Camera angles at the Pentagon

Originally posted by hooper
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?

good. it's good that you're confuzed. as for the cameras? seriously? you seriously believe not one
camera caught flight77 hitting the pentagon? no wonder you're confuzed. i'm merely confuzed
because you are confuzed. strange.

reply to post by psyop911


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.

The other thing to take into account is the background distance, the distortion of the camera lens for the far away view, and the speed of the aircraft. On the screen the distance between entering the frame on the right to impact on the left is tiny tiny tiny with a fast moving object.

400-600mph crossing a field of view that is distorted. Its not going to show the smoking gun people are demanding.

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).

reply to post by psyop911

good. it's good that you're confuzed. as for the cameras? seriously? you seriously believe not one
camera caught flight77 hitting the pentagon? no wonder you're confuzed. i'm merely confuzed
because you are confuzed. strange.

Seriously, tell me why there would have been a camera focused on that particular area at that particular time. And the answer "well they had cameras all over" doesn't count.

Crash test video of an F-4 phantom travelling at 500mph crashing into a reinforced wall. There was nothing left of the plane.



Keep in mind this is testing for a Nuclear Power plant to withstand a direct hit from a fast moving aircraft. The Pentagon was designed and upgraded to survive a nuclear blast (or at the very least weather a near hit.

reply to post by network dude


Dude....put your thinking cap back on...

It "looks unlike a plane" because it's moving really, really fast through the frame....thus, a blur. Calculate out, with me, mmmmkay?

~480 knots, we'll use that, 'cause I saw it on the NTSB animation recreation, taken from the FDR.

ONE nautical mile (basis for "knots") = 6,076 feet. So, @480kts (ONE knot is one nm per hour), you will cover 2,916,480 feet, right? (480 times 6,076). Divide that distance covered in an "hour" by 60, for feet per minute = 48,608 fpm. Divide THAT by 60 again (for 60 seconds in one minute) and you get? ~810 feet per second.

DO you see the problem, yet?? For a camera with a shutter rate of, what? Typical is probably about 1/60th second....might have been a little faster, maybe 1/100th. Everyone knows when you wish to capture very fast motion, you have to have the shortest shutter speed feasible...for your aperture setting, and film "speed" (ISO). If the shutter speed is "long"....more than about 1/500th or 1/1000th, then you WILL get motion blur.

Basic, basic photography principles.


AND, as already pointed out, the perspective is WAY distorted, due to the lens focal length. It's a "fish-eye"....AKA 'wide-angle'. This makes things in the background appear to be much, much smaller than they actually are, relative to the actual distance. Very basic premise in photography....if you don't have one, I wold suggest getting an SLR camera, and some various lenses....some very wide-angle lenses, like 18mm or less.

I know, cameras may seem expensive....but, there is Craigslist, eBay, pawn shops....lots of good deals out there. The BEST way to learn these things is hands-on, practical experience.....a lot can be added to your education from online sources, too of course.

If a Plane hit the Pentagon lets see it. That blurred BS of a clip showed nothing. I don't claim to nkow what happened, but there is a reason why this footage has not been released. How can the most heavily guarded Building the World with an attack in Progress on our Country be such a sitting Duck? Because it is BS!



reply to post by hooper

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.

Greetings Nano-UnTruther,

How about a pocket sized energy weapon with some holographic planes that where not Alien tech... www.abovetopsecret.com...

911 was an outside job

Mr X-Pulse

reply to post by weedwhacker

believe me, I understand that. But as I said, IT DOESN"T LOOK LIKE A PLANE. It may be. I see it, and it looks as if it's traveling parallel to the ground and it doesn't look large enough to be a passenger jet. It's very far away from the lens and it's moving fast and it's out of focus. So just as I cannot say it's a missile, or a giant twinkie, you cannot say for sure it's a jet. ( I swear I have no idea why twinkies keep coming up in my dialog)

reply to post by ugmold

If a Plane hit the Pentagon lets see it. That blurred BS of a clip showed nothing. I don't claim to nkow what happened, but there is a reason why this footage has not been released. How can the most heavily guarded Building the World with an attack in Progress on our Country be such a sitting Duck? Because it is BS!

Boy, talk about rhetorical creep! Now the Pentagon is the most heavily gaurded building IN THE WORLD!

How can it be such a sitting duck? Because its the one of the largest buildings in the world, its in the middle of a heavily traveled and populated metropolitan area, adjacent to major highways, waterways, and a public airport. And its shaped like a target.
And I didn't pick out its location or its design, and don't forget, as iconic as the building may be as a symbol of American military prowess, it is still only an office building. As I've said before, and you can easily confirmed, the building and the grounds do no actually house any militray assets besides personnel. No tanks, no aircraft carriers, no missiles, no bomber wings, no tank divisions and few combat troops. Command and control, yes, but since the cold war all those systems have redundancies all over the world and the country. Everyone knew that the Pentagon was target 1 for the Soviets so its importance as a military asset has been minimalized a long time ago. Its an office building.

reply to post by network dude

It's very far away from the lens and it's moving fast and it's out of focus.

Yes....well, it's as far away as the rest of the background....but, again...lens distortion. You can see the clear distortion (oxymoron) by observing the surround terrain and buildings. Compared to how our eye view things (a 50-55mm lens gives about the same perspective as our natural eyes). Think "beer goggles".

( I swear I have no idea why twinkies keep coming up in my dialog)

Maybe you are re-modelling your bathroom?? I hear that the creamy filling in Twinkies might be a cheaper substitute for tile caulking....

reply to post by FDNY343


Gee, your a Rocket scientist aren't ya? Im pretty sure we already knew that, I was saying the conflicting stories issues by the FBI was what was in question....and really, flight 11 nor 175 ran into the pentagon? To think, I had it backwards this whole time...( sarcasm)

Originally posted by weedwhacker

( I swear I have no idea why twinkies keep coming up in my dialog)

Maybe you are re-modelling your bathroom?? I hear that the creamy filling in Twinkies might be a cheaper substitute for tile caulking....

oddly enough, I just finished that project last week. you might have something there. no, really.

reply to post by network dude


Looks fake to me. Zoom in and look at the pixels around the camera. Looks like a cut and paste. I looked for another picture of this angle in google images to compare but could not find one. It could be real, but those distorted pixels are concerning.

You get this effect when you paste over another image. Like this... I pasted a jet into the sky. Look at tthe jet. Zoom/magnify and you will see.

i167.photobucket.com...

*** ATTENTION ***

Knock off the off topic, snide and rude comments towards each other.

You will be Post Banned.

reply to post by budaruskie

Does the debris inside the Pentagon even enter into this discussion? Like engines, landing wheels, DNA of the passengers? And I think it's a stretch to think that a video of the plane could even be captured unless the cameras were the best that could be used, and they'd have to be pointed in the right direction for the 3-5 seconds the plane would be visible to them. I think the idea of an actual video is impossible. And I doubt if there would be any preparation in advance for something like this to happen. And of all the videos I saw of the Twin Towers being hit, none of those came from government sources. So if there was any video available, it would have to be from someone on the ground witnessing the event.

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.

Well there hooper, that IS the front of the pentagon BEFORE the outer ring collapsed, SO WHERE IS THE PlANE WRECKAGE? I personally don't see any AT ALL. Should it not be scattered about the WHOLE OF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING? But where oh where is it? I see nothing that even remotely resembles plane wreckage.

So please, enlighten us to exactly where the "plane" is supposed to be, where is the wreckage? It is not or can not all be condensed in one small unseen pile can it? Please SHOW US!!! Where is YOUR proof there was a plane, where is ALL the wreckage, not just some photos of people carrying off clean, small pieces of debris.

So let me get this straight....Apparently the plane hit the walls at 500 mph or so with a fully laden fuel cargo and that is the reason that it vapourised, and yet parts of the outer casing which were flung in the opposite direction are still shiney and painted in the livery of the airline and have no signs of burning. One piece was found up against the Pentagon wall with part of the letter ''C' of American Airlines still on show.

Also the impact was so intense that the engines, wings and fuselage of the plane disintegrated into mush and yet the photos of the bodies retrieved from the scene show intact fully clothed bodies covered in dust and debris.

More evidence of any of the aftermath would be welcome - even if it is out of focus, slightly shaky from the impact or even show other areas of the complex.

Lets see it all - every camera that doesnt show anything, and then decide for ourselves

Originally posted by ArthurEagle
reply to post by budaruskie

 

Does the debris inside the Pentagon even enter into this discussion? Like engines, landing wheels, DNA of the passengers? And I think it's a stretch to think that a video of the plane could even be captured unless the cameras were the best that could be used, and they'd have to be pointed in the right direction for the 3-5 seconds the plane would be visible to them. I think the idea of an actual video is impossible. And I doubt if there would be any preparation in advance for something like this to happen. And of all the videos I saw of the Twin Towers being hit, none of those came from government sources. So if there was any video available, it would have to be from someone on the ground witnessing the event.

Do you NOT realize there were video cameras on neighboring buildings and those videos were confiscated......, release them FBI and government. And is the Pentagon NOT protected by surface to air missiles? What happened here, where was the defense system we have been told about in the past? Was it shut off, and if so, by WHOM? Please, these kinds of frivolous arguements you people present are absolutely ridiculous.

Here are some more CCTV examples of how distortion can affect whats being seen. As I said earlier, keep in mind that the Pentagon video is designed for close clarity for car / occupant. Also keep in mind the plane is hauling ass, the background distortion on the camera and the fact the plane crossed the T.

Had the plane approached at a different angle it would have been on camera longer. Since it crossed the T, and was moving fast, even 30fps would not be enough to capture the image.

The only other way I can describe this would be for you to stand out in your yard with blinders (restruicted field of view). Have a friend stand off to the side where you cannot see them. Have the person launch a bottle rocket across your field of vision. Make sure you hve it video recorded from your perspective.

Now, take that video footage and speed the bottle rocket up to say 5-10 times over is origional speed.

That is what you are seeing in the Pentagon gate video.

CCTV - Hudon River plane crash. The second video looks like a missile hitting the water and not a plane.




Plane crash caught on Construction CCTV - imagine the plane moving at 500mph


Plane crash in Dubai CCTV - watch the upper middle to upper right part of the video


Roof Cam from DEA HQ across street from Pentagon. Camera was facing down and did not catch the impact. I have never seen this video so I thought I would add it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Crash test video of an F-4 phantom travelling at 500mph crashing into a reinforced wall. There was nothing left of the plane.

Keep in mind this is testing for a Nuclear Power plant to withstand a direct hit from a fast moving aircraft. The Pentagon was designed and upgraded to survive a nuclear blast (or at the very least weather a near hit.

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

No, it was not a nuclear blast, it was for a bomb blast, but not nuclear.