Camera angles at the Pentagon

Here are two pictures that were recently posted in a thread. I circled the cameras that I could see in the shots. Both cameras are pointed in the direction of the impact zone. Both cameras should have had a clear view of the plane at some point. Since they were looking at the front of a public building, I would have to assume that there would be no top secret technology laying about on the lawn that would prohibit these camera angles from being shown to the public. 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. Sure there are still some other unanswered questions, but if this was proven to be as advertised, then it would make the rest of the OS seem more credible.

The truth shall set you free.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bc83caaf30cc.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0f0a88b2576d.jpg[/atsimg]

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.

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.

reply to post by FDNY343

no, the top camera was a PTZ or pan tilt zoom, The camera on the tower is a fixed mounted camera. But none of that is important, as this footage has not been released. So nobody will be able to show where it was pointing. My whole point is this could shut up a lot of people. Why is it still being withheld? National security?

reply to post by network dude

no, the top camera was a PTZ or pan tilt zoom,

How did you come to this conclusion? Was only this photo?

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.

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 disagree. Showing the footage from that camera would certainly be a step in the right direction. I believe it would be very difficult to fake that video. I'm not a 'damn fool conspiracy site truther' as Good Ol Dave likes to fondly label them for convenience. I just want the evidence. Whats wrong with that?'

Your argument above is a neat way of suppressing the evidence - 'no one would believe it anyway so why bother'...

Dont you want to see it? Dont you have any nagging questions? And by the way - weren't you arguing on another 9/11 thread that those items circled on the photos aren't cameras?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by network dude

 

no, the top camera was a PTZ or pan tilt zoom,

How did you come to this conclusion? Was only this photo?

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.

Originally posted by eyestotheskies

Dont you want to see it? Dont you have any nagging questions? And by the way - weren't you arguing on another 9/11 thread that those items circled on the photos aren't cameras?

not me. I just noticed them in the other thread and thought it would be a good point to bring up as I know a little bit about CCTV.

reply to post by eyestotheskies

I disagree. Showing the footage from that camera would certainly be a step in the right direction. I believe it would be very difficult to fake that video.

Why exactly? I mean in this day and age with existing technology you could probably produce a believable video showing the Queen Mary hitting the side of the Pentagon.

I'm not a 'damn fool conspiracy site truther' as Good Ol Dave likes to fondly label them for convenience. I just want the evidence. Whats wrong with that?'

Well, "evidence" is not a bottomless pit. There is only going to be so much evidence. Now you are asking for evidence that does not even exist. There is something wrong with that.

Your argument above is a neat way of suppressing the evidence - 'no one would believe it anyway so why bother'...

Just presenting an honest assestment of the situation.

Dont you want to see it? Dont you have any nagging questions? And by the way - weren't you arguing on another 9/11 thread that those items circled on the photos aren't cameras?

No, I think I was arguing that we can't be sure they are cameras, and even if they are, you can't look at a photo of the cameras and determine if they were being recorded. Not all CCTV at a site are necessarily connected to recordation devices, some, particularly in traffic areas, are meant only to visually advise controllers or dispatchers. Like the cameras near the heliport.

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.

My posting style is not to endlessly counter every response that you make as you dodge or deflect every reasonable point that is presented to you. I dont do that in real life and I wont succumb to it here.

People reading this can decide for themselves whether you (Hooper) have answered the relevant points in a fair and reasonable manner or not.

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.

hooper, there is no form or limitation to your condemnation or ridicule of the truth movement. I've seen this syndrome before, its the "uber conspiracy theorist" syndrome, where you believe that "truthers" are so evil, naive, and un-American that nothing would ever satisfy their hunger for the truth.

You know I told you the exact same thing, my entire thread was based on it...the thread you ran from and never provided any proof for your claims in!

There are cameras, there is footage, we haven't seen it, what does that mean? As NWOwned so eloquently put it, SHOW ME THE MONEY!! When I see a plane hit the Pentagon, I will accept it as true!

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~

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 ?

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.

reply to post by budaruskie

hooper, there is no form or limitation to your condemnation or ridicule of the truth movement. I've seen this syndrome before, its the "uber conspiracy theorist" syndrome, where you believe that "truthers" are so evil, naive, and un-American that nothing would ever satisfy their hunger for the truth.

I never said they were evil.

You know I told you the exact same thing, my entire thread was based on it...the thread you ran from and never provided any proof for your claims in!

What claims?

There are cameras, there is footage, we haven't seen it, what does that mean? As NWOwned so eloquently put it, SHOW ME THE MONEY!! When I see a plane hit the Pentagon, I will accept it as true!

Really? Thats it? Nothing else? So, I think it would true to say that in the history of manking you believe only about a handful of aircraft have ever crashed, as I am not aware of a lot of film of actual plane crashes.

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~

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 ?

What seems clear to me is that Hardy is only providing evidence to the US District Court based on information he has been presented with. That is what he actually says. Therefore he could easily be telling the truth in his statement, and just may not have access to all the evidence. That doesnt mean that the whole institution of the FBI is corrupt, but maybe only one or two individuals that were privy to all the evidence. I also find it intriguing that Hardys first placement after graduating from FBI school was to be placed on the most important and complicated case in US history.

What is clear from the sworn evidence given is the there is indeed videotape recordings of the aftermath of the incident outside the Pentagon immediately after the incident. I wonder why we cant see that?

reply to post by network dude


good observation network dude. My opinion is that camera should have captured the impact.. Id bet alot that it ws pointed at the heliport there..