Camera angles at the Pentagon

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie

Originally posted by FDNY343
reply to post by network dude
 


Networkdude,

Those cameras are what they call a 360 dome camera, and could be remotely controlled to move in any direction on a vertical axis, and on the horizontal.

(Simmilar to this www.google.com... YfhCYnWgQe--qWWCA&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEIQ8wIwAg# )

They can also be programmed to swivel to a random point at a certain intervial, or to a specific point. Quite impressive cameras actually.


Now, what you must do, is show that they were pointed in the correct direction for the ~10 seconds that the plane would have been in view, and that they were a camera that was recorded.


Why, why must anyone show you this? How, could anyone show you this?

The people inside the Pentegon KNEW A PLANE WAS COMING, explain why they wouldn't point the cameras at the direction of the plane! It is not the truthers but the OS guys who should be explaining.

I love this, just a few days ago many of you were trying your hardest to convince me that there were no cameras. OOPS! I tried to tell you all you had to do is google cameras at Pentagon and you'd see them, but you guys are just to hard-headed.


First off, I never, not once, said that there were not cameras at or on the Pentagon. Never. I know that there is.

Secondly, why don't you address my post instead of trying to put words into my mouth. Thanks.




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
The second picture, is a security camera, but those don't take live feed. They take still pictures that are programmed on a time lapse system. We had those cameras in my office bldg, while I was security detail.

The first picture, ( the red circle ), is unclear, and no way can be proven to be a camera of any sort. Could be an antennae, or anything else. If we had a clear, zoomed in pic, that would be different.

I think its a far reaching assumption~
how can you determine that this camera only takes stills.? Ive seen video of cameras like these, and they had continuous flow... So prove it



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by budaruskie
 


My only question for you?



When I see a plane hit the Pentagon



The above quote is yours, and you claim that if the video showed a plane hit it then you would believe it correct? Then why with the lack of evidence, photo graphic proof, ( ie you cant see a missile, or any other object ), why would you have an opinion to begin with? if you claim, by your logic, that you needed to see a pic or video of a plane hitting the bldg, in order to believe, then wouldn't that suggest you need to see a video or pic of anything else hitting the bldg for you to " believe"? Wouldn't that suggest, that your very view of what happened has no merit? You cant have an opinion or belief of one act, with no evidence to support it, and discount another theory in the same breathe~


You said you had a question, but my quote is not a question. So, I'm going to assume that the last couple of sentences of the above paragraph encompass both your question and a related statement about my position or beliefs regarding the Pentagon event. I hate to be rude but I have to at least partially answer your question with a question:
WHAT IS MY OPINION, WHAT DO I BELIEVE?
To my knowledge you have read all of one of my posts, that was directed towards another individual and written with a sarcastic tone, to comply with the nature of the other party's posts. My beliefs are very simple and straightforward and can be expressed in one short sentence. I don't think you can answer the question, I think you think that I believe something I do not. So, if you answer this question...I will respond.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Ummmm....do you not see the contradiction, here???


....that camera should have captured the impact.. Id bet alot that it ws pointed at the heliport there..


I'd ALSO bet it may have been covering the heliport area. HOWEVER, in that case....

....how would your first assertion hold true??

__________________
@network dude:

So...say there's a PTZ camera on the goose neck, and in the dome. PTZ infers it's remote controllable, yes? Clear that yup for us, if I'm incorrect there. Going with that, would presume, then, that the feed was closed circuit to a monitor, and that a person could control the direction and zoom of the image, at will yes?

Which makes more sense?:

  • The camera records continuously, 24/7, regardless, or;
  • The operator can punch it to record, when/if circumstances warrant the attention...

    Implying, here, that not necessarily ALL surveillance cameras that were installed at the Pentagon at that time were all being recorded to storage. That is a presumption that, absent any confirmation, is pure guess work.

    And, to second point, above....NO ONE was anticipating the airplane approach to any specific building o location....the alerts were out of American 77's direction, in general, towards D.C. AND, there are a lot of "juicy targets" there to pick from, you know??

    Even if the "feeling" was that something was approaching the Pentagon specifically, did they have any sufficient warning in terms of time, to determine direction, distance, etc?? Things happened too fast for that sort of communication to be disseminated.



  • posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:58 AM
    link   
    At least we have all reached the point that we all agree that there were indeed cameras covering the area of the Pentagon where the impact ocurred.

    It is just a matter of what type of cameras they were, what they recorded (if anything) and where has the footage gone?

    Agreed?



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:02 AM
    link   
    reply to post by FDNY343
     


    That's right, you didn't say there were no cameras...although I didn't specifically say that YOU did, I put all you OS guys in the same basket and called it you guys.

    You're argument was three-fold. One, the cameras couldn't have possibly caught it, even if they were pointed directly at it, because their frame rate was too slow. I'd like to see proof that you know the frame rate of those cameras and/or where they were pointed. Beyond that, you told me that the companies that owned the tape wouldn't give the gov't the authority to release the footage to the public....which I said was stupid. Prove it!
    The third, and most ridiculous part, of your argument was that the locations of these cameras was so super-duper top secret that showing their footage would basically declassify previously classified information...their position. Here is your quote:

    The ones in the Pentagon being released is simple really. Release those, and the location of the cameras can be triangulated. Security camera placement is usually classified. You can also figure out the capabilities of the cameras using their video. You may also be able to find out the manufacturer of the cameras too.

    Seems silly to you?


    Yes, very very silly...especially when the cameras can be seen in many photographs available on the internet all around the world.
    edit on 2/9/2011 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:17 AM
    link   
    reply to post by eyestotheskies
     



    At least we have all reached the point that we all agree that there were indeed cameras covering the area of the Pentagon where the impact ocurred.

    It is just a matter of what type of cameras they were, what they recorded (if anything) and where has the footage gone?

    Agreed?


    Hardly.

    You are assuming that the things circled in the photos are cameras, you are further assuming that they were aimed in such a manner on 9/11/2001 that they would have seen the approach/impact of Flight 77 and further assuming that they were connected to recording devices.

    That's three nested assumptions in the context of a FOIA specific request wherein the government maintains that there was only one video recording responsive to the request.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:25 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by hooper
    reply to post by eyestotheskies
     



    At least we have all reached the point that we all agree that there were indeed cameras covering the area of the Pentagon where the impact ocurred.

    It is just a matter of what type of cameras they were, what they recorded (if anything) and where has the footage gone?

    Agreed?


    Hardly.

    You are assuming that the things circled in the photos are cameras, you are further assuming that they were aimed in such a manner on 9/11/2001 that they would have seen the approach/impact of Flight 77 and further assuming that they were connected to recording devices.

    That's three nested assumptions in the context of a FOIA specific request wherein the government maintains that there was only one video recording responsive to the request.


    I see that you are careful not to disagree with me even though the tone of your reply makes it sound like you are.

    Could you please address my earlier post which aludes to Hardys sworn testimony which states that there is video tape footage of the lawn/helipad area of the Pentagon in the vicinity of the impact but only capturing footage from after the impact?



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:36 AM
    link   
    reply to post by eyestotheskies
     



    Could you please address my earlier post which aludes to Hardys sworn testimony which states that there is video tape footage of the lawn/helipad area of the Pentagon in the vicinity of the impact but only capturing footage from after the impact?


    Fine, could you please link me to the Hardy testimony? Your earlier post only refers to Hardy in the other agents affadavit.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:37 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by network dude
    Why is it still being withheld? National security?

    a camera set up with footage of a plane
    coming directly at the camera would reveal
    there were no pilots in the cockpits as you
    could see into the cockpit from the windows.
    No pilots would prove RC airplanes and blow
    the OS out of the water. Remember Hani Hanjour
    was flying that one remember. The footage would
    show an invisible Hani Hanjour.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:41 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Myendica
     


    As I said in previous post, that the use of these cameras at my previous bldg location, while I worked security took stills, at 25 second intervals. I'll see what I can do to come up with specs for that particular camera system and submit it to you for your review.

    As a side note, if your gonna disagree with someone, atleast you could come up with a more constructive response than just " prove it".



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:43 AM
    link   
    reply to post by network dude
     


    While I don't claim to be knowledgeable concerning PTZ cameras , I do tend to check out the pros and cons of most of what I see mentioned in these threads .

    From what I am finding , there are those who tend to believe that a PTZ is not the most reliable system , and that they are better utilized when used in conjunction with fixed-camera systems .

    So , according to what I am finding , it is possible that those cameras were aimed at different pre-sets , before and during the impact .


    A common way video analytics are done is using a series of pre-sets and performing analytics at each pre-set compared to the previous scene at the pre-set. For instance, let's say you have a front entrance, and a vehicle entrance and you want to alert if a person is detected at either. You could set up 2 pre-sets, 1 at each location and then set at a timer for the camera to stay at each pre-set for a few seconds. There's a serious security issue in that an incident can occur while the camera is at a different pre-set. Also, since the camera needs to re-learn the background, many manufacturers require the cameras to stay at a pre-set for 5 seconds or more.

    Over the years, a few vendors have claimed to perform analytics across a scanning PTZ (in motion) but I would be careful about its performance .

    John Honovich


    ipvideomarket.info...

    Note this statement , from the above quote :


    There's a serious security issue in that an incident can occur while the camera is at a different pre-set.
    edit on 9-2-2011 by okbmd because: eta



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:52 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by hooper
    reply to post by eyestotheskies
     



    Could you please address my earlier post which aludes to Hardys sworn testimony which states that there is video tape footage of the lawn/helipad area of the Pentagon in the vicinity of the impact but only capturing footage from after the impact?


    Fine, could you please link me to the Hardy testimony? Your earlier post only refers to Hardy in the other agents affadavit.


    You already know what Hardy and Jacqueline Maguire have had to say on the matter. You are well versed in all the details but are just being obstructive yet again.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:54 AM
    link   
    reply to post by budaruskie
     


    Though I usually walk away from someone who doesn't address the statements, presented. Further, responds much like you did, by addressing a statement with a question that is a non-issue. However, I feel compelled at this time to address your question.

    So with that, I would have to conclude that your opinion, or thoughts would be skeptical at best. Though I agree with you in one aspect, it would be nice to see the video, which in turn would allow for a conclusion to be drawn. But the problem I see, with your previous responses, is that you appear to want to see this video, but though we do not have access to that evidence, which prevents anyone to ascertain what happened, it would seem you wish to decry possible theories as to what happened. I'm not saying the OS is truth, but to denounce one possible outcome, for another, is laughable at best.

    Why you seemed so upset, which btw, If you felt offended because you assumed i was being sarcastic in my previous post, was not meant to be offensive in any way. Still if that's the way you felt, sounds more like a personal problem.

    If the only constructive response you can conjure up, by refraining from answering a statement addressed to you, by asking a question and refusing to discuss further without your questioned being answered, further suggests you need to walk away from your keyboard, and address your maturity levels. Which most fellow readers would most likely agree, was childish in nature.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:59 AM
    link   
    reply to post by eyestotheskies
     



    You already know what Hardy and Jacqueline Maguire have had to say on the matter. You are well versed in all the details but are just being obstructive yet again.


    Well, I am not aware of any such testimony about the helipad,



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:30 AM
    link   
    reply to post by boondock-saint
     


    "RC airplanes" is a bunch of baloney.....it is SO fringe, that even the most ardent and rabid "truthers' shy away from it!!

    AND, I've expounded at great lengths, already, on just why and how "RC airplanes" is completely implausible.

    But, one quick PROOF that there were human pilots in the cockpit is from the Flight Data Recorder (SSFDR).

    There are certain knobs that were rotated, and other buttons pushed, to control some instrument and navigation displays, that are absolute proof of humans having done the manipulations. In the extreme and impractical fantasy of "remote control" there simply would have been NO NEED for such things to occur....as, they only affected what someone, IN the cockpit, would SEE in front of him, on the instrument panels....



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:44 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by weedwhacker
    reply to post by boondock-saint
     


    "RC airplanes" is a bunch of baloney.....it is SO fringe, that even the most ardent and rabid "truthers' shy away from it!!

    AND, I've expounded at great lengths, already, on just why and how "RC airplanes" is completely implausible.

    But, one quick PROOF that there were human pilots in the cockpit is from the Flight Data Recorder (SSFDR).

    There are certain knobs that were rotated, and other buttons pushed, to control some instrument and navigation displays, that are absolute proof of humans having done the manipulations. In the extreme and impractical fantasy of "remote control" there simply would have been NO NEED for such things to occur....as, they only affected what someone, IN the cockpit, would SEE in front of him, on the instrument panels....



    I've seen the photograph of the alledged flight data recorder recovered from the 'crash', and read reports that the data retrieved was partial and unreliable at best, and non existent at worst.

    It seems that it can only be relied on when it is used to support the official account of the events...



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:52 AM
    link   
    reply to post by eyestotheskies
     



    I've ..... read reports that the data retrieved was partial and unreliable at best, and non existent at worst.



    "reports"??

    Sources?

    Because, there is AMPLE evidence that the SSFDR is quite accurate. The ONLY "argument" or complaint was with the very final few seconds. An Australian computer coding /software expert, Warren Stutt, was able to properly decipher what the NTSB couldn't (or, didn't bother to do). There is a recent thread on it, trying to find now....

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    www.abovetopsecret.com...

    And...www.gwu.edu...

    And...ntsb.gov...

    And...probably the best one, for PILOTS familiar with the B-757/767 to understand, and it nails the reality for me:

    www.ntsb.gov...


    AAL 77 Navigation System Activity
    Figure 3 shows the VOR stations tuned to by the two VOR receivers on American Flight 77.
    The EFIS mode determines the type of display shown on the EHSI. During the initial part of
    the flight, the EFIS is in “MAP” mode. In this mode, the EHSI displays an airplane symbol
    pointed towards the top of the display, with the magnetic heading and track shown in a
    partial compass rose at the top of the display. Various points of interest - VOR stations,
    fixes, airports, and so on - can be displayed in their correct position relative to the airplane.
    The planned and projected route of flight can also be displayed in the MAP mode. The
    range of the MAP mode can be adjusted from 5 miles to 160 nautical miles, depending on
    the detail or scale of map required.


    That was a brief, and general background description....now, note here, next:


    At about 09:08:20, the display switched to VOR mode;....


    There is only ONE reason for this. The pilot, on board, selected a mode of display that he was more familiar with, from flying other airplanes. The VOR mode changes the EFIS screen from the MAP mode, to an electronic depiction of a typical Horizontal Situation Indicator type instrument display. It was more "comfortable" for him, as he was more used to it.

    This is a typical Electronic HSI (from a different airplane, not a 757, but similar enough):




    Here's the EFIS screen in MAP mode (this, from a Boeing 737, but again, very similar display):




    Here, the EFIS control panel from the 757/767 (at the top, unrelated, is the Radar Altimeter controls):



    There are two "VOR" position selections...."expanded" and "full". "Full" gives you the entire HSI...."expanded" gives you just the upper portion of the HSI compass rose...similar to the compass rose arc in the MAP display.


    ALSO, when taken out of MAP mode,it activates the manual tuning panel, for the VOR. They are in "auto-tune" for the inertial navigation system (IRS) to auto-update and refine its calculated position, based on ground sources for reference. The EFIS controls, and the VOR tuning panels are all on the center pedestal, between the two pilots' seats positions.

    Continuing from the NTSB narrative:

    The points during the flight at which the VOR receivers were tuned to new frequencies are
    shown on the map in Figure 2 as yellow diamonds. The points shown occur after the
    hijackers took control of the cockpit.
    Lines from the airplane flight path to the stations
    indicate the VOR stations tuned by the left and right VOR receivers. The point on the flight
    path from which the lines originate are the points at which the station was first tuned, i.e., the
    points at which the VOR station frequency selected by each receiver changed.
    Note that while the EFIS was initially in MAP mode, the left and right VOR receivers were
    tuned to stations whose bearings from the airplane differed by about 90 degrees, at the time
    at which the VOR station pairs were changed. This illustrates the method the system uses
    for obtaining VOR position fixes to update the INS.
    During the turn back to the east, the frequency of the right VOR receiver was set to 111.0
    MHz
    , corresponding to the VOR station located at Washington Reagan National Airport
    (DCA)
    . At the time the DCA frequency was selected, the station was too far away for its
    signals to be received by the receiver.



    Any questions?


    edit on 9 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:58 AM
    link   
    reply to post by eyestotheskies
     


    The one thing about the flight recorders that does make me wonder, is that the first story issued by the FBI, and admitted into the 9/11 commission report was that no flight recorders were found?


    The 9/11 Commission Report backs the FBI's story, flatly stating: "The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found."



    According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the cockpit voice recorders (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR), or "black boxes", from Flights 11 and 175 were not recovered from the remains of the WTC attack; however, two men, Michael Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi, who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, stated in the book Behind-The-Scenes: Ground Zero[143] that they helped federal agents find three of the four "black boxes" from the jetliners:[144][145] "At one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes. We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three."[146] The cockpit voice recorder from Flight 77 was heavily damaged from the impact and resulting fire. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, both black boxes from Flight 77 and both black boxes from Flight 93 were recovered. However, the CVR from Flight 77 was said to be too damaged to yield any data. On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings.[147] In April 2006, a transcript of the CVR was released as part of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.[148]


    There is other evidence to support that the boxes indeed were recovered and where in the custody of the FBI. So which is it? Did they, or didn't they recover them? The point is, with the continuous contradicting statements, does for me anyways, raise questions.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:10 PM
    link   
    they were recovered and pilotsfor911truth went over them and don't like what they found
    and the cameras....they are all over that place and they wont relaese the pics....the one they did release was fake....the motel camera shows LITTLE smoke cloud. pilotsfor911truth are ashamed of the official os...





    new topics
     
    22
    << 1    3  4  5 >>

    log in

    join