Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Camera angles at the Pentagon

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GBP/JPY
 


So, the data and voice recorders for Flights 11 and 175 were handed over to the boys at PFT and they don't like what they saw?

I am dying to hear more about this.




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Again , the disadvantages associated with employing a PTZ system :


Unless you have a person who is watching the scene and adjusting the field of view of the camera based on what's going on its not as useful . Most times you are better off buying more of the non-PTZ cameras to continuously cover the area rather than a PTZ .


www.discount-security-cameras.net...

With scores of professional opinions like this available on the internet , it is not unreasonable to assume that those cameras did not capture the plane approaching or impacting the Pentagon .

These are not my opinions , they are the opinions of those who actually sell and install these cameras .

So , if the marketers of such cameras are making statements such as this , why is it so difficult to entertain the possibility that those cameras failed to capture and/or record the event ?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by network dude
 



I install these for a living. It's the first thing I look at when approaching a building. PTZ cameras are dome shaped and when on the middle of a wall, usually mounted on a pipe as this one is.


So have I, network dude. And you know those "domes" are simply protective covers for exterior camera positions. The camera inside the dome can be either fixed or active.




that's correct. And the camera mounted on the middle of a flat wall can see 180 degrees on it's best day. Most do not have lenses that cover that wide of an area and any installation would have multiple view angles covering the whole area. So this camera I showed may or may not have been looking directly at the impact zone. I admit that. But in all the cameras that are on that wall, at the very least, one of them should be looking at that part of the wall. Or some crazy hippie might wander up and break a window to get into the pentagon and nobody would have seen him. Again, I didn't install them, so I cannot say for sure that any of them ARE looking that way, I am saying that some of them SHOULD have been looking that way and they should have been recording 24/7 just like a convenient store would.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
I am saying that some of them SHOULD have been looking that way and they should have been recording 24/7 just like a convenient store would.


Even if they were, who's to say the recording media even survived the impact, collapse, fires and firefighting effort?

No one seems to know where that media would have been kept anyhow, so there's a job for all you serious "researchers", find out where that media would have been when the plane impacted.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


It's possible that there were no cameras looking at the front of the pentagon. It's also incredibly unlikely that the most secure building in the United States had a security hole that big. Go to that site and look at the cost of one of those cameras. Then think about the one time installation fee as opposed to 5 hourly armed guards to patrol that side of the pentagon. Even bureaucrats would have to side with the cameras.

It makes more sense that a plane crashed into the pentagon. It's much easier to believe that. I wish I was convinced. I just have a few hang ups with it. The lawn not being damaged as one of the first pictures shows. (before the collapse) The relatively small hole in the facade along with 5 more relatively small holes through to the outer wall of the 3rd ring. The absence of everything in the area being burned to a crisp. Maybe all that is just coincidence. But it certainly is enough to leave me with questions.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by network dude
I am saying that some of them SHOULD have been looking that way and they should have been recording 24/7 just like a convenient store would.


Even if they were, who's to say the recording media even survived the impact, collapse, fires and firefighting effort?

No one seems to know where that media would have been kept anyhow, so there's a job for all you serious "researchers", find out where that media would have been when the plane impacted.


According to Alfie1:

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by network dude
 


In response to litigation following FOIA requests the FBI, in the person of Special Agent J Maguire, made the following declaration, on penalty of perjury, to the US District Court, District of Columbia :-

www.judicialwatch.org...

You will see that the declaration says that, after investigation, it was found that the FBI has no footage showing the impact other than the security gate frames. Are you saying the FBI is lying and part of the conspiracy ?



So if they reviewed the footage, it must still exist. After all, the FBI wouldn't lie to you.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 



And the camera mounted on the middle of a flat wall can see 180 degrees on it's best day.

Depending on the lense specified.

Whatever. If the things you circled in those photos are cameras, I'll lay odds that positioned that close to the heliport they were not focused on some arbitrary approach to a wall section. As for the "hippie" breaking windows and sneaking in - I believe that is generally discouraged via live patrols, not CCTV's.

The answer is simple - another FOIA request for ALL video and photographic recordations of the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
__________________
@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.


  • Yes. But think for one moment. A guy breaks into the 7-11, steals 5 twinkies and a 6 pack of Old Style beer. (he had real bad taste) He runs out. 7.5 minutes later, a squad car arrives with 2 uniformed officers. the first thing they ask is to see the tape. Most often the review a tape. Now, back to thinking. this is the most secure building in the United States. While yes, it is supposition, shouldn't it be at least as secure as the 7-11?


    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.





    Agreed. But as was mentioned, somewhere on the facade of that building, either the camera I pointed out, or another one much like it, should have been looking in that direction. It's possible that it wasn't, but it's way more likely that it was.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:34 PM
    link   
    reply to post by network dude
     



    this is the most secure building in the United States.


    Can we examine this statement? Maybe I should start a new thread, but I see this statement A LOT. I am not arguing that it is not a secure building - but the MOST secure building in all of the USA? Why?

    The building itself is the administrative headquarters for the DoD. There are actually no material assets there beside personnel. Not that the personel are not important, but there are no bomber wings, nuclear subs, tanks, weapons caches, missiles, or those other things that are actually vital to the defense of the country.

    The building itself is located right next to major highways and a stone's throw from a very busy public airport and not far from a navigable river. Its not too far from residential areas and last, but not least, you can arrange to have a tour of the building. I can imagine that there are much more secure areas in the USA. Nuclear submarine bases, hell, nuclear power plants to name a few. CIA headquarters, NSA headquarters, the FBI building, high security prisons, Edwards AFB, Andrews AFB, Los Alamos to name some more.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:37 PM
    link   
    reply to post by hooper
     


    I can imagine that there are much more secure areas in the USA.


    Fort Knox.

    The Federal Reserve Banks.

    The Mint.

    Sheesh....even the TSA Headquarters! (Well, with all the anger against them,not surprising....)



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:38 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Whereweheaded
    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.


    Honestly, your writing style is hard to understand. I believe your answer to my very basic question is however in this post, so I will respond accordingly.

    My question was: What is my opinion and what do I believe...in regards to the Pentagon event on 9/11 of course.
    Your answer was(I think): " I would have to conclude that your opinion, or thoughts would be skeptical at best."

    The truth: My belief is that something did explode at the Pentagon. I do not know what it was. Some people say they saw a plane, some even say they saw it hit the Pentagon, and I believe they are being honest. However, others say they saw different planes (different sizes, in different places, different markings) as well as other planes (grey C-130), and many do not say they saw it actually strike the Pentagon; I also believe they are telling the truth. I have no way of giving any one witness more credibility than another, so I can't base my belief entirely on eyewitness testimony because then I would have no clear picture. But, it does appear that some sort of vehicle was flying towards the Pentagon, that is the only completely agreed upon idea I can find.

    So, I think its reasonable to look at the photographic and video evidence. What I see is a hole about 20 or so feet wide and a fire in the first pictures taken. I think its worth noting, that there is no obvious plane wreckage in these photos, but that doesn't mean necessarily that it isn't there. What is there, is pictures of security cameras that have a reasonable chance of catching the plane in their field of view. So, in my opinion, its reasonable to want to see the footage they did record...BUT THE GOV'T WON'T SHOW IT. This immediately makes me wonder why. What are the possible reasons for the gov't not providing evidence that would support its case? However, I'm forced to keep looking at AVAILABLE evidence instead. Ultimately, there are photos of small pieces of debris that reasonably looks like parts of an airplane to me...this is the evidence that seemingly supports the OS. But again, I can't help but notice how little of it there is, how small those pieces actually are, and the complete lack of large sections of engine, wing, tail section, etc as well as the missing giant skid mark on the grass. To this day, I have not seen ANYTHING that isn't small enough to be carried into place by 1-2 people. That doesn't mean that the entire gov't and military sat down and planned out a nefarious deception, but it does mean that only 1-2 people could have nefariously decepted us all with careful planning. I also see a hole on an inside ring that is roughly the same size as the original hole in the outside wall that OS guys tell me was created by landing gear. Maybe it was, but what about all of the columns inside the outer ring those things would have had to dodge or destroy to get there? Why did this landing gear, which to my knowledge consists of a single steel rim, create such a large symmetrical hole? Why does the first reporter on scene say unequivocally, that there is no evidence of a large jet anywhere? Ultimately, why would such an enormous plane crash have so little evidence?

    On top of that, there are many other aspects of the event that have official explanations that lead me to be at the very least, skeptical. For instance:
    How could a pilot with no training on that type of aircraft fly it so precisely? My grandfather and father are both pilots and they think its ridiculous to assume that they could do it. Numerous other experienced pilots, including at lest one who has actually flown that particular aircraft not just one like it, say that its official flight path was impossible. Why would they all say this?
    How could such a pilot fly the plane beyond its known capabilities in regards to speed and maneuverability?
    How come it was never intercepted?
    Why did it disappear, then reappear on radar?
    Why did air traffic controllers say they thought it was a military aircraft because of its speed and maneuverability?
    Why was the crime scene immediately tampered with and literally covered up with dirt as quickly as possible?
    Why would an official say a missile struck, when he really meant a plane; especially when so many damn fool conspiracy sites claim it was a missile?
    Why did a guy from Rolls Royce say that a piece photographed at the scene wasn't a piece from one of his engines, if it really was?
    Why did it strike the only portion of the Pentagon reinforced for such an attack?
    Why did it strike the only portion of the Pentagon with all of the recorded data regarding Rummy's 9/10 speech?
    Where is the evidence of passengers at the scene?
    Why would a woman who was in that particular office say she walked out of the hole in the outer wall if she didn't, and why doesn't she say that she believed it was a passenger jet that created it?
    Why is there no plane on the security gate footage or the hotel footage?

    There are many other questions to be answered, but it doesn't do any good to list any more at this time. The fact of the matter is ONE clear video of a plane impacting the outer wall would answer many of these questions. If that is what happened, then I believe that somewhere a camera caught it on video. If that really is the case, then the gov't would have this footage and should have released the footage long ago, to support their own questionable explanation.

    I really can't make it any clearer than that.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:39 PM
    link   
    reply to post by network dude
     


    Again , it is entirely possible that those cameras were equipped with a 360-degree rotation , instead of just a 180 .

    This being in addition to the fact that they may have been equipped with adjustable pan-speeds .

    With these two possibilities in mind , we would further need to know what length of delay was involved between each pan . Was it 5 seconds , 10 seconds ? How long did it take for the camera to make a complete 360-degree rotation ? It would seem plausible to me that they did indeed employ the 360 instead of the 180 , as they were mounted above and away from the building , whereas I'm assuming that the 180 would have been mounted flush ?

    I'm not referring to the camera trained on the helipad , as it is fairly obvious to me that it is/was pointed in a downward position . I'm referring to the others that were mounted above the building .

    I'm guessing that the degree of rotation , as well as the pan-speed , would be classified information for obvious reasons .

    Therefore , if we entertain the possibility that the cameras employed 360-degree rotation , and may have been set on a slow pan-speed , with a 5-10 second delay at each pre-set , it is still entirely possible that those cameras failed to capture the impact .

    If I'm missing something here , feel free to correct me , as I am simply going with what available information I have found since having taken an interest in this thread .

    As you said above , it is possible that none of those cameras were focused on that wall at the time of approach or impact . We can not determine that , since we don't know if they were on a synchronous rotation or not .


    I am saying that some of them SHOULD have been looking that way and they should have been recording 24/7


    As for recording , it is also entirely posssible that these cameras were the type that record only when motion is detected . Therefore , without knowing for certain that they were focused in the direction of approach/impact , we cannot say definitively that they should have recorded anything at all .

    With all of the above in mind , it is entirely possible that the "OS" is plausible concerning the statement that the cameras didn't show anything .
    edit on 9-2-2011 by okbmd because: (no reason given)



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:45 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Whereweheaded
     


    I don't understand your confusion, here:


    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.


    If you will re-read the citations you posted....it's very clear.

    American 11, first airplane to hit, in NYC at the WTC. United 175, second, same location.

    HAD the Towers not collapsed?? Then, in due time, the Recorders from those two airplanes (all four Recorders) would very probably have been recovered. But, in that incredibly large mess of the collapses? It isn't surprising that they were crushed, mangled and never seen.

    Of course, your sources DO point out that American 77's and United 93's Recorders...all FOUR of them, were recovered.

    So, I just can't understand your claim of "contradiction", there.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:54 PM
    link   
    reply to post by budaruskie
     


    Wow, there is so much there its hard to know where to start. That being said, lets look at this one first:


    How come it was never intercepted?


    What was never intercepted? You don't believe that a passenger plane impacted the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 yet you seem to want to know why it was never intercepted. Well I guess we have a few choices here, first, it was a missile or some other military weapon launched by the US and therefore the US would have no interest in intercepting it on the mission it was assigned by the same people who launched it. Second, the intercept was "cancelled" in order to allow the aircraft to strike the building and thus provide the popular pretext for extensive military action in the Middle East. But that presupposes that it was an actual plane commandered by hijackers in which case, well 9/11 was as the official story relays it. Or thrid, and most likely, the USA does not have the capability to shoot down any plane, any where at any time.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:00 PM
    link   
    reply to post by weedwhacker
     


    The claim of contradiction stands, where the FBI claimed that no flight recorders were ever retrieved. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, they claim and I quote:


    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


    So the contradiction is that the report made one claim, and even before the commissions report was published, it came out that the FBI did in fact have some of the recorders. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I glanced through some of the info, in regards to CVR's and I'm thinking that only one aircraft has one CVR. So four of them being found would suggest that all four aircraft each having one CVR was recovered. Which is against the OS story that none were found to begin with?



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:11 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Whereweheaded
     


    Still not following you....your boxed quotes specify AAL 11 and UAL 175, and the WTC. Those were not found. Never were. (Despite some false claims, on certain "truther" websites).

    They were hoping that, maybe, during the clean up at Ground Zero, something would have turned up. BUT, they were not given any special priority, as far as I understand.

    Foremost, at the scene, were the cares taken with any possible Human remains. That was deemed far more important, from a standpoint of respect for the dead, and sensitivity to relatives and loved ones. This, of course, included the remains of the NYFD personnel who were victims in the collapses. When you read some books on this, you learn a LOT too....some inter-agency rivalries, and turf wars....some politicians pressing to "Go faster!" in clean up, and others, NYFD and NYPD wishing to take more care...etc. It was a tug-of-war, and battle of egos that developed....AND, winter was approaching too. SO, there were multiple factors complicating the entire post-collapse mess.

    Pentagon, situation different. The Recorders far easier to locate. Some think it's unfortunate that the CVR was unusable...but, I looked at the timeline and it wouldn't have made much difference, anyway. It only records for 30 minutes, give or take a few extra minutes....and, the time of the cockpit intrusion and takeover was MORE than 30 minutes prior to impact. SO, what would have been heard, had the tape survived? Men speaking in Arabic, most likely.

    I suppose, even then, there would be "truther" websites claiming that TOO was "faked"...


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



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:30 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by network dude
    So if they reviewed the footage, it must still exist. After all, the FBI wouldn't lie to you.



    Uhh, lol wut?

    Where in there do they discuss the media from the Pentagon cameras that were not from the parking lot footage?

    Or was that just a non-answer? Surely not, since you say they "reviewed the footage".



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:39 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by hooper
    reply to post by budaruskie
     


    Wow, there is so much there its hard to know where to start. That being said, lets look at this one first:


    How come it was never intercepted?


    What was never intercepted? You don't believe that a passenger plane impacted the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 yet you seem to want to know why it was never intercepted. Well I guess we have a few choices here, first, it was a missile or some other military weapon launched by the US and therefore the US would have no interest in intercepting it on the mission it was assigned by the same people who launched it. Second, the intercept was "cancelled" in order to allow the aircraft to strike the building and thus provide the popular pretext for extensive military action in the Middle East. But that presupposes that it was an actual plane commandered by hijackers in which case, well 9/11 was as the official story relays it. Or thrid, and most likely, the USA does not have the capability to shoot down any plane, any where at any time.


    Well, if it was a plane, why was the plane never intercepted? Intercepted, BTW, doesn't necessarily mean shot down.

    Scenario 1: Is logical, in the sense that our military wouldn't shoot down its own weapon, but hard to swallow because it requires our own gov't and military to attack themselves. Isn't impossible, has historical precedence, but ultimately is inconclusive.
    Scenario 2: Hard to follow but the cancelling of an intercept is possible and your reasoning does fit nicely with actual subsequent events, however, I don't understand why or how this by itself in any way proves the OS. Furthermore, YOU say the next scenario is more likely than the OS, not me.
    Scenario 3: The Unites States of America has or at least had no capability to shoot down any plane any where at any time. Seemingly, you also mean has no capability to intercept either. This is the biggest pile of crap I've ever heard. I don't have the time or gumption to explain all the ways this is illogical, impractical, ridiculous, moronic, and obviously untrue. We can agree to disagree on this, but YOU are the ONLY person I've ever met who believes it to be true.

    Now, pick another point if you like.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:40 PM
    link   
    reply to post by weedwhacker
     


    According to this source, the flights that hit the towers, those recorders were found:


    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]



    Wouldn't that suggest that your statement that they were never found, possibly suggest otherwise?
    Not to mention, that in 47 years of CVR's usage, not one crash ever prevented the recorders from being found? Hell, we even found the one in the ocean during the TWA crash. And the very suggestion that they couldn't find them, though they were able to find fingernail clippings that tested for DNA to identify victims, would further suggest that the story that the recorders were never found doesn't have merit. The CVR's has been wildly suggested as being in-destructible.
    edit on 9-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:43 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Soloist

    Originally posted by network dude
    So if they reviewed the footage, it must still exist. After all, the FBI wouldn't lie to you.



    Uhh, lol wut?

    Where in there do they discuss the media from the Pentagon cameras that were not from the parking lot footage?

    Or was that just a non-answer? Surely not, since you say they "reviewed the footage".


    I think, and I may be wrong, but I think ND is saying that according to the affadavit the FBI reviewed tapes or recordings and determined that they were not responsive to the FOIA request which, if I recall correctly, specifically requested any recordings of the Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. And I believe what ND may be getting at here is he wants to see them anyway to determine if by their focus and poistion the items that he has called out on the photos are indeed cameras and where they were aimed. I had suggested earlier that a possible solution would be a new FOIA request for ALL videos and visual recordings in and about the Pentagon on 9/11.









     
    22
    << 1  2    4  5  6 >>

    log in

    join