I've not once said that. Please read what I said again. 1. We did not have the practical video technology to capture 24x7 high speed video. 2. We would not have used high speed video technology to protect against aircraft strikes. What part of these two points are you having difficulty with?
Did you miss the whole IRAQ war on TV? Shock and Awe? We had the cameras there. There was obviously a potential airborne threat before 911. The military would want to record that and have the equipment to do it. You have agreed the technology was there.
And that would be relevant to the capabilities of the Pentagon security camera system how? Were they recording high speed video 24/7 that could be retrieved for later viewing? Your article goes on to say . . . but your unstated premise seems to be that the government was involved in the 9/11 attack specifically at the Pentagon. Seems like it was no secret that Bin Laden wanted to harm the US. So is it your position that the US government let the attacks happen by virtue of the fact that they did not install a camera system at the Pentagon capable of recording HD video of the impact of the plane?
I was just looking at some still images of early 1970 Indy 500s crashes. Cars were only going around 185mph (not 4or500mph) . The high speed crash images were solid. You could see pretty much everything. This was the early 70s. But of course 30 years later the pentagon can't pickup a still shot of a plane entering the building. Don't assume my position on anything. I don't know what happened that day. It seems to me you guys know. I really would like to know. Without proof of the capabilities of the Pentagon cameras, this just smells funny to me.
No. The military's main objective is to defend against that, not record it. I'm sure they don't care too much whether you can watch the attack on the news after it's happened. None of the Iraq war was captured on high speed cctv running 24x7. You keep offering examples that have nothing to do with what you're suggesting should have existed at the Pentagon in 2001. It's one thing to capture a high speed image. It's another thing entirely to create a system that can capture high speed images that remains active for years. I'm not saying we didn't have the technology to capture the image. I'm saying we didn't have the technology that could be left on for years waiting to capture a specific high speed image. We still don't have such a technology.
An Indy race lasts a few hours, rarely takes place by surprise, and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to film. The technology you're talking about here, yet again, is quite different from CCTV cameras.
Your getting predictable. I knew you were going to say this. The military's main objective is to defend against that, not record it. I'm sure they don't care too much whether you can watch the attack on the news after it's happened. Then why didn't they. They installed surface to air missiles at the G8 before 911 because of airborne threats to certain leaders.
They did and failed. Speaking of predictability, I thought this was about the cameras at the pentagon. How many civilian aircraft did they shoot down with these sams?
Every single thing I have said about image tech is easily independently verifiable. If you don't believe me, learn about the technology yourself. What sort of proof do truthers bring to the table?
Again, I can't speak for the others, but I don't know exactly what happened that day either. But I can draw some pretty solid conclusions, in my humble opinion, based on the evidence available about what DIDN"T happen.
-It's called covering all the bases,a defense as a last resort, because once they fired a SAM,it can';t tell friend from foe
I am sure you know this. Would one camera @30fps be able to capture a large plane entering the pentagon?
I dare any of you to try and debunk David Ickes theories with 911. Can you really disprove the lizard people fired the death ray which started the hurricane that hit the planes!
Yes. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/u...e-into-white-house.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm I remember hearing about it. Which proves . . . what exactly? That someone should have anticipated the use of a commercial airliner to crash into the Pentagon?
I would assume so and for the sake of discussion, let's say yes. What exactly would that prove in regards to the events at the Pentagon?
You don't have enough information in your question to answer it. You need to know the distance of the object from the camera. You need to know the speed of the object. You need to know the speed of the CCD used to capture the image. You even need to know the type of lens used to focus the light on to the CCD. Once you know all that, just do the math. I can fill some of it in for you. A 757 is 178 feet long and the one that hit the pentagon was doing 500 miles an hour. That's about 734 feet per second. It passed through a viewable distance of about 400 feet. In between each frame at 30fps, the plane moves 24 feet. Each frame also takes a period of time to scan. Even if the scan takes only a thousandth of a second the plane still moved 7 feet during that period. In between each frame you'll have a distortion of at least 14 feet if this is the case (not counting lens distortion) This could have the effect of stretching the plane out in the image, or it could have the opposite effect of completely missing portions of the aircraft depending on the direction of the scan. If the cameras at the pentagon captured images at 30 frames per second it would be expected that they would capture at least a few blurry portions of the aircraft on half a dozen frames. The cameras at the Pentagon captured images at 1 frame per second. The odds of capturing any portion of the aircraft were greatly reduced.
I just can't believe that but maybe I'm wrong. What would help wipe this whole camera thing from my mind if we had some Pentagon camera schematics at the time. I'm sure that may be impossible to obtain but since you know that the cameras were only capable of 1fps I'm hoping you have access and can show me. I need to ease my mind. Many people need to ease their mind.
Quite frankly, nothing will ease your mind or the mind of any other truther. You already have your mind made up. I've been through this numerous times before. If shown the schematics, you will suddenly need to know who ordered the system or some other nonsensical piece of trivia that is immaterial to the discussion at hand. The moving goalposts of truthers is well known to anyone who has dealt with them. You've already been told what the cameras were like back then, and rather than researching it yourself, you demand others research it for you. Others give you more information and you insist on continuing to deny the truth by coming up with other excuses like why couldn't they use U2 cameras for security cameras.
I have my mind made up? You have your mind made up. If shown the schematics I will do something? Don't pretend you know me. SHOW THE SCHEMATICS. NO BS. JUST SHOW THEM AND THE CAMERA CAPABILITIES. YOU GUYS KNOW. OR AT LEAST SAY YOU DO. I've already been told about the cameras and no research to back that up. All you do is blast me for questioning it, and tell me to do my own research. You guys definitely blast people for questioning anything and some of you speak like experts, but when one asks for evidence regarding the cameras you tell me to do my own research. I enjoyed this for a while but now I am going to have to play my "Predict the Response" game. Do you believe everything you hear? Maybe you do. I don't. Does anybody have any credible data regarding the camera capabilities?
