9/11CON - The Pentagon

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Mar 19, 2022.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So we need remedial classes?

    Yeh as I just posted in the previous post how that works,

    Thats a real problem since again a blob is impossible mid day LOL

    You dont understand how cams work even after I went though all the trouble to post a picture demonstration for you?



    Hughes, Raytheon, and Goodrich purchase
    Litton downsized dramatically in the 1990s, selling off many of its components. In 1996 Hughes Electronics purchased what was then left of Itek, Itek Optical Systems.[21] At the time they announced that Itek's own facilities in Lexington, Massachusetts would fold into their own Hughes Danbury Optical Systems in Danbury, CT. Later in the 1990s, after Raytheon's purchase of Hughes, Itek became Raytheon Optical Systems Company. In early 2000, Raytheon divested the Optical Systems group and it was purchased by Goodrich Corporation. Goodrich Corporation was subsequently purchased by United Technologies Corporation headquartered in East Hartford, Connecticut.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itek


    [​IMG]

    the pic tells you how to adjust your cam for variable light.

    It does not matter if its a litton or phillips or nikon.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2023
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts Download Free (EPUB, PDF) (zanamoraes.com)
    "Some say it was a missile (although no credible witnesses say they saw one) and other say it was a "Global Hawk" (a smaller, unmanned plane, although no one saw that either and no GH parts were found).Pentagon Video - Some people argue that if flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then the security camera should clearly show it. Yet "Debunking" points out that the Philips LTC 1261 camera filmed at one frame per second, while the plane was traveling at about 780 feet per second. Now, anyone who knows anything about photography can understand what that means; you will not get a clear image of a plane (p. 61).Small Debris - Although most conspiracy theorists claim that the debris of the Pentagon was too little to be from flight 77, they also do not investigate the fact that most airplane crashes do NOT leave great remains."

    Why won't the pentagon/FBI release the video footage of flight 77 crashing on 9/11? (narkive.com)
    "Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released in 2006 after being used as evidence in the Moussawi trial. It was taken by a low resolution Philips LTC 1261 TV security camera at a checkpoint in the entrance to a parking lot. This camera was recording at one frame per second and had a limited field of view of the impact site. This camera at its location would have been entirely incapable of taking a clear image of a Boeing 757 moving at 780 feet/237.9 meters per second."

    9/11 Inside Job: All Evidence, No Theories | 911Blogger.com
    "Goyette refused to grasp, or feigned not grasping, the point made in the PM book that the Philips LTC 1261 security cameras installed at the Pentagon were set at a shutter-speed too slow to capture the image of an object moving over 700-feet per second."
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Litton continued:
    Now at Itek, the company won contracts for similar cameras for aircraft like the U-2 and SR-71. The CIA quickly informed them of their top secret Corona to produce the first spy satellites, and asked them to bid on the camera systems. Itek returned a design that used a rotating mirror to record panoramic swaths of the ground.

    class dismissed
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stop posting noise. You got the camera wrong. You got the shutter speed wrong by about a factor of 30,000! You don't know what the difference is between shutter speed and FPS. You keep ignoring that the footage is 1fps and low resolution.

    So no camera citations then!
    Yes it does. The Philips LTC 1261 hasn't the capability to do what your magic camera did. And once again because you keep ignoring it.

    The footage was low resolution. Low. Not 100,000 of a second shutter speed. 1/60 at best. It was 1 frame per second.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2023
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So still no citations for this camera. let alone for its use at the Pentagon. Let alone that it could do the absurd crap you suggested
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2023
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But they are not over exposed, how did you work that miracle out?
    You cant set a single exposure for day and night its impossible.
    It does NOT work!
    class dismissed.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2023
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can set a camera to take one frame each hour and have a shutter speed of 10,000. lol

    One shot per hour one shot per second or 30 shots per second, all independent of shutter speed.

    Which yields a one pic per hour camera that would stop action any bullet flight easily.

    If what they claim is true slow shutter on a bright day would be a blob of white no pic at all it would be so over exposed.

    Therefore impossible, therefore something else.

    Come on this is so simple it hurts.

    Someone else explain it to him please.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2023
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I write this from an external source:
    9/11 Inside Job: All Evidence, No Theories | 911Blogger.com
    "Goyette refused to grasp, or feigned not grasping, the point made in the PM book that the Philips LTC 1261 security cameras installed at the Pentagon were set at a shutter-speed too slow to capture the image of an object moving over 700-feet per second."

    So basically this says that the camera shutter speed was too SLOW to fully capture such a fast moving object.
    A brilliant failure of a non sequitur. I didn't "work it out" it's a quote and it doesn't even remotely suggest ANY over exposure.

    No, you can't, but nobody suggested that so it's both an absurd non sequitur and a ridiculous strawman. A unique combination of logical fallacies proving you actually don't know what you are talking about.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well sure you can, if you are lucky enough to have a camera that does that and it manages to pick the split second it takes for the plane to pass through the field of view.
    But sadly we don't have such a camera.

    The footage was low resolution. Low. Not 100,000 of a second shutter speed. 1/60 at best. It was 1 frame per second.

    Noise. And who are you appealing to? Somebody who actually knows how a camera works?
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2023
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Sigh

    Schools back in session for more remedial training.

    You said Phillips, you are wrong again, its a Bosch!

    The Phortress MiniDome offers a 1/4-inch standard resolution monochrome or colour camera with an integrated 3 or 6 mm fixed lenses. The Phortress VariDome includes a high-resolution colour camera with an integrated 2.6–5.6 mm varifocal DC iris lens. Backlight compensation can also be adjusted on all Phortress models.

    Technical Specification
    Make Bosch
    Manufacturer Bosch Security Systems

    Category Video Surveillance>Dome cameras
    Model code LTC 1261/10

    Chip Inch Size 1/4
    Color Type Color
    Resolution TVL 480
    Sensitivity lux 2.8
    Dome Type Variable Focus
    Indoor/Outdoor Indoor/Outdoor
    Mount Type Ceiling
    Electrical Specifications Voltage: 13
    Power Consumption: 2.7
    Focal length 2.6-6
    Video Output 1Vpp 75ohm
    Physical Specifications Dimensions mm: 114.3 x 152.4
    Weight g: 1406 g
    Environmental Specifications Operating Temp oC: -40 ~ +50
    Protection: IP 65

    Additional info

    Controls: Automatic Gain Control (AGC): On/off. Gamma: 0.6/1.0. Automatic White Balance (AWB): Continuous/Hold. Backlight Compensation (BLC): On/off. Connectors: Video Out: BNC. Power: Stripped Leads.


    AGC AUTOMATICALLY adjusts shutter speed for proper exposure, day time is very fast, night time is very slow, there is no manual speed setting on this camera as your sources claim.

    would you please stop posting debunker propaganda as fact? throw those sources out.


    So now what you going to to tell me someone manned the camera and constantly adjusted the shutter speed to maintain proper exposure?

    Back in the day I calculated the zoom to roughly between 4.8 to 5.1.

    If there was a plane it would have been very clear!

    At lease easily recognizable as a plane, after all we are not talking about a fly at 100 yards here ffs.

    In fact in the key video ace baker took video from 7 miles away with a 480 camera and it was easily recognized as a plane.

    class dismissed.


    If you dont have any identifiable pics and you cant show me 'the' wreckage its not my problem if you cant prove up your claim, its YOURS.

    I and others have no reason to believe it until you can provide material evidence and you failed on both counts.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2023
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The irony.

    Sure. It was, not the magic, non-existent "Litton" thing with 100,000th of a second exposure for a frickin' security camera!
    I should state right here and now, that really dude, you should just stop. With every post you make you shoot yourself in the foot with your ignorance of how cameras work. Google is not your friend if you don't understand what you are seeing.

    So, onto to ebay - "LOL"


    Got to laugh now. You went to eBay to get some "specs" and saw "high resolution" and thought it meant something.

    "Resolution TVL 480"

    I did tell you that I know a bit about cameras, but you had to persist didn't you!

    What does 1000TVL mean? Avoiding Misleading Resolutions - Arcdyn Articles
    The best way to ensure that you’re getting a High Definition camera is to avoid any camera that uses “TVL” as a way of measuring resolution. The true HD resolutions are 720p, 1080p, 4 Megapixel, and 4K (8 Megapixel).

    TVL HAS ALWAYS BEEN DECEIVING
    TVL as a measurement standard has always been mostly made up since the beginning. When TVL was the normal way to measure camera resolution, manufacturers made up their own formula to make their cameras sound a little bit more appealing. For instance, if you were to truly test a 700TVL camera using a resolution chart, you would find that it can actually only decipher 525 TV Lines. Here’s how the manufacturers turned 525 into 700 magically:

    525 (actual readable TVL) ÷ 3 x 4 = 700TVL
    Using this “creative math,” that 1000TVL camera would really be a 750TVL camera. But since Analog DVRs max out at 720TVL anyhow, nothing beyond that matters.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    meaningless speculative minutia, no basis in fact, changes nothing I said about the plane.

    you were still wrong, and if you had not figured it out litton was bought out.

    which takes us right back to:
    If you dont have any identifiable pics and you cant show me 'the' wreckage its not my problem if you cant prove up your claims, its YOURS.

    I and others have no reason to believe it until you can provide material evidence and you failed on both counts.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2023
  13. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so your attempt on trying to trip Beta with Google camera nonsense has failed so now. You are back to no plane right?

    Have you watched the Coste/Chandler vids yet? Plenty of your answers are in there. Just make sure you get past the preface unlike Bob.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, you never stated a proposition, I dont listen to any of that any more unless I have a purpose. Start by stating a proposition. or (make a claim)
    Are you kidding? Beta hung himself! I tries to move on several times and he insisted on quoting his debunker sites and invariably they are wrong.

    Beta was wrong saying Litton did not exist, they did, they made super high quality cams, and were bought out.

    Beta was wrong on the camera type, not phillips, bosch.

    Beta was wrong on the settlable frame rate, Not settable.

    Beta was wrong on the resolution, Not Low resolution.

    Beta was wrong on the shutter speed, Its automatic (AGC)

    Beta was wrong and confused frame rate for shutter speed.

    Beta was wrong on the frame rate, its not 1 per hour.

    Based on what I saw, even after all this, Id wager Beta still does not understand how these cams work.

    Beta is going to be wrong again when I run across the Litton specs sooner or later it will show up again :)

    I didn't need the "trip" Beta up Beta tripped Beta up and regardless what I said Beta insisted on shooting himself in both feet even thought Id have dropped it and moved on.

    When someone makes a series of false claims it's not very hard to show all the defects.

    Nothing I can do about someone that insists on continually shooting themselves in the foot.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2023
  15. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what the hell are you on about? either watch the vids or not … plenty of evidence in there for your perusal …

    the Pentagon did not have Litton cameras so why not just drop that obfuscation…

    you should stick with your silly gifs like you have been for years because you are certainly afraid of facts …
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2023
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    good reply, I have no reason to watch it. P had litton cams.

    Beta facts? :roll::roflol:
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know you don't understand any of it. The camera used by the Pentagon, the Philips LTC 1261, was just a basic security camera not intended for distance.

    Litton Industries - Wikipedia
    "Litton Industries was originally established as an electronics company building navigation, communications and electronic warfare equipment. They diversified and became a much bigger business, with major shipyards, and manufacturing microwave ovens."

    Why won't the pentagon/FBI release the video footage of flight 77 crashing on 9/11? (narkive.com)
    "Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released in 2006 after being used as evidence in the Moussawi trial. It was taken by a low resolution Philips LTC 1261 TV security camera at a checkpoint in the entrance to a parking lot. This camera was recording at one frame per second and had a limited field of view of the impact site. This camera at its location would have been entirely incapable of taking a clear image of a Boeing 757 moving at 780 feet/237.9 meters per second."

    Now to summarize:
    • You cannot support your claim with even a reference to the model of camera.
    • You cannot support your claim that a Litton camera was used at the Pentagon.
    • The ACTUAL footage clearly shows LOW resolution video.
    • I have provided references that a Philips LTC 1261 camera was used which fits in with what we see.
    • Having a super fast shutter speed (100,000th second) drastically limits the amount of light, so on a video camera it would be completely useless.
    Noise. Please provide citations for the camera used at the Pentagon being a Litton camera.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wound Licking.

    Beta was wrong on the camera type, not phillips, bosch.

    Beta was wrong on the settlable frame rate, Not settable.

    Beta was wrong on the resolution, Not Low resolution.

    Beta was wrong on the shutter speed, Its automatic (AGC)

    Beta was wrong and confused frame rate for shutter speed.

    Beta was wrong on the frame rate, its not 1 per hour.


    Beta cannot support the claim of plane with a pic of this alleged plane.


    Beta did not support his claim for a Phillips camera, failed to provide a receipt or purchase order just the rambling of some debunker site.

    Beta has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Beta has no understanding of how cameras work.

    Beta has proven he imagines planes where there is no plane to be seen.

    Please provide sufficient evidential support for those groundless claims you have proffered so everyone else can be believers too!
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2023
  19. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought as much … avoid the facts and just invent your own … perhaps we should just switch the subject to mini nukes …
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Noise again. Please provide citations for the camera used at the Pentagon being a Litton camera. I have provided references for it being a Philips LTC 1261.
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You failed to state a factual proposition. I have no reason what so ever to screw around watching any videos you cant even express what fact I should see.
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wasted bandwidth, please provide receipts or purchase order to show it was in 'fact' a Phillips LTC 1261
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2023
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Back at you with big-bells to show it was a Litton!

    This thread appears to have been hijacked with some nonsensical claims about the actual security camera used in 2001. Modern cameras using digital capability can certainly capture at hyper-fast shutter speeds, aircraft surveillance cameras of the 90s-00s could also capture at this speed but would require equally hyper-sensitive media for recording onto. The following is from a "911-truther" site:
    ___________________________

    The Pentagon Area Surveillance Camera Videos - 9/11 TV (9-11tv.org)
    "The second Pentagon camera had an unobstructed view, and has one frame which appears to show a plane near the right edge of the frame, and appears to have the same white smoke trail that is seen in the 5-frame sequence. In a way similar to the identical first (5-frames) camera, the recordings from this second camera yielded a low resolution image of distant objects due in part to their wide-angle lenses, so the images do not make clear what is revealed by the second camera’s frames either. But what does appear in the crucial frame from the second camera resembles an out-of-focus airliner, including the tail fin and trailing smoke as seen in the adjacent “5-frame” surveillance camera.

    [​IMG]

    A blowup of a close-up part of two frames from the second Pentagon surveillance camera.

    As seen in the frames from both cameras and as noted here, there was a large fireball explosion seen in several frames, as would be produced by atomized jet fuel. This fireball closely resembled the two jet fuel fireballs seen at the Twin Towers of the WTC."

    "Why very few cameras captured the impact event

    There are a number of valid reasons why only four of the 80 video recordings that were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006 had any relevant evidence. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only four of the 80 video recordings captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event, and only two of those four showed any direct visual evidence [1]. The other two recordings revealed only indirect evidence, including a shadow on the ground in one video frame which appears to be from the plane flying overhead.


      • Most of the video cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question – the impact zone.
      • Most cameras and recorders were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which render distant objects at very low resolution, and which cause some geometric distortion to the image.
      • Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
      • In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras rendered low spacial resolution images of at best 480i, and more often less. 480i is what is now called SD – Standard Definition.
      • In 2001, most surveillance cameras recorded video at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), often in the range of 1 to 8 frames per second. By comparison, US TV is most often recorded at 30 frames/second.
      • The high speed of the plane, which was accelerating to over 550 mph, resulted in image blurring in the video recording, and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (low temporal resolution) of 1 frame/second)."
    __________________________________

    Now, that animation uses first generation versions of the footage, not degraded through youtube compressions. Quite clearly there is a very significant outline that most certainly resembles that of the AA77 plane.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2023
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still no Receipts, no Purchase Order for a Phillips LTC 1261 huh?

    Beta, THIS is what a 757 looks like:

    [​IMG]



    Im sorry but even with the my imagination stretched BEYOND the limit I cant see anything what so ever that even resembles a plane much less a 757!

    What do you see here:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2023
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you afraid to admit the same about YOUR claim concerning a non-specific Litton camera? I've provided references one was from supposed word of mouth from a pentagon official, of course it's hearsay, but it beats what you are offering, a big fat zero. It also fits in with the video provided and its resolution. QED

    Stationary and through an HD camera. Duh. Through a low resolution security camera @ 1/60, when it is going at over 500mph slightly different proposition.


    I've taken the animated gif and boosted the contrast and darkened it. Now in no way, can you ever admit this is a plane, but anyone watching can make their own mind up. You? I couldn't care less. Viewers can clearly see the outline of a plane, especially the tail fin!

    [​IMG]

    More from the "truther" site - just look at that LOW resolution when the video footage is enlarged! :

    The Pentagon Area Surveillance Camera Videos - 9/11 TV (9-11tv.org)
    "The preponderance of eyewitness and physical evidence points to a plane, specifically a silver plane, which produced that fireball seen in footage from both cameras, and seen by hundreds of witnesses. One of the first of the five frames shows a fuzzy dark shape resembling a plane tail fin projecting upwards above and behind the top of a post in the foreground that obscures most of the approaching plane.

    [​IMG]

    Frame from the first Pentagon surveillance camera (detail)

    In the next frame, the fuzzy tail fin is gone, and a fireball is seen erupting from the side of the Pentagon building.

    A computer graphic simulation by Mike Wilson,5 illustrating a 757-sized plane impact approaching and impacting the Pentagon, incorporates the one crucial frame of the 5-frame sequence and clearly illustrates how a 757 would be almost completely obscured by the post, except for the tail and a bit of the nose.

    [​IMG]

    Computer graphic simulation of a frame from the first camera

    A few researchers have questioned the five frames as doctored, staged and/or fraudulent, but there is no evidence for such fraud.

    Further analysis of the frames from the two on-site surveillance cameras, and in particular of their common multiplexer and recorder system, may eventually provide additional evidence."
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2023

Share This Page