Pentagon Security Videos Update

[Oystein]

All this thinking of what the cameras would and would not record is mere speculation, as long as we don't have the records to review. And even more so what they did and did not record.

So any truthers claiming there are so-and-so many unreleased videos that would show a plane (if there had been one) are as much talking out of their arses as debunkers claiming the unreleased videos would not show a plane (even though there was one). The only exception would be a good photo prior to 9/11 which shows clearly enough the direction that the camera was pointed, plus a good reason to assume a maximum field of view/viewing angle.

 

[BCR]

All this thinking of what the cameras would and would not record is mere speculation, as long as we don't have the records to review. And even more so what they did and did not record.

You are so very correct. However, it is rational speculation. Leftysergeant pretty much nailed it I think. A good example would be the DEA footage.



Yes, the camera would have had a perfect view of the event. However, the camera is installed with a specific purpose in mind, to monitor the entrance plaza to the DEA's building, not the Pentagon. So I seriously doubt that any were pointing at the impact point or the Citgo station.

However, with the magnitude of the event, they should contain enough secondary information to help fine-tune some historical footnotes. From the CT point-of-view they will be valuable in what they do not show perhaps more than what they show.

 

[NoahFence]

Guys, ya'll are starting to sound like 'truther' types. Of course the systems record. For a camera not to be set up to record is the exception, not the rule. So the question is "why would the three cameras on the roof of the Pentagon NOT record video?"

Well, I think they'd certainly be recording video, but of the exact same place at the exact same time? Uh...no.

Perhaps the video from those 3 cameras weren't released because they don't hold any relevant footage?

 

[BCR]

Well, I think they'd certainly be recording video, but of the exact same place at the exact same time? Uh...no.

Perhaps the video from those 3 cameras weren't released because they don't hold any relevant footage?

So, they were not released and withheld during a legal deposition by an FBI agent because they don't hold any relevant footage? Reckon it depends on what your definition of "is, is".

 

[newton3376]

Looking at the image it shows what appears to be a security camera... am I wrong?

It looks like a type of "EO" camera...most of this type are "PTZ" cameras and unless you are looking at the camera up close it can be difficult to tell where the lens is pointing.

These types of camera are typically used for daylight conditions and can also be used for low light conditions as well.

Pelco sells several camera types like this....they can be used for indoor or outdoor use (I've used them for both and they worked well for the projects we used them for).

 

[NoahFence]

So, they were not released and withheld during a legal deposition by an FBI agent because they don't hold any relevant footage? Reckon it depends on what your definition of "is, is".

"Perhaps"

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, they were not released and withheld during a legal deposition by an FBI agent because they don't hold any relevant footage? Reckon it depends on what your definition of "is, is".

Hey, he was Just Asking Questions[tm].

Dave

 

[Grassy Knowlington]

It looks like a type of "EO" camera...most of this type are "PTZ" cameras and unless you are looking at the camera up close it can be difficult to tell where the lens is pointing.

These types of camera are typically used for daylight conditions and can also be used for low light conditions as well.

Pelco sells several camera types like this....they can be used for indoor or outdoor use (I've used them for both and they worked well for the projects we used them for).

Just for information: Given the nature of the site I would expect (selected) cameras to have good near-IR (infra-red) sensitivity enabling use of so-called 'Black Light' (i.e. near-IR) illumination. Pan-Tilt-Zoom effects can also be achieved using a camera that doesn't apparently move. But this is probably all irrelevant to the point here.

 

[newton3376]

Just for information: Given the nature of the site I would expect (selected) cameras to have good near-IR (infra-red) sensitivity enabling use of so-called 'Black Light' (i.e. near-IR) illumination. Pan-Tilt-Zoom effects can also be achieved using a camera that doesn't apparently move. But this is probably all irrelevant to the point here.

True...

They likely have a few FLIR cameras on a movable mount.....we used that on some rooftops and it worked out pretty well....

Nothing wrong with a little "FYI"

 

[leftysergeant]

Just for information: Given the nature of the site I would expect (selected) cameras to have good near-IR (infra-red) sensitivity enabling use of so-called 'Black Light' (i.e. near-IR) illumination. Pan-Tilt-Zoom effects can also be achieved using a camera that doesn't apparently move. But this is probably all irrelevant to the point here.

Daylight would fry the cicuitry

 

[Grassy Knowlington]

Daylight would fry the cicuitry

Standard CCD-cameras have reasonable near-IR sensitivity - you can try this out by looking at a IR remote control. So, these wouldn't get fried.

If night-vision types then if there is a risk of damage to the light amplification/detection mechanisn then an auto-iris with spotted lens (attenuation on a lens element that kicks in for small physical aperture iris setting) protects. I'm a bit rusty on this stuff though.

FLIR - that's a real 'thermal' camera? Great for seeing freshly deposited glowing moose poo at night (if you're out in the woods)?

 

[gumboot]

Just for information: Given the nature of the site I would expect (selected) cameras to have good near-IR (infra-red) sensitivity enabling use of so-called 'Black Light' (i.e. near-IR) illumination

"Black Light" is Ultra-Violet, not Infra-Red.

 

[gumboot]

Guys, ya'll are starting to sound like 'truther' types. Of course the systems record.

Why of course? You're clutching at straws here, big time.

For a camera not to be set up to record is the exception, not the rule.

This is incorrect. Whether a surveillance system records or not is dependent entirely on its purpose. In the modern age, with ultra-high video compression codecs and enormous storage capacity, recording is more common. In 2001, not so much.

So the question is "why would the three cameras on the roof of the Pentagon NOT record video?"

Because the purpose they were installed for renders recording unnecessary?

 

[gumboot]

Regardless, enough were operational that the FBI took the entire hard drive for the digital ones and 16 analog tapes. As the Ft Myer folks indicated, they were not interested in systems with nothing on them, so I suspect there is a lot of good coverage represented.

Actually if all they took was a single hard drive and 16 analogue tapes, it's quite probable the cameras in question did not record. There are thousands of cameras at The Pentagon. One 2001-era hard drive and 16 non-digital tapes is NOTHING in terms of video footage duration. If this was the total surveillance record for Sept 11 2001, as the document you linked to indicates, this would suggest well over 90% of cameras at The Pentagon are not recorded but provide only live video. I don't think you've really thought this through, to be honest.

To illustrate what I'm talking about, the longest available analogue tape recording time is on the VHS E-300, which is 600min in LP (10hrs). That means for 16 tapes we have a grand total of 160hrs recording time. If we're generous and assume all of these are 4x split screens we get 640hrs of discreet feeds which would be video for a mere 26 cameras for a day.

In 2001 maximum capacity of a single hard drive was under 100GB (closer to 10GB, to be honest). Considering that a single 60 minute DV tape requires 13GB of storage, I think we can see that "one hard drive" (of 2001 era) is not going to hold a heck of a lot of video, no matter how compressed.

The places you're going to record video are where it might be useful to have a record of activity - that means places like a front gate where vehicles come in and out (so you can capture number plates). Perimeter security cameras ar normally used solely as a live feed to reduce the number of personnel required (people are expensive, so you only use them for really high value assets) as it enables one or two crew in a central booth to monitor a very large area simultaneously and direct roaming guards where needed. Otherwise you need a pair of guard at every door and roaming every perimeter - old style.

 

[Laeke]

I have the odd feeling that there was some confusion in the discussion between "recording on tape" and "recording aka camera is on".

As gumboot pointed, just because a camera is working (not a dummy one) does not mean that the data was recorded on tape.

EDIT: Although it is also also possible that while not recording per se the whole live feed, storing key images (every x seconds) would be much less intensive -on a hard drive at the very least- (though the amount of data would still be considerable over a day, considering the number of cameras). Isn't that what we saw for the camera outside that provided images back in 2001 (or 2002)? I seem to remember that the stills were not exported from a full video, but what was indeed recorded. This is the system that we see on the DEA camera as well.

 

[BCR]

Why of course? You're clutching at straws here, big time.

This is incorrect. Whether a surveillance system records or not is dependent entirely on its purpose. In the modern age, with ultra-high video compression codecs and enormous storage capacity, recording is more common. In 2001, not so much.

Because the purpose they were installed for renders recording unnecessary?

Gumboot, that is NOT incorrect. You can post all your Google links you want, but since I have actually worked with video systems for 35 years and have never seen one that did not record (unless a dummy in a low cost system), especially a primary setup like the exterior cameras.

Do you just sit around an pull stuff out of your ass to impress people? Most of the Pentagon systems are time-lapse, not full 30 fps to maximize storage. On hard drive taken represents the cameras the FBI was interested in, not necessarily ALL of the cameras in use.

 

[Dog Town]

Gumboot, that is NOT incorrect. You can post all your Google links you want, but since I have actually worked with video systems for 35 years and have never seen one that did not record (unless a dummy in a low cost system), especially a primary setup like the exterior cameras.

Do you just sit around an pull stuff out of your ass to impress people? Most of the Pentagon systems are time-lapse, not full 30 fps to maximize storage. On hard drive taken represents the cameras the FBI was interested in, not necessarily ALL of the cameras in use.

Wow you called us twoofers for wanting proof that the cams in question were recorded. Then you go on some freaked out diatribe about having never seen a camera that wasn't hooked up to record? REALLY? I personally have seen hundreds used for live surveillance, not attached to any recording device. You need to take a break, I think.
Your attack on Gumboot is off the charts, out of line!

 

[BCR]

Wow you called us twoofers for wanting proof that the cams in question were recorded. Then you go on some freaked out diatribe about having never seen a camera that wasn't hooked up to record? REALLY? I personally have seen hundreds used for live surveillance, not attached to any recording device. You need to take a break, I think.
Your attack on Gumboot is off the charts, out of line!

Why? Because I am sick of know-it-all forum 'experts' who don't know a damn thing about the subjects they comment on? I said some of you are as bad as 'truthers', because you rationalize or make up crap to justify your positions. This is one of them.

I put you guys in the same category as the FBI who said camera #11 was 'not hooked up and recording'. Strange, that was an analog video with only 10 of 11 cameras recording (testimony under oath). Yet being an analog system, tracking errors resulted in adjacent cameras to record in the field assigned to another camera and it was no big deal to reconstruct the sequence and recover a few frames from the camera supposedly 'not recording'. It was hooked up and was the camera in the roof-top camera pointing towards the panoramic windows in the roof-top restaurant facing north.

The FBI lies about its possession of the Sheraton and Pentagon camera footage, perhaps even to the point of perjury in both civil and criminal actions and you guys do is make excuses for them. To come up with some BS that it is normal for security cameras not to be hooked up to record in high security applications is in the realm of 'truther' woo. Absolute nonsense!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Since this is as interesing as a discussion can get on this old subject, could the various parties try to calm down and save the mud wrestling for the appropriate moments, pretty please? Present your evidence and leave it at that; the world is diverse and mileages differ.

The real truthers must be chuckling at this.

Thank you,
Hans

 

[Sherman Bay]

The same holds for the Navy Annex cameras. Most likely those were pointing down on an entrance or parking lot. However, at least one should have captured the planes shadow as it passed.

Not necessarily. If a frame is recorded only every few seconds as is typical for surveillance, what are the chances that any of those frames shows a plane's shadow, especially if pointed at the foreground where the 500MPH plane would pass fastest?