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.

 

Camera angles at the Pentagon

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by network dude
 



It is my contention that if a camera angle was shown to prove a plane was in fact in the shot, then a very large portion of the "truther" movement would be satisfied.


Really? Based on what you see and read in these posts do you really think that these persons would be satisfied if the DoD released footage from those cameras that showed Flight 77 approaching that wing of the Pentagon?

I'm sorry, but I think the "movement" has moved beyond physical evidence. There is no form of witness account or physical evidence that cannot in some manner or another be dismissed as either unreliable, potentially fabricated or otherwise insufficient.

really? none? how about the obviously cut structural support beams? fire really burned those at a 45 degree angle? dude, please do more reaserch into the subject before you make posts here!




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by hooper
 


hooper, are you falling into the same trap as Dave? Every truther is not the same person. All have different questions. Not all of us believe aliens dropped mini nukes from holographic planes. I am a reasonable person and I would assume others are too. If you show a video of a plane, it's hard to deny that it's a plane. There is alot of evidence that it was a plane, the problem is, there is also some strangeness to the crash site, and somehow, the most heavily guarded building in America couldn't get a picture of a rather large plane. yes, I know it was going fast. Just show the footage of what those cameras saw, and let the public see. It's not a hard thing to do.

if you watch the movie zeitgeist they show a clip of workers cleaning up the wreckage even before the investigators can be there to look at the damage... that clip right there worries me to no end. why would you clean the area before a forensics examination? just wonderin...



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


Is it necessary to bash something that I believe?
Sure there might be evidence that points to something occurring, but there really is no need for one to shoot down another's idea. That goes against what this forum is about. Working together to find out the truth about the topic at hand? If everyone went around saying "I'm right, you're wrong. Leave n00b" we as a forum...no wait, we as a SPECIES would get no where.

I'm not saying I'm right, nor am I saying I am wrong. I'm simply stating what I believe, and for one I don't think it's right to shoot me down like that. It's a conspiracy forum, the idea of right and wrong is not in play here. It's what you believe and what someone else believes. Work together, find out whats going on and both of you win.
Deny Ignorance, don't impose it.

-7ruth



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7ruth
reply to post by pshea38
 


Is it necessary to bash something that I believe?
Sure there might be evidence that points to something occurring, but there really is no need for one to shoot down another's idea. That goes against what this forum is about. Working together to find out the truth about the topic at hand? If everyone went around saying "I'm right, you're wrong. Leave n00b" we as a forum...no wait, we as a SPECIES would get no where.

I'm not saying I'm right, nor am I saying I am wrong. I'm simply stating what I believe, and for one I don't think it's right to shoot me down like that. It's a conspiracy forum, the idea of right and wrong is not in play here. It's what you believe and what someone else believes. Work together, find out whats going on and both of you win.
Deny Ignorance, don't impose it.

-7ruth


Mate, prove you were there..
Prove you actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon..
What road were you on, what side of the car?
Show us the medical bill you have for being late for school..

THAT'S proof...Without it you are just a voice..



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Good to know you are at the Pentagon....

Please take some pictures to show us where the plane flew, take a tour and show us all of the locations of video cameras.

Let us see if they are prepared for the next attack...with you on the case they should have more than enough evidence of what to do next time to stop the terrorists.

Do not let it happen again, focus your energies on saving that building.


With the countless hours of diligent research and insight anyone can see that you are needed on the payroll.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by network dude
 



It is my contention that if a camera angle was shown to prove a plane was in fact in the shot, then a very large portion of the "truther" movement would be satisfied.


Really? Based on what you see and read in these posts do you really think that these persons would be satisfied if the DoD released footage from those cameras that showed Flight 77 approaching that wing of the Pentagon?

I'm sorry, but I think the "movement" has moved beyond physical evidence. There is no form of witness account or physical evidence that cannot in some manner or another be dismissed as either unreliable, potentially fabricated or otherwise insufficient.


I don't know what planet some people are living on , but any fool can see that a jet airliner did not cause that damage to the Pentagon . Only a blind fool would protest to the contrary .
edit on 10-2-2011 by gandalphthegrey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I'm not a genius, or video tech, top flight security of the world, or any of the sort, but I believe this type of situation may come best from someone with little experience. It's the damn Pentagon. Your telling me we don't have ONE frame of a plane hitting it?! Not even a fraction of the plane? Common guys...and as for the types of camers, you can't tell what kind of camera is inside of a shell.They could have anything inside there, lepercons with mobile phones set to record, whatever, the point is you don't know. If they would have just showed a fraction of the plane it would solve all this, atleast if they would have. Of course if they came out with it ten years after the fact it isn't gonna sway to many conspiracy theorist. Somethings up, it dosen't take a genius to figure that out.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


It is not so much the lack of the plane that is the problem. (but is a big one granted). It is the lack of structural damage to the building. What about on the opposite side of the pentagon, was there also a photo of that?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7ruth
reply to post by pshea38
 


Is it necessary to bash something that I believe?
Sure there might be evidence that points to something occurring, but there really is no need for one to shoot down another's idea. That goes against what this forum is about. Working together to find out the truth about the topic at hand? If everyone went around saying "I'm right, you're wrong. Leave n00b" we as a forum...no wait, we as a SPECIES would get no where.

I'm not saying I'm right, nor am I saying I am wrong. I'm simply stating what I believe, and for one I don't think it's right to shoot me down like that. It's a conspiracy forum, the idea of right and wrong is not in play here. It's what you believe and what someone else believes. Work together, find out whats going on and both of you win.
Deny Ignorance, don't impose it.

-7ruth


sorry 7ruth...nothing personnal. i was more having a crack at some of the guys here who refute the now irrefutable, always and ever. you did say though that you know exactly what you saw and no one will sway you, but i know you cannot have seen exactly what you say you saw, because no plane crashed into the pentagon that day. it was a missile that punched that hole through all those re-enforced walls. a reporter(its always reporters who happen to be at the scenes, selling the planes myth) on the scene claimed he saw the plane dive down and slam into the building. later on youtube he described how the wings, meeting the resistence of the walls, folded back into the body of the plane 'like a concertina'(or a penknife) and followed the main body of the plane into the building. i ask you. how can similar planes that 'crashed' into the twin towers cut instantly through steel and leave their silhouettes and not do the same through concrete. of course in reality the wings would have sheared off and dropped, in both cases. 9/11 is all one elaborate and sophisticated hoax but you will be glad to know that there were very few if any victims from terror attacks that day. most/all the victims listed on the numerous memorial sites are computer generated entities with no real existences(imagine all that compensation fund and donated monies all going into the perpetrators pockets). i know it sounds fantastical-no terrorists- no planes-no victims but do yourself a favour and delve deeply into

septemberclues.info... and see what you think then. you also said you read attack on the pentagon. did that not convince you to think again about exactly what you think you saw as a 10 year old?

anyways. sorry again and no offense meant to you.
edit on 10-2-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


There's over one hundred cameras around the Pentagon, mostly spying on their own staff.

Point Being.....



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by network dude
 


There's over one hundred cameras around the Pentagon, mostly spying on their own staff.

Point Being.....


so....physical security is a low priority? For some reason, I find that a tad hard to believe. Where those dummy cameras put up on the outside?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


most people already know where all the cameras are. nothing new here



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
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.


Then you should have specified that.


Originally posted by budaruskie

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.


Well, lets do some math.

Most cameras record at 30 fps. Some have better frame rates, but lets look here.
www.cctvcamerapros.com...

30 fps seems to be about average.

Now, (As I also explained to Jim Fetzer) an object traveling at 733 fps would traverse it's own length (meaning 160') in 2/10ths of a second. So, in the 160' of travel, we would have 6 frames of a plane. That is if the range of said camera was 160'.

Now, fast moving objects are more difficult to catch on camera without blurring without a very fast shutter speed. We do not know the shutter speed of the cameras though. Since the SS is usually digitally controlled within the camera, it could range from 1/60th to sometimes 1/100,000th.

Now, this is speculation, as NEITHER of us know what the capabilities of those cameras.

So, it seems to be your claim that it should have caught the impact and incoming plane. It's up to YOU to prove it. Not me.



Originally posted by budaruskie

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!


I didn't say that at all. I said specifically that the gov't doesn't have the legal authority to release the tapes. They don't belong to them. They belong to a private company. If you want the tapes, ask the companies around the Pentagon for them.



Originally posted by budaruskie
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.



I am sure that there are other cameras that you do not know about. I was speaking generally, and that includes cameras inside the Pentagon.

I should have been more specific.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyestotheskies

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.


Well, why don't you post it for the new people like me who haven't seen it?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
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.



Neither 11 nor 175's FDR or CVR were recovered. Also, neither one of those aircraft impacted the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
Or some crazy hippie might wander up and break a window to get into the pentagon and nobody would have seen him.


If some crazy hippie could break bomb-resistant windows and get away with it, I'd be ******* impressed!



Originally posted by network dude

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.



SOME convenience stores record 24/7. Some do not.

I'll tell you what, hindsight really is 20/20 isn't it? I am sure the DoD knows alot more about their building security needs than an obscure guy on an internet forum does. Just saying.




top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join