge? Do you have inside awareness of the CCTV system at the Pentagon? What system do they use? Are all of the cameras recorded?

From your further replies the best effort you've made to explain your awareness of these cameras inspecting "every meter of ground and building" is "it's the Pentagon."

Sorry mate, I won't speak for anyone else but I've had the wool pulled over my eyes a few times by people such as yourself that make these types of claims, so I hope you won't mind if I request that you back up your assertion with something other than "trust me".



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
I'm not talking about security cameras, I'm talking about MSM here, not to mention independant journalists.

I totally appreciate all the evidence of cameras presented by Craig, but that is another topic.


Oh ok I see.

I just recompiled that info so I thought it would be a good place to post it.



What I want to know is if the media was there why no video/pictures, and if they werent there how the hell did they get there within minutes?

It cant be both ways and either way by itself is incriminating.



I guess I'm not really following you.

Are you suggesting independent media has footage but is covering it up?

The Pentagon is in Arlington, not DC.

There really isn't anything on that side of the building other than a bunch of highway ramps and the citgo station.

The event took place in a matter of seconds and was a complete surprise.

It was over before they knew it. We have an interview with a woman who was stuck in traffic on route 27 on her cell phone right underneath the flight path but she did not see a plane at all and had no clue a plane was involved with the event until she heard it on the news.

There would be zero reason for someone to be randomly filming that area BEFORE the attack and even if they were the chances they would actually be filming in the exact place to catch the plane would be pretty slim.

I don't see why it would be suspicious for media to show up minutes after a massive explosion.

In fact we are friends with freelance videographer Bob Pugh who was over in Crystal City when he heard the explosion and he was on the scene with his camera within 2 minutes.

He took some of the most famous footage of the event.

No doubt some complicit operative was sitting back filming the entire thing waiting for it to happen.

But unsuspecting innocent people would have no reason to be filming at that exact moment in the perfect area.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

Your right. The media was there in some form, and it doesn't take much for someone to pop out a camera, the Jet would have been heard that close to the ground.



Actually there is CONSTANT air traffic in the area.

Just watch The PentaCon and you can hear planes, jets, helicopters etc flying around throughout the interviews.

This is one thing the locals are definitely very used to hearing AND seeing.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

What I am saying in a nutshell is any other time there is a military action/disaster we go to the pentagon to get the info.

I am not saying that there would be people there waiting for a jet to crash or something like that. What I am saying is that in light of the worst terrorist attack ever military action would be inevitable. The News outlets broadcasting from NY had already mentioned this several times. If I was on a news crew I would go to the pentagon just to get a shot of who's coming and going and the hope of a quick interview.

But there were no news crews there when it happened, this strikes me as quite odd. What further adds complexity to the situation is that if they werent there the minute the plane hit, how did they get there within minutes if Arlington (not DC excuse my fallacy) was in a state of chaos with a no fly zone?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
It would take an incredibly naive mind to not think the Pentagon has every state of the art security/cam systems.


I am not sure I follow this logic. Noone said that the pentagon has EVERY state of the art device. But when the military is technologically decades ahead of the rest of us, why would it be naive to think that the pentagon has cameras as good as any wal-mart? Security cameras are very good and very cheap these days, and that is just for us civillians.

[edit on 9/28/08 by MorningStar8741]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


But there were no news crews there when it happened, this strikes me as quite odd. What further adds complexity to the situation is that if they werent there the minute the plane hit, how did they get there within minutes if Arlington (not DC excuse my fallacy) was in a state of chaos with a no fly zone?



Ok well let me try and take both sides of this for the sake of discussion.

1. The entire violent event happened on the heliport side of the Pentagon where news media would not even be allowed anyway.

2. Most news outlets get information FROM the Pentagon but believe me, media people know you can't just roll up on the Pentagon in hopes of catching Rumsfeld or interviewing some random military officer. They have that place on lock and unless you have prior military clearance, there is no media loitering in the parking lot hoping to get a story.

Now....that being said.....we have every reason to believe the coverage of the event was controlled. Maybe not completely, but no doubt to some extent.

Perhaps some of the reporters are straight up complicit operatives or perhaps others were unwittingly controlled by their superiors to be in the right place at the right time.

But the heliport side was chosen for a reason and I think control of the scene is a big one.

No matter how you slice it though, a massive explosion at the Pentagon would get honest media people from all over town to show up within minutes.




[edit on 28-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I do believe you just answered your own question in your post....decades ahead. The pentagon is not like your little citgo on the corner with one security cam.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
I do believe you just answered your own question in your post....decades ahead. The pentagon is not like your little citgo on the corner with one security cam.


I still dont follow you. Are you saying they have more advanced surveilance because that is not at all what the first post appears to say.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Golly geez op.

I was responding to a smack down by 'discomboulater'. Who seems to have believed the pentagon may have a nitelight that may come on when motion is detected.

It has nothing to do with you.

Thank you

That is why I 'included' his quote to minimize misunderstanding.

[edit on 9/28/2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Security cameras are set up to monitor things on the ground that happen at low speed, they are not pointed to capture aircraft. Any that did happen to capture them just got lucky.

As to the Pentagon cameras, I have yet to see any proof that they were active, recording, or had a high enough frame capture rate to even catch what happened. Often security cameras have very low frame rates that allows them to conserve tape on the recording device, if they are hooked to one. If the plane passed that camera in a split second, there is a greater chance that it would be missed by the camera then get captured. As to the cameras on the Pentagon facade, we don't even know if they were active as that area was under construction.

Craig did a god job of finding all the cameras in the area, but if you notice, they are all pointing down, making the field of view one such that it would only capture local images.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 


Sorry I just misunderstood and since you went through the trouble of posting it in a public forum, I thought that I would go through the trouble of understanding it. It was totally my bad, I missed a negative in there.

[edit on 9/28/08 by MorningStar8741]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
No apologies necessary MS. If I had a nickel for everytime I said something stupid, or misunderstood here I'd be a millionaire.

You are right. That would have been more appropriate for a u2u.

My bad.

Peace.

Most everyone knows I am one crazy individual here anyway. So I don't mind telecasting it.
But I do have a heck of a sense of humor, which is my redeeming quality and why they let me stay around.

[edit on 9/28/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 9/28/2008 by jpm1602]


[edit on 9/28/2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
A common misconception in this thread may be that the dome cameras pictured are 360 degree cameras.

They are not.

I have built quite a few of these cameras personally and inside they contain a very standard CCTV camera. In the US this will typically be NTSC resolution, or between 300 and 480 vertical lines, with variable horizontal resolution. This is lower than the resolution of your typical webcam. The difference being that the CCD/CMOS and lens quality is much higher in these cameras, and they are typically mounted on PTZ (Pan, Tilt, Zoom) mountings.

Now, I can think of no good reason that any of the cameras pictured would be pointed in a useful location. The item identified on the top of The Pentagon almost certainly was a camera, but it was also almost certainly pointed downward in order to capture the area immediately in front of it. Recording frequency (as seen by the security checkpoint camera) is often as low as 1 frame per second.

There are various reasons for this, including requirements for reductions in storage space (typically old systems recorded onto SVHS, and even with 4 tracks being recorded per tape, this is very low quality and tapes need to be changed multiple times per day).

I could start making educated guesses here as to the equipment used at The Pentagon, but it is essentially worthless. There were many cameras existing on the day, and as the FBI have already stated, 13 show The Pentagon impact area. This does not mean however that they are hiding anything, and the fact that they have been completely up front with the details of videotapes including releasing some of the requested ones gives them credibility in my eyes.

That does not mean of course that further investigation is unwarranted. Indeed Craig pointed out but did not specifically mention the traffic camera located directly in front of The Pentagon. There are shots we know to come from this camera which should show the impact area, and it has not been released. There are questions about whether it was actually hit by the plane and potentially damaged, but further investigation may be warranted.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
It would take an incredibly naive mind to not think the Pentagon has every state of the art security/cam systems.

You're just guessing, aren't you.

Trust you?

No thanks.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Golly geez op.

I was responding to a smack down by 'discomboulater'. Who seems to have believed the pentagon may have a nitelight that may come on when motion is detected.

Excuse me, I indicated no such thing.

I asked you to support your assertion with evidence or first hand knowledge of the Pentagon's CCTV system. You have failed to do so.

When you ask people to trust you, you generally have to give them a good reason to do so.

Failing to support your assertion when asked (twice) is not a good reason to trust you. Neither is twisting my words into a strawman.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join