• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pentagon Security Videos Update

BCR said:
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!
Click to expand...
Can you show us evidence where they said 10 of 11 were recording?
 
Guys, guys: Can we all stop jumping each other here and try to be evidence based, please? Instead of attacking, how about we consider arguments on their merits?

BCR: This is not an attack, merely an attempt to clarify - I don't know whether Andrew (Gumboot) is right or wrong, but he did have a point that was compelling to me in the amount of storage that was taken. Sizewise, that number (volume, capacity, whatever) is indeed not a whole lot. So his skepticism does seem to be grounded in something rational. Is there a fact based response to that point? I don't see him as pulling that out of his a**, but rather stating it as being extrapolated from a reasonable point.

Gumboot and others: This, too isn't any attack or anything like that. Rather, as a peer, I'm asking this - BCR's got what seems to be a reasonable point too that's not based on personal opinion, but rather two elements:
  1. The fact that Ft. Myers itself indicated that recorded footage existed but was not retained, and
  2. Personal experience with camera systems.
That seems rather fact based to me. And we've trusted personal experience in the past, as long as it dovetailed with verifiable details. Perhaps it doesn't matter in the specific case of the Pentagon cameras, and perhaps it doesn't matter at all if indeed you all are right, but wouldn't it be reasonable to at least consider the point that John's making, that there is at least a rational reason if not several of them to believe that recordings were indeed made? John doesn't appear to be creating those points out of whole cloth, you guys know.

As Oystein said:
Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is a reasonable statement to all of this. So please, can we try to consider things dispassionately? From my point of view, I don't know who's right or wrong, but I think there's enough meat here for us to chew on without chewing on each other, if you know what I mean.
 
Grassy Knowlington said:
FLIR - that's a real 'thermal' camera? Great for seeing freshly deposited glowing moose poo at night (if you're out in the woods)?
Click to expand...

Yes FLIR is a real IR camera...it stands for "Forward Looking Infrared".

Some websites will tell you the "R" stands for "Radar" or "Radiometer" but I have never heard anyone in the DoD, Intel Agencies, or Civilian Contracting companies refer to "FLIR" as anything other than "Forward Looking Infrared".

FLIR's have all kinds of uses for the government and military and there are several vendors that sell all kinds of different imaging systems......from basic EO systems to night vision, FLIR's, UV cameras, etc.

Anyway the FLIR systems work great during the day and at night....they don't get fried during the day.
 
BCR said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know of many, many camera surveillance set ups that don't include recording. I can't help you if you refuse to believe something that's patently obvious. By definition a camera does not record. A camera captures a video image. In order to record from a camera you have to choose to additionally add a recorder. There's a plethora of reasons why someone won't do that.


BCR said:
Do you just sit around an pull stuff out of your ass to impress people?
Click to expand...

Grow up.


BCR said:
Most of the Pentagon systems are time-lapse, not full 30 fps to maximize storage.
Click to expand...

They're not time lapse, but I know what you mean, and for analogue that makes exactly zero difference.



BCR said:
On hard drive taken represents the cameras the FBI was interested in, not necessarily ALL of the cameras in use.
Click to expand...

How convenient that all of the cameras they were interested in just happened to record to that one hard drive!
 
Sherman Bay said:
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?
Click to expand...


When the original pentagon video came out I did a quick bit of photographic interpretation and demonstrated that it was quite an impressive feat of statistical unlikelihood that it captured anything, as the aircraft would have crossed the entire frame of the camera in far less than the interval between frames. And that was a very wide-angle camera with the Pentagon fairly small in the background.

I would say the statistical odds of more than a couple of cameras being recorded, pointing somewhere that the aircraft would have crossed the frame, and actually had the right timing with the frame rate to capture the aircraft would be astronomical.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Gumboot and others: This, too isn't any attack or anything like that. Rather, as a peer, I'm asking this - BCR's got what seems to be a reasonable point too that's not based on personal opinion, but rather two elements:
  1. The fact that Ft. Myers itself indicated that recorded footage existed but was not retained, and
  2. Personal experience with camera systems.
Click to expand...



I have no issue with BCR's claims about dishonesty and lack of cooperation from authorities regarding the release of footage. Indeed, I wish him well and hope the material is soon secured and sense is made of it all.

The only thing I dispute is BCR's claim that it's abnormal for security cameras to provide only a live feed and not be recorded. It's not. It's quite common.

As I've already pointed out, a camera by definition does not and cannot record video. Only a recorder can record video. Although you can get consumer cameras that "record" this actually consists of two distinctly separate units - hence why they're called a "camcorder" (camera-recorder).

I don't think I've ever come across a surveillance camcorder, although I suppose they probably do exist. They would not be particularly practical however in most instances as cameras are often put in places where accessing the recorder would be problematic. Instead it's normal for surveillance cameras to provide only a live feed. If the user wants to record it they have to set up a separate recording unit. In a more sophisticated system where multiple feeds are being recorded, the live feeds are directed into a processing unit which performs whatever correlation of the footage is required and outputs to a recording unit.

Sometimes not wanting to set up a recording system is as simple as a matter of cost. Obviously a camera and a recorder costs more than just a camera. At other times there's logistical restrictions. Logistical considerations include the number of cameras, how you want to record it, and how long you want to store the video. On other occasions it's just not seen as something that's needed. The purpose may be only to provide a live feed. A good example is someone with a surveillance camera monitoring the gate of their house. And finally there can be privacy or security reasons for not recording the video footage. I personally know of extremely high security facilities that do not record video because the benefit of possessing the records is outweighed by the added security risk in having said recordings.

Of course all of this refers to systems using actual cameras, and not dummy cameras. A "dummy camera" is a fake camera - that is not a camera at all but a hunk of plastic/metal/whatever made to look like a camera. These can be quite sophisticated sometimes, with LEDs, and even motion tracking movement. They do not, however, capture video images at all.

What Dave Rogers was referring to when he made the comment that sparked this debate off was clearly not dummy cameras, but real cameras that simply did not have their feed recorded.
 
Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...


You would need to know the frame rate as well.
 
I have no doubt that the original two Pentagon videos captured images of the plane. Just not very well.
 
The thing with these videos:
If you were the insurance company and wanted to cheap out by saying the plane was in less than good condition prior to the crash..................invaluable.

To the rest of the world................?



:confused:
 
Let's leap to the unwarranted assumption that some camera, somewhere, recorded a sharp, unambiguous image of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, exactly where the damage was, and exactly where and when the preponderance of evidence suggests it happened. What possible reason would the government have to refuse to release this?
 
Sherman Bay said:
Let's leap to the unwarranted assumption that some camera, somewhere, recorded a sharp, unambiguous image of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, exactly where the damage was, and exactly where and when the preponderance of evidence suggests it happened. What possible reason would the government have to refuse to release this?
Click to expand...

Just to piss off BCR, and the twoofers. Guess you what? It worked!:D

NEXT!
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
I think you guys are thinking of Wal-Mart type CCTV systems. This is a high security military facility that is not very likely to use 'dummy' cameras. 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.
Click to expand...

Some cameras only record when there is movement, but often some movements will happen faster than cameras can begin the recording. If the any of the cameras had this type of system, and if they weren't pointed at the lawn the plane flew over; the then the plane would have been traveling way to fast to be recorded before impact.
 
TokenMac said:
Some cameras only record when there is movement, but often some movements will happen faster than cameras can begin the recording. If the any of the cameras had this type of system, and if they weren't pointed at the lawn the plane flew over; the then the plane would have been traveling way to fast to be recorded before impact.
Click to expand...
A good point which I don't think has been made before. A lot of security installations have motion detecting software such that motion (changing image) starts the recorder.

Probably not relevant to Pentagon 9/11 but it fills out the known options.
 
gumboot said:
When the original pentagon video came out I did a quick bit of photographic interpretation and demonstrated that it was quite an impressive feat of statistical unlikelihood that it captured anything, as the aircraft would have crossed the entire frame of the camera in far less than the interval between frames. And that was a very wide-angle camera with the Pentagon fairly small in the background.

I would say the statistical odds of more than a couple of cameras being recorded, pointing somewhere that the aircraft would have crossed the frame, and actually had the right timing with the frame rate to capture the aircraft would be astronomical.
Click to expand...
Why are you applying critical thinking. not fair against 911 truth claims
 
BCR said:
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.
Click to expand...

Having sat in many a guardroom/glass house on duty and monitoring/controlling live surveylance cameras through a tv monitor, usually at the approach too a main gate or around the perimeter, black spots, blind spots etc, I wasnt always necessary to record anything at all. Old betamax or vhs tapes did get used nightly and 'taped' over but not at all times. No need. When in Northern Ireland we did the same. Often no need to record anything. Watching the local totty coming home from a night out in short skirts and low cropped tops was never recorded but was watched live by those in the guardroom.

The advent of digital cameras in the UK put a stop to the lottery of being 'flashed' on a speed camera. Pre digital they had 'film'. Once the film ran out the camera would still 'flash' but no exposure. Today they have digital. Every 'flash' results in an 'exposure'. 3 points and a £60 fine for all. Not sure if any of that has any relevance to the cameras at the Pentagon in 2001 but knowing military bases around the world and nowing that not everything is rigged up to record kinda puts a spanner into 'the cameras must have been recording' woo, IMO. Woo for woo sake.

Regardless, i have seen footage and can see an aircraft. You have too!
 
Last edited:
Just checking in:

Any evidence, that cam in question recorded?
NO?
Sad, really. This is a skeptic forum, right?:rolleyes:
 
BCR said:
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.
Click to expand...

The VDoT cameras were not recorded back then though I assume that has changed since.

Keep up your good work and post the videos if you ever get a hold of them
 
Lenbrazil said:
The VDoT cameras were not recorded back then though I assume that has changed since.

Keep up your good work and post the videos if you ever get a hold of them
Click to expand...

The VDoT cameras were not 'security' cameras. They were strictly for the purpose of monitoring traffic flow and were recorded when requested by law enforcement.

This is why I have no patience for the 'not hooked up' argument.

http://zoesflight.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/missing-doubletree-hotel-security-video-footage/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom