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: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

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?

How do you know there were no news crews at the Pentagon?

As I said before, do a google search on "Pentagon correspondent" and you will find that there is a continuous media presensce at the Pentagon.




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
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.



quite correct.. these are the same type of cameras used in casinos to record all actions on the gaming floor.. they pan tilt and zoom, and can rotate 360 degrees but the glare shields prevent them from looking up.. these are usually set on one location until an operator takes control.. there would not have been any reason to be actively monitoring these in the morning on 911.. the surveillance department at any casino could verify the way these cameras work..



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Excellent points. I am sure that there is some point however relatively close to the Pentagon to see who is coming and going. I mean we saw camera shots of the second plane to hit the towers miles away.

Also you are correct in that you dont just roll up to the pentagon 'front door' and say 'lemme get an interview real quick'. That does not mean no one would try. The OS'rs love it when some obnoxious 'truther' tries to get a story in some unorthodox manner. I don't blame them in this case, however that is not behavior that we haven't seen pre 'truther'. I would not expect NBC news to show up uninvited but the fact that not one did is suspicious.

It would seem to me that the safest bet would they were there with a 'no cameras' order. That of course leads me to question why no cell phone videos leaked if that were the scenario. After all they managed to outrage the world with Sadams execution, and that was in a closed area with a strict no camera order.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Excellent points. I am sure that there is some point however relatively close to the Pentagon to see who is coming and going. I mean we saw camera shots of the second plane to hit the towers miles away.

I think that the reason should be obvious. The World Trade Center is much taller, and the event happened at a higher elevation, in the middle of New York City were people are constantly filming things. The Pentagon by contrast is low and there is not a clear shot from most locations that would be free of obstructions.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
1. Why were there no news teams at the Pentagon when the obviosly werent banned and there was a HUGE story there even before the attacks?
2. If they really weren't there how did they get there so fast in a chaotic situation with limited road access?

Having reviewed the video from major news organisations (ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC) it is pretty obvious that your questions are flawed.

1. There were news teams at the Pentagon. They are called PENTAGON CORRESPONDENTS. They are permanently stationed at the Pentagon, working out of their own assigned offices/booths. They are vetted for press passes, and spend their days wandering the halls of the Pentagon and checking in with the media liaisons for the various agencies there.

Don't believe me? Try reading the following article:
A Day In The Life of a Pentagon Correspondent

These guys were on air within minutes of the attack - via telephone (Chris Plante @ 9:42 CNN, Mick Lashevsky (sp?) @ 9:42 NBC). They were at the Pentagon because it is their job to be there.

Chris Plante was interviewing people as they exited the building to determine what the cause of the fire was. This happened between his phone-in reports at 9:42 and 9:47.

John McWethy, ABC's Pentagon Correspondent, reported that he himself had been ordered to evacuate the building, therefore he was already there.

ALL of the camera views (at least within the first 20 minutes of reporting the attack - I didn't bother watching any further) were from long distances, from places such as Reagan National Airport (as seen during Sam Forthwright's(sp?) spot at RNA on ABC @ 9:47), behind the old Executive Office building, and on top of the Gannett building (the WUSA feed which was used be a few news orgs).

I believe the first live shot of the Pentagon smoke plume was at 9:42 which was the WUSA feed from the Gannett building. The shot of the old Executive Office building with smoke behind it hit ABC and CNN around the same time.

There were no close-up shots of the Pentagon during this time, only zoomed in from a distance.

2. They were already there doing their normal duties.


[edit on 29-9-2008 by discombobulator]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by jprophet420
Excellent points. I am sure that there is some point however relatively close to the Pentagon to see who is coming and going. I mean we saw camera shots of the second plane to hit the towers miles away.

I think that the reason should be obvious. The World Trade Center is much taller, and the event happened at a higher elevation, in the middle of New York City were people are constantly filming things. The Pentagon by contrast is low and there is not a clear shot from most locations that would be free of obstructions.


Hmmm, then why no shot at all? the first news team there didnt have a clear shot but it was on the news none the less. It was reported as a bomb and smoke could be seen billowing from the pentagon but the point of impact could not be seen.

Only one news team in the whole town made it to the party?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Hmmm, then why no shot at all? the first news team there didnt have a clear shot but it was on the news none the less. It was reported as a bomb and smoke could be seen billowing from the pentagon but the point of impact could not be seen.

Only one news team in the whole town made it to the party?

There were at least four, if not five individual shots of the Pentagon/smoke plume shown on the major news networks (and cable outlets) in the first 20 minutes after the impact. The WUSA footage from the Gannett building was shown on multiple networks.

All of them were from a distance.

But keep ignoring reality if it makes you feel better.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by jprophet420

Hmmm, then why no shot at all? the first news team there didnt have a clear shot but it was on the news none the less. It was reported as a bomb and smoke could be seen billowing from the pentagon but the point of impact could not be seen.

Only one news team in the whole town made it to the party?

There were at least four, if not five individual shots of the Pentagon/smoke plume shown on the major news networks (and cable outlets) in the first 20 minutes after the impact. The WUSA footage from the Gannett building was shown on multiple networks.

All of them were from a distance.

But keep ignoring reality if it makes you feel better.

I'm sorry, but I have checked the archives and cant find a link to the other three. would you post a link to the others?



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
I'm sorry, but I have checked the archives and cant find a link to the other three. would you post a link to the others?

I don't think you looked very hard.

ABC - www.archive.org...
BBC - www.archive.org...
CBS - www.archive.org...
CNN - www.archive.org...
FOX - www.archive.org...
NBC - www.archive.org...



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by jpm1602
Because it is the Pentagon expo. They have millions of dollars of recording equipment.

Physcial bodies on the ground are all good and well. But we a speaking of the Pentagon here.

They are dig cam'd to the hilt. Any thought otherwise is bolderdash.

The only evidence presented showed a camera density about the same as your average business site in the UK. Please show me some evidence suggesting that they had this huge number of cameras that you're claiming.

Sure thing.


Apparently Lots Of Security Cameras On The Pentagon roof watching over the helipad approach area

Were there 6 high quality Pentagon rooftop security cameras hard wired to the basement security room facing the western helicopter approach to the Pentagon helipad on 9-11-2001? After all, Presidents and Vice Presidents and Defense Secretaries and high-ranking Generals and Admirals flew to the Pentagon by helicopter on a regular basis.

I cropped this from a photo on the website of Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D Nevada) taken by her at the Pentagon on 9-13-2001.
What looks like security cameras back away from the edge of the roof
She also has a photo of an alleged piece of Flight 77 fuselage surrounded by yellow tape which is apparently the only photo ever taken of the object which was apparently kept on display out in the open for three days (see link below)
Zoom of mystery part

Original Shelley Berkley photo

To me those look like exactly the same kind of security cameras which are on the edge of the Pentagon roof. (and on the Naval Annex) Much different from the area 'civilian' security cameras. Two of them appear to be aimed at the most likely helicopter approach corridor which is up the open area to the southwest over I-395 just south of the Navy Annex. Seriously I doubt that any of the Pentagon roof cameras would be counted among the 85 'confiscated' FBI videos. (nor any cameras on the Naval Annex) It is doubtful that the FBI (Treasury Dept) would have any jurisdiction over the Defense Dept security apparatus.

Defense Dept high quality cameras provided by a multi-$$trillion defense system


Civilian el Cheapo cameras


Congresswoman Shelley Berkley's website with Pentagon images



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Were there 6 high quality Pentagon rooftop security cameras hard wired to the basement security room facing the western helicopter approach to the Pentagon helipad on 9-11-2001?

Well yes it certainly seems that there were 3 standard dome cameras (in fact these are small domes) across the entire length of one side of The Pentagon. This is not exceptional camera density by any means.


To me those look like exactly the same kind of security cameras which are on the edge of the Pentagon roof. (and on the Naval Annex) Much different from the area 'civilian' security cameras.

There's no difference between these cameras and civilian cameras. They are simple camera domes, not even the largest available, which suggests they don't have extensive zoom lenses. There's nothing hugely special about them.


Two of them appear to be aimed at the most likely helicopter approach corridor which is up the open area to the southwest over I-395 just south of the Navy Annex.

Part of the reason these dome cameras appear black is that they are designed to be difficult to determine where they are aimed. Therefore your claim to know where they are aiming is unsupported.


Seriously I doubt that any of the Pentagon roof cameras would be counted among the 85 'confiscated' FBI videos. (nor any cameras on the Naval Annex) It is doubtful that the FBI (Treasury Dept) would have any jurisdiction over the Defense Dept security apparatus.

Your doubts do not equate to evidence, you should be able to file a FOIA to find out more information about these cameras, and perhaps have the 12 released which do not show impact.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Well yes it certainly seems that there were 3 standard dome cameras (in fact these are small domes) across the entire length of one side of The Pentagon. This is not exceptional camera density by any means.

[


You sure about that?

It looks like they're lights on a goose neck mount of some sort to me.

Think about it - night landings, would be nice to have lights for that. And they're pretty much centered where the helipad was. Plus extra lights on the corners.

I think you're giving the whole camera thing too much credit.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I think you're giving the whole camera thing too much credit.


I'm not convinced. I have a reasonable amount of personal experience with the construction and composition of these devices, including enclosures practically identical to the ones in the photograph. Overhead lights are unlikely to have many of the features we see, such as a black dome coating and a 180 degree field of view.

Regardless, the existence of a total of 3 cameras per side of the pentagon is not unusual, and certainly not high density. Many commercial sites in the UK have camera densities many many times higher than this, and they include much larger domes, which typically are to house larger zoom lenses (the base CCTV cameras are almost all the same size).

I appreciate you're looking for alternative explanations, but I think it's quite likely these are cameras. Lets face it, even with people to patrol, CCTV is a good investment.

FOIA requests need to be filed in order to determine whether these cameras are included in the number of videos held by the FBI, and what their framerate was. It's also quite likely they were trained on only a 30ish degree section almost straight down, as they would typically be low resolution and (in the UK) not even evidential quality.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I'm curious if anyone knows the tyrpical framerate of a CCTV? I do realize ones in like the casinos, etc, are probably higher quality than those outdoors and subjected to the elements....but was curious what it is in general.

I've seen feeds from parkinglot CCTVs and they really are pretty piss poor....



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


any 100 dollar camera can capture a frame rate comparable to the human eye. The difference usually ends up being in the storage device. Less space = lower frame rate to hold more time. I am sure the pentagon could barely afford $100 cameras and abundant storage space so I am sure they were all very very low framerates.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


Unlike the $900,000 CCTV cameras that were taking 1 picture every 10 secs in San Francosco?

techdirt.com...

Maybe you need to give them that information



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
I'm curious if anyone knows the tyrpical framerate of a CCTV? I do realize ones in like the casinos, etc, are probably higher quality than those outdoors and subjected to the elements....but was curious what it is in general.

I've seen feeds from parkinglot CCTVs and they really are pretty piss poor....


CCTV will typically be the frame rate of the local video standard. In the US this would be 30fps [edit: mixed up PAL and NTSC framerates!], there is usually a difference between displayed and recorded framerate. This depends highly on the equipment used, for example a modern DVR will have motion detection ability, so it will record at approximately 1fps when no motion is detected, and at the line rate when it is detected.

This gives the benefit of reducing storage requirements, but including high framerate 'alarms'. It is a complex subject, and we have absolutely no information on what The Pentagon is equipped with.

I'm sure that people will be happy to suggest that The Pentagon has the highest quality and most expensive systems of all kinds, but we know that this is often untrue. For example if these CCTV cameras were installed in the mid 90s, they will likely still be using SVHS multitrack recorders. This will limit the recorded rate, even if the displayed rate is much higher.

Speculation is somewhat pointless, and I would push anyone who wishes to speculate to file a FOIA request so we can learn as much possible from 'the horses mouth'.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by exponent]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Thanks, exponent! Thats what I was needing to know. I appreciate your response.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

Logic at last, what a rare thing in this thread. Of course we don't get to see their security camera details, or even tapes from nearby cameras, they are secret, hence the top secret label posted earlier. Everybody knows they were there. If the security information is released, and I mean what was really recorded, I would be shocked. That would not be good secret keeping.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
the yardworkers said they saw a plane, but I doubt they would be able to distinguish between a 737, an A-3 retrofit, or a global hawk all sporting the same paint scheme.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join