Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect

oscarBravo

...notably including the OP.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

why must the cameras be pointed at the sky? the plane struck at ground level, surely they had cameras pointed at the building or the paths around the building.

The Pentagon employed very few security cameras for perimiter-guarding purposes, preferring instead the use of armed soldiers.

Where cameras were used - as we know - were in places such as road-access barriers. Here, the camera needed to be able to supply sufficient frame-rate and resolution to visually identify the driver of a stationary car within a distance of something like 1.5m.

some of the films that were confiscated must have been far enough back to have seen something.

They were. Unfortunately, no-one installs security cameras to be able to pick up fast-moving objects, in detail, at distances far beyond the operating range the camera was intended for. As a result, we end up with the road-barrier cameras capturing about 3 frames of something, at distance, at high speed, which resulted in an explosion. Its in the right place, at the right speed for what is supposed to have happened. The level of detail is consistent with what you'd expect a slow-frame-rate, short-range security camera to produce for taking pictures of a high-speed object at long range.

as for frame rate, I'm not askin for a ghig res image of a plane disintegrating frame by frame, just maybe a few dozen frames which we can look at and say ah yeah that puts that one to bed then , thers the plane

Can you show that its reasonable to expect a low-frame-rate, low-resolution camera, intended for identifying slow-moving or stationary objects at close range to be able to pick up detail of a fast-moving (about 200m/sec) object at distance? Can you calculate (or reference calculations) which specify the resolution and frame-rate at different distances which would be needed to show what you want?

If you can, then its reasonable to suggest that a camera might have picked up something. If you can find a known camera emplacement which might then fit those parameters...you have something to check.

No-one can prove a tape doesn't exist....the onus is on those claiming it can/should/does exist to show that its at least theoretically possible. Ideally, then they should find an identifiable camera location which can/should meet their criteria.

Remember the gas-station camera? Until that footage was released, one group insisted that it must show something. Another group said it would be too low quality, too far away, too low a frame-rate, and would have been pointed at the ground anyway. The tape was released, showing that this second group were 100% correct. Those who had backed it being a smoking gun cried "fake" loudly for a day or two and then quietly slunk away from the entire subject. They don't even use the existence of what they claim is a faked tape to back up their case...which would suggest that deep down they know that its not a fake and that they were simply flat-out wrong. They've also stopped calling loudly for other security cameras along the flight-path because they know that the response will be to ask them why they expect it to be different to the gas-station....why they expect it to be high-resolution and pointed at the sky.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

why must the cameras be pointed at the sky? the plane struck at ground level, surely they had cameras pointed at the building or the paths around the building. some of the films that were confiscated must have been far enough back to have seen something.

as for frame rate, I'm not askin for a ghig res image of a plane disintegrating frame by frame, just maybe a few dozen frames which we can look at and say ah yeah that puts that one to bed then , thers the plane

I had security cameras in an old shop I ran. It was split four ways, so it took a frame from one camera, then the second one, then the third etc. A couple of times we had a situation where something went missing but the split second this happened wasn't on that particular camera so we couldn't be sure. You see those many clips shows on the tv and look at the poor quality of the vast majority of the security camera footage. So a plane hits the pentagon at hundreds of miles and hour. In that split second you are likely to see very little on the average security camera unless it is pointing direct up/at the plane. I don't see how this is suspicious.

Diogenes

as for frame rate, I'm not askin for a ghig res image of a plane disintegrating frame by frame, just maybe a few dozen frames which we can look at and say ah yeah that puts that one to bed then , thers the plane

It's exceptionally rare for security camera to run at a standard frame rate. In fact I cannot think of a single example of any security camera footage I've seen that wasn't take at a 4 or 5 fps rate.

As Oscar pointed out a far superior form of security is actual personal monitoring the perimeter.

As to put it to bed, hundreds of eye witnesses (including an old friend of mine) witnessed the plane fly across an eight lane highway during morning rush hour before it hit the pentagon.

Put it simply could you believe someone could really a missile barely a few hundred feet over the m50 at the red cow roundabout, into the red cow inn, at 9 o'clock in the morning, and try to pass it off as a plane?

Would that wash? No. A plane hit the pentagon.

Gordon wrote:

Yet people are still disputing the fact that planes hit the twin towers with all this video evidence.

Post of the thread.

Mahatma, there are people will never be satisfied no amount of evidence, no number of eye witnesses, nothing will dissuade or convince them that they are wrong.

casey212

What is this. My local dunnes stores has around 15 seperate cameras, one security man and a permanent man watching the various screens.

I had a word with the manager about this, as have many other people in the area. To think they have more security than the pentagon:eek:

humanji

Your Dunnes Stores has armed soldiers guarding it?

casey212

humanji wrote: »

Your Dunnes Stores has armed soldiers guarding it?

No, but you can be sure if you hoiked a few cans of devils bit you would not make the door.

Anyway Dunnes Stores are not stupid. They know that armed guards are not much use when someone fires a missile at the place.

oscarBravo

casey212 wrote: »

They know that armed guards are not much use when someone fires a missile at the place.

...as opposed to security cameras, which can stop a missile in its tracks.

casey212

oscarBravo wrote: »

...as opposed to security cameras, which can stop a missile in its tracks.

No but if you get the tape before the CIA you will see the missile hitting the place. Devil's bit everywhere.

oscarBravo

If you're convinced a missile hit the Pentagon, where did Flight 77 go?

casey212

I cannot claim any solid knowledge in this area. I don't know how anyone else can either. We are all getting out information from authorized media.

I think that the simple things are the most important. For example, if a plane did hit the pentagon, how did it not impact the ground at all before impact. Given the size of plane and impact pattern I find this hard to believe.

As for the plane, who knows.

Diogenes

casey212 wrote: »

I cannot claim any solid knowledge in this area. I don't know how anyone else can either. We are all getting out information from authorized media.

I'm not. I have an e-mail from an old friend who was stuck in traffic on the Washington Bvld describing what it was like watching the plane fly overhead and crash into the pentagon

I think that the simple things are the most important. For example, if a plane did hit the pentagon, how did it not impact the ground at all before impact. Given the size of plane and impact pattern I find this hard to believe.

Never heard of ground effect? Or the concept of argument from incredibility? How about the fact that the plane flew so low it hit lamp posts on the roadway?

oscarBravo

casey212 wrote: »

I cannot claim any solid knowledge in this area. I don't know how anyone else can either. We are all getting out information from authorized media.

We're not talking about solid knowledge, we're talking about plausible hypotheses. You're failing to put one forward. There's a perfectly plausible scenario that explains the observed facts: Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You're proposing an alternative theory, but it doesn't fit a tiny fraction of the observed facts.

casey212 wrote: »

I think that the simple things are the most important.

Me too, hence my previous question.

casey212 wrote: »

For example, if a plane did hit the pentagon, how did it not impact the ground at all before impact. Given the size of plane and impact pattern I find this hard to believe.

You find it hard to believe, therefore it didn't happen? How does that gel with this quote:

I feel that doubt is founded on disbelief that something could be occuring on this scale.

casey212 wrote: »

As for the plane, who knows.

So you don't have a coherent hypothesis. You don't think it hit the Pentagon, so it gets dismissed from your theory as unimportant, unlike such critical details as to how a plane could have hit the building without hitting the ground (which is entirely obvious, really).

casey212

Diogenes wrote: »

Never heard of ground effect? Or the concept of argument from incredibility? How about the fact that the plane flew so low it hit lamp posts on the roadway?

I seen film after the crash where no lamposts were touched, including posts no more than 50 yards from the building.

casey212

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're not talking about solid knowledge, we're talking about plausible hypotheses. You don't think it hit the Pentagon, so it gets dismissed from your theory as unimportant, unlike such critical details as to how a plane could have hit the building without hitting the ground (which is entirely obvious, really).

I am not proposing any alternative, I did say that the plane building scenario is hard to believe.

There is no way a place could hit the building dead center without impacting the ground. Maybe a fighter jet could, not a commercial plane. There are a number of pilots in my locality who have similar views.

oscarBravo

casey212 wrote: »

I seen film after the crash where no lamposts were touched, including posts no more than 50 yards from the building.

Clarify this for me: are you saying you saw film that clearly shows no lampposts knocked down on the alleged flightpath, after the impact? Can you link to this film?

casey212 wrote: »

I am not proposing any alternative, I did say that the plane building scenario is hard to believe.

Well, when you have an alternative hypothesis that explains all the observed facts and actually makes sense, come back to me.

casey212 wrote: »

There is no way a place could hit the building dead center without impacting the ground. Maybe a fighter jet could, not a commercial plane.

Why not? You've categorically stated something, now the onus is on you to back it up.

There seems to be a perception that it took piloting skill to hit the building without hitting the ground first. On the contrary, it seems to me that that's just the way it happened to pan out. The plane could have hit the roof, or higher up on the wall, or ploughed into the ground. As it happens, it hit the building pretty much at ground level. Big deal.

casey212 wrote: »

There are a number of pilots in my locality who have similar views.

Where do they think Flight 77 went? Or is that just another minor technicality that doesn't factor into their theories either?

Ciaran500

casey212 wrote: »

I seen film after the crash where no lamposts were touched, including posts no more than 50 yards from the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Diogenes

casey212 wrote: »

There is no way a place could hit the building dead center without impacting the ground. Maybe a fighter jet could, not a commercial plane. There are a number of pilots in my locality who have similar views.

Casey as has been pointed out to you, the first sentence in this paragraph is a specific claim, the onus is on you to support it. I've read a detailed report from at least one commercial and former miltiary pilot who has gone on the record to say that the flying of flight 77 was entirely plausible and realistic.

Combine this with dozens of eye witnesses who saw the plane, the physical evidence that the plane flew over head, and the hundreds of emergency workers from dozens of agencies who arrived at the pentagon and witnessed the aircraft wreckage and saw the bodies of passengers first hand.

How do you explain that? Were the witnesses, the emergency services all "in on it?"

Finally if this is such concern to these "number of pilots" why does a forum like "pilots for truth" not have thousands of members? Why aren't there hundreds of pilots marching on Washington, if it so obvious to these "number of pilots" in your "locality" (btw where do you live that has a pleathora of pilots weighing in on this?).

Incidently if they are so concerned and have expert testimony that goes to heart of exposing the greatest criminal conspiracy, and the most audacious act of concealment of mass murder in the history of mankind, perhaps you might consider suggesting that they, oh I don't know, contact y'know the war crimes tribunal in the Hague.

Or if that seems like too much work, they could join up and subscribe to this webforum and give us the benefit of their reasons for these doubts based on their expert opinions as pilots.

Seems the least they could do is all.

Clare_Guy

Diogenes wrote: »

(including an old friend of mine) witnessed the plane fly across an eight lane highway during morning rush hour before it hit the pentagon.

Your friend saw a plane flying over a highway! that's all!!? hardly conclusive?! and he'd never miss a missle while looking out the window at a plane flying over the highway!! you are drawing your conclusions from accounts publicised by mass media (which you question when it suits you!)

your "expert" analysis of potential video evidence is ridiculous, do you really believe that one of the most secure buildings in the world does NOT have the most advanced forms of cctv?!! oh yeah, the military would prefer to rely on the accounts of armed soldiers....?!

p.s. diogenes, i haven't had a chance to reply to your previous comments, i just checked in before bed, i intend to reply over the w/end...

Diogenes

Clare_Guy wrote: »

Your friend saw a plane flying over a highway! that's all!!? hardly conclusive?! and he'd never miss a missle while looking out the window at a plane flying over the highway!! you are drawing your conclusions from accounts publicised by mass media (which you question when it suits you!)

My friend is a "she" and not a "he". She happens to be an acclaimed documentary film editor, ( a job which requires a great visual memory) And she like the hundreds of motorists alongside her witnessed flight 77 fly over the highway, and into the pentagon.

If you look at any map of the pentagon you can see there's an unrestricted line of sight from Washington Blvd to the pentagon.

Finally Clare Guy what are you suggesting that a plane flew over the pentagon and a missile flew over at the same time, the plane missing the pentagon, and the missile striking it?

your "expert" analysis of potential video evidence is ridiculous, do you really believe that one of the most secure buildings in the world does NOT have the most advanced forms of cctv?!!

Perhaps you can explain to me what form of CCTV allows for 30 fps capture to tape over a 12-24 hr period? The problem being even professional tape stock won't allow more than two hours of footage to be stored on them. You're then relying on whoever is on watch to switch tapes several times a day, and increasing things like tape storage, and the possibility that there is black hole when a tape runs out and the guard forgets to switch tape stock. CCTV runs at 4 fps to allow continuos recording over a day on a single VHS tape.

Furthermore unless you can demonstrate that these CCTV cameras, that you suppose exist, are available, and common place on other high security facilities your entire point is an argument from personal incredibility,

oh yeah, the military would prefer to rely on the accounts of armed soldiers....?!

Well yes, they do.

Not the account I mean, but an armed soldier is far superior to a camera. A camera can only observer an intruder, an armed soldier, can challenge an intruder, raise the alarm and even stop an intruder. A camera can do none of the above.

p.s. diogenes, i haven't had a chance to reply to your previous comments, i just checked in before bed, i intend to reply over the w/end...

I wait with baited breath.

oscarBravo

Ciaran500 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

That's very nicely done, I've bookmarked that one.

oscarBravo

Clare_Guy wrote: »

...do you really believe that one of the most secure buildings in the world does NOT have the most advanced forms of cctv?!!

Yet again, we're back to "I can't believe they don't, therefore they do". There is no evidence - none whatsoever - to suggest that the Pentagon employs high-framerate, high-resolution CCTV surveillance. If you have such evidence, please present it.

Clare_Guy wrote: »

oh yeah, the military would prefer to rely on the accounts of armed soldiers....?!

This begs the question: what exactly do you think the Pentagon needs CCTV for? An analogy was drawn earlier with surveillance in a shop, but retail outlets employ CCTV for two reasons - to spot shoplifting as it happens, and to provide video evidence for a prosecution after the fact.

The Pentagon doesn't have to worry about shoplifting. It has to worry about things like keeping unauthorised people out, for which armed guards are a hell of a lot more effective than CCTV cameras.

bonkey

Clare_Guy wrote: »

do you really believe that one of the most secure buildings in the world does NOT have the most advanced forms of cctv?!!

It was common knowledge even before 911 that the Pentagon had little in the way of camera-based surveillance, given that if there were to be a threat identified, you'd need military personnel close by anyway in order to react. Given the dimensions of the building, and the surrounding landscape, the only practical way to deploy military personnel was in the form of ground-patrol....which obviated the need for comprehensive CCTV in the first palce.

That aside...I've lost track of the number of times it has to be pointed out to people who support the "something is rotten..." notion is that it is impossible to prove a negative. No-one can prove that the cameras do not exist.

Find the cameras. Find the person who installed them. Find footage from them from any other point in time. Find something other than an appeal to incredulity that you can't believe its not butter.

Alternately, admit that your argument is based on a rejection of evidence-based reasoning and falsification (aka the scientific method), but rather on faith, belief and assumption, and we're all happy.

oh yeah, the military would prefer to rely on the accounts of armed soldiers....?!

I think you'll find that the military has little problem with doing that, in the same way that the police force has little problem relying on accounts of its officers.

???

meglome

Ciaran500 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Looking forward to them explaining this away. Although considering that hundreds of people actually saw a plane and they still don't believe there was one, who knows. I mean why believe the hundreds of people who saw a plane when you can believe the handful who saw a missile, presented on a nice internet video... so it must be true.

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

I mean why believe the hundreds of people who saw a plane when you can believe the handful who saw a missile, presented on a nice internet video... so it must be true.

Because eyewitnesses are infallible as long as they're saying something you agree with.

GhostInTheRuins

Ciaran500 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Great video

Clare_Guy

Diogenes wrote: »

My friend is a "she" and not a "he".

sorry, my psychic powers let me down!

Diogenes wrote: »

She happens to be an acclaimed documentary film editor, ( a job which requires a great visual memory)

subjective... doesn't give her (claimed) assertions any more weight!!

Diogenes wrote: »

And she like the hundreds of motorists alongside her witnessed flight 77 fly over the highway, and into the pentagon.

where did you see these hundreds of witnesses accounts? reported on mass media perhaps?! and they give examples? you editor friend would be able to show you how clever editing can push an agenda!!!

does this prove that other peoples claims, that the pentagon was NOT hit by a passenger jet, are incorrect?!!!

Diogenes wrote: »

Finally Clare Guy what are you suggesting that a plane flew over the pentagon and a missile flew over at the same time, the plane missing the pentagon, and the missile striking it?

i'm not suggesting anything, i'm wondering if people saw everything in the sky that day?

Diogenes wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain to me what form of CCTV allows for 30 fps capture to tape over a 12-24 hr period? The problem being even professional tape stock won't allow more than two hours of footage to be stored on them. You're then relying on whoever is on watch to switch tapes several times a day, and increasing things like tape storage, and the possibility that there is black hole when a tape runs out and the guard forgets to switch tape stock. CCTV runs at 4 fps to allow continuos recording over a day on a single VHS tape.

VHS!! Switch tapes!! what age are you? Have you heard of Sky+?? Have you ever heard of a Digital Video Recorder?!! Storage these days is, literally, limitless. Commercial cctv recording is limited by costs. the biggest cost is the recorder. I'm sure governments (particularily the US DOD) are not limited by budgets...

http://www.dvrsecuritysystems.com/storagecalc.htm

Diogenes wrote: »

Furthermore unless you can demonstrate that these CCTV cameras, that you suppose exist, are available, and common place on other high security facilities your entire point is an argument from personal incredibility

they can put cameras on satellites orbiting the planet for god's sake!

http://www.sanyosecurity.com/pdf/cctv/cat/vcr(ntsc)/dsr3506.pdf

Diogenes wrote: »

Well yes, they do.
Not the account I mean, but an armed soldier is far superior to a camera. A camera can only observer an intruder, an armed soldier, can challenge an intruder, raise the alarm and even stop an intruder. A camera can do none of the above.

are you mad? yeah, an armed guard is THE foolproof way of securing a building...

Clare_Guy

bonkey wrote: »

...the police force has little problem relying on accounts of its officers.

???

and that's why all the police forces in the world are rushing to get cctv into cities and towns!!!!...

oscarBravo

Clare_Guy wrote: »

does this prove that other peoples claims, that the pentagon was NOT hit by a passenger jet, are incorrect?!!!

The difference is, there is a preponderance of evidence that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, and none - none whatsoever - that a passenger jet didn't. That makes the decision as to whom to believe a fairly straightforward one for me.

Clare_Guy wrote: »

VHS!! Switch tapes!! what age are you? Have you heard of Sky+?? Have you ever heard of a Digital Video Recorder?!! Storage these days is, literally, limitless. Commercial cctv recording is limited by costs. the biggest cost is the recorder. I'm sure governments (particularily the US DOD) are not limited by budgets...

Again, the argument is that because the DoD could afford digital video recorders, therefore they had them. Still no speculation as to why they might actually need them, let alone any evidence that they actually had them.

Clare_Guy wrote: »

they can put cameras on satellites orbiting the planet for god's sake!

Yes, because they have a particular reason for wanting them. Why would they want them on the Pentagon?

Clare_Guy wrote: »

are you mad? yeah, an armed guard is THE foolproof way of securing a building...

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

oscarBravo

Clare_Guy wrote: »

and that's why all the police forces in the world are rushing to get cctv into cities and towns!!!!...

Read my point above about why shops have CCTV. The reason for CCTV in towns is similar: to detect crime in progress, and to help prosecute after the fact.

What has this got to do with whether or not the Pentagon has CCTV?