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: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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....)


I'd have to go with the gold depository at Ft. Knox. I mean, who else has an entire DIVISION plus a bunch of other divisions at their disposal?

Here is a list.
•316th Cavalry Brigade
•194th Armored Brigade
◦1st Bn, 81st Armored Regiment
◦3rd Bn, 81st Armored Regiment
◦5th Sq, 15th Cavalry Regiment
◦1st Bn, 46th Infantry Regiment
◦2nd Bn, 46th Infantry Regiment
◦5th Bn, 46th Infantry Regiment
•3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division
•4th Cavalry Brigade, 1st Army Division (East)

Not to mention the home of the 1st Armored Division, which has more tanks than any other base in the world there.

Yeah, I am going with Ft. Knox.




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
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.


I would hope that even before 9-11, a building that housed the top military officials for all branches of the US armed forces would have at least tried to match the incredible security of Quickie Mart. So yea, I agree. And that is the point of this thread. I think that there were several camera angles that should have at least been pointed in that general direction, and I would be very surprised if none of them were set to record any and all information they saw. Since I am just some obscure guy on the internet, nothing I say will matter to anyone except the few who read this thread, and even may not to them. I am just discussing this like I do most topics on this site. While our government certainly must have some boneheads in it, I find it hard to believe that they put all of them in charge of security.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 



I would hope that even before 9-11, a building that housed the top military officials for all branches of the US armed forces would have at least tried to match the incredible security of Quickie Mart.


The problem is this type of rhetoric. You are implying that your average American convenience store has 100% video coverage at all times and in every nook and cranny. They don't. They monitor the public areas for a variety of reasons, most of which are obvious. However, non-public areas are rarely monitored, storage areas, back doors, loading areas, etc. Same probably goes for the Pentagon. Obviously areas open to the public are probably monitored, official points of ingress and egress, parking lots, etc.. To extrapolate this to infer that every square inch of the building (over 3 milllion square feet of office space) is ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
CCTV footage of Pentagon hit. Watch the extreme upper left side of your screen.




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by FDNY343
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.


I would hope that even before 9-11, a building that housed the top military officials for all branches of the US armed forces would have at least tried to match the incredible security of Quickie Mart. So yea, I agree. And that is the point of this thread. I think that there were several camera angles that should have at least been pointed in that general direction, and I would be very surprised if none of them were set to record any and all information they saw. Since I am just some obscure guy on the internet, nothing I say will matter to anyone except the few who read this thread, and even may not to them. I am just discussing this like I do most topics on this site. While our government certainly must have some boneheads in it, I find it hard to believe that they put all of them in charge of security.


Wait, so the local Quickie Mart has armed security guards and the cameras are monitored 24/7/365 by a live person? STFU!!! REALLY?!?!?!?

Security cameras are a tool that are used by the security personel. Not an actual deterrant.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by psyop911
 



ha-ha! it's not about "every square inch", mr. smartypants. it's just about those few feet where the boeing
hit the pentagon. jeez. it's not that difficult to understand. hope this helps.


Ok wiseguy - please tell me why they would have a security camera trained on that area? Just in case a plane were going to hit it at some time in the future?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psyop911
 



ha-ha! it's not about "every square inch", mr. smartypants. it's just about those few feet where the boeing
hit the pentagon. jeez. it's not that difficult to understand. hope this helps.


Ok wiseguy - please tell me why they would have a security camera trained on that area? Just in case a plane were going to hit it at some time in the future?


errrm, i guess so. what do you think? seriously. why do you think there were cameras all over
the pentagon and the surrounding areas? to check when the ice-cream truck arrives? domino's
truck? i'm confuzed.are you?
edit on 10-2-2011 by psyop911 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2011 by psyop911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Here is a link to the Judicialwatch website. They have some links to other video for the pentagon hit, including the citgo gas statoin footage.

Judicialwatch



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by psyop911
 



errrm, i guess so. what do you think? seriously. why do you think there were cameras all over
the pentagon and the surrounding areas? to check when the ice-cream truck arrives? domino's
truck? i'm confuzed.are you?


Well, yes, now I am confused. In one post you claim that they didn't cover every square inch and then to prove that you claim that there are cameras all over?

Again, why would there have been a camera trained just on that area?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Wait, so the local Quickie Mart has armed security guards and the cameras are monitored 24/7/365 by a live person? STFU!!! REALLY?!?!?!?

Security cameras are a tool that are used by the security personel. Not an actual deterrant.


wow. and to think I have been going through life not knowing this.


you just made my point for me.

And Hooper, the Quickie Mart has cameras looking at the gas pumps to catch drive offs. So if a huge passenger jet was to crash into the front of it, the camera would at least be pointing at it. Just like the cameras on the wall of the pentagon have to have been pointed somewhere.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


dude, why are you posting 5 frames that show 'michael moore heading for the buffett table'?
i'm seriously confuzed now.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


dude, why are you posting 5 frames that show 'michael moore heading for the buffett table'?
i'm seriously confuzed now.



What are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 



And Hooper, the Quickie Mart has cameras looking at the gas pumps to catch drive offs.

Yeah, thats what I said - "public areas".

So if a huge passenger jet was to crash into the front of it, the camera would at least be pointing at it.

Yep, but if the passenger jet would crash into the back of the building, well, then they wouldn't, would they?

Just like the cameras on the wall of the pentagon have to have been pointed somewhere.

a) If, in fact, they are cameras.
b) If, in fact, they are active.
c) If, in fact, they are recording.
d) Then they must be pointed a pretty specific point and very specific time.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


thanks for those links.
Please look at this video:

go to 1:26 and pause it. it's the frame just before the explosion. I want that to be a plane, but it just doesn't look that way. It seems too small and to long and skinny, and too low to the ground.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I admit that it does not convey the perfect visual image of a passenger plane, however, as I am sure you realize, the object is some distance from the camera, the lense is distorted, and it is a very slow frame rate.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Look Hooper, we both know that I don't know if there was a camera that did catch the plane, and you don't know either. I am speculating that there should be, and if there isn't, it would surprise the hell out of me. that's all.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Unrstandable.. Question for the people in the thread. Does anyone know how far away the security checkpoint is away from the impact point on the Pentagon? The reason I ask is because cameras of that type are designed to show detail close up, usually the car and occupants. The lens they use distorts the picture for the complete shot.

Think walleye disease if anyone remebers the movie Hotshots.. Fisheye view. because of that distortion, anything in the background is not going to be in focus, nor will it show anything in great detail that is moving fast. Its not designed to. Its designed to capture the vehicle and occupants who have to stop at the gate to enter the grounds.

Also, as far as other surveillance cameras go, I think people are ignoring the fact that they are PTZ cameras (Pan, tilit,zoom). They dont just face one direction. They are programmed to scan the area and will overlap with other ptz cameras present for a complete view (they are synced).

Also, since the security system is centralized and interconnected, its also entirely possible that some cameras did intially capture the plane. When it hit, it caused massive damage to not just the building itself, but electrical to. A surge through the system on that magnitude could easily destroy any footage that was captured. The other question is where is the Pentagon Security area that maintains all of the equipment / servers for the surveillance system? Its also possible that area was actually impaceted / damaged by the hit, also wiping out footage.

It is entirely possible that this is why they are saying there is no video footage showing the impact aside from the gate cam, the hotel and citgo.

The FBI retains 84 video footage segments. Of those, if I rmeber right, only 12 had an angle to see that area. I am not trying to push anything on either side of the argument, but I am pointing out that the explanations are plausible.

I know people are going to ask how can 12 cameras miss this - they are witholding the truth. I can say based on experience that it is possible for a bunch of cameras to miss an incident. They are not a 100% surefire, will catch everything as it occurs system.

just food for thought.
edit on 10-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


dude, why are you posting 5 frames that show 'michael moore heading for the buffett table'?
i'm seriously confuzed now.



What are you talking about?


i performed a glenn beck on debunkers of 9/11 truth. nevermind.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


it's hard to see based on the quality of that shot because of the distance. It looks unlike a plane, but I can't say if it is or isn't, only that is doesn't look like one.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join