The cameras in the Pentagon: truth in comparison

Warning : as this post by Pier Paolo Murru on Luogocomune, point out that the article subject of this analysis has been withdrawn by the author following the reporting of errors that it contained.

.

= <> =

.

The inspiration for this article I was given by the publication of analyzes of Pier Paolo Murru to statements of Popular Mechanics of the surveillance cameras in the Pentagon who have taken the impact at the building on 11 September 2001.

Deliberately I do not mention what would have impacted the Pentagon, although for myself is now clear that it was the Flight 77, but for the purposes of my counter-analysis of Murru statements, it is not important.

The original article was found here , but was removed by its author and is no longer available online.

The title chosen by Murru summarizes us the hypothesis that the author wants to support: "False Evidence 1: Popular Mechanics" .

The Book of Popular Mechanics , whose Italian edition "September 11 - The myths to dismantle" has been curated by the group Undicisettembre ( which, it is worth repeating, derive no income from the sale of copies ), it is accused by Murru to contain in chapter III, relating to surveillance cameras, incorrect or inaccurate statements, aimed at giving an overview of the movies in terms of low quality that would justify the suspicion of a cover of something sinister.

Phrases that Murru considered particularly suspect would be those which states, referring to the movie, that:

"But ... Because the camera was recording at a slow frame rate and the Boeing 757 was traveling at 780 feet per second, the images show little blackberries than a blurry white object approaching the Pentagon ..."

it's still:

"A Pentagon spokesperson tells Popular Mechanics That the video was taken with a Philips LTC 1261 security camera and recorded at one frame per second.

Jerry Housenga is a technical product specialist with Bosch Security Systems, Which bought the Philips room division in 2002.

According to Housenga, it was unrealistic to think That the low-quality security camera footage would reveal the crystal-clear image of a Boeing 757 traveling at 780 feet per second.

While most advanced security and surveillance cameras can be in September to capture real-time video, the attached recording systems are almost always at September Significantly slower frame rates in order to conserve storage space.

As a result, it is unlikely That the recording system of any nearby security camera would be in September at a rate high enough to capture the speeding plane with decent resolution. "

Murru translates as the phrase in red?

This translates as "the footage produced by a low-quality" security camera , but the correct translation is "the low quality video of a security camera" , then Murru arbitrarily attaches to the camera instead of an attribute that is to be referred to the movie !

The offending sentence, therefore, arise only by its misinterpretation, ie from a mistranslation of the original English sentence, not what was actually stated by Popular Mechanics .

In fact, to clarify any doubts remained, the precise next period without possibility of misunderstanding that the quality of the movie is not determined by the camera, which can indeed take defined movies and in real time, how much the image-recording system, for contain the memory occupation, it is programmed to record a reduced number of images per unit of time.

However, as regards the first sentence, the green, I would stress that in the second period (written in blue) uses the word"capture" refers to the action of the camera, while in the first verb is used "was recording" and here, indeed there is an error, because it is not the camera that records but it is the storage system, but in this case it is quite clear from the phrase itself that the focus is not on the subject, but rather on the action of the recording. Product quality movie, then, is not determined by the"camera" , but by "was recording at a low number of frames per second" . Just for completeness also point out that Murru says:

"The system for recording and storage is located upstream of the camera head ... "

but this is certainly a misprint due to hurry, because the system for recording and storage is clearly placed in the valley of the camera, so it is certainly not talk about the case, and then says:

"The authors of the book are deliberate confusion between shutter speed, scanning speed and programming of TLR.

It 'clear that each frame saved on the media lives of the head features that make the resumption or (semplificherò definitions for easy reading):

• The standard - determines the scanning speed in frames / sec, and the aspect ratio.
• The optical - determines the type of corner resumed. Tele or Wide.
• The electronic shutter - determines the representation of movement quality / cleanliness.
• The CCD sensor - determines the quality of the reproduction of the filmed elements, colors and sharpness. "

but they forget that the characteristics of each "frame saved on the media" depend not only from the camera that captures the image, but also the equipment that registers on the media, media type, and the type of image in which electronic coding the media information are written.

For example, a camera equal, you can have digital or analog recordings on magnetic tape or hard disk, in formats as diverse and generated by the system of registration, not the camera.

The affirmation of the article, therefore, is part and put in place to focus the reader's attention not on the characteristics of the recording system, which actually produces the output recorded video, as the camera that produces only the flow of input images.

For example down to earth, as described above would be to argue that in a traditional camera the image on the film depends only by the lens and the characteristics of the camera, not the type of film!

Each can assess by himself since that statement is unacceptable to common experience.

The next statement:

"The export process (mpeg1) following these steps only serves to degrade the image quality and reduce its size / weight. This process, however, does not affect in any way the room's ability to clearly shoot moving objects, seen that the two stages are deeply disconnected and not connected to the signal processing level. "

It is clearly wrong, not in meaning, but in the allocation of the subject, because it speaks of a process of reworking of a movie that has nothing to do with the source of the input image, but rather a digital reworking (MPEG1 format ) the only movie already registered in output, remember that may be analog or digital, and that is, as mentioned, also affected by the registration system.

So let's talk a bit 'of these registration systems: If the recording system was analog (one video cassette recorder, for example) and we had two cameras connected with a multiplexer , it would output a single analogue video in which different would come frames, for equal times determined by programming, from the different cameras connected on the same input port, through a synchronizing equipment, with a defined number of frames which, in turn, would come from each individual camera: while the images produced by a camera they are recorded, those produced by the other would be lost.

So I think you can rule out that the surveillance footage of the Pentagon come from multiple cameras connected via multiplexers to a single analog VCR, since both cameras we all frames per second shooting, then, as a logical conclusion, if the original media was analog, we should think of two video recorders, each of which would have registered their flow of images from the individual cameras independently of the other .

If the recorder was digital , already available and widely used technology at the date of the attack on the Pentagon, you would think that every camera produced a complete movie of all frames provided under the recorder programming, which is left to be stored on magnetic media regardless of sync problems with other cameras connected to the same unit, because each has its own multi-channel digital recorder input.

Specifically, the Pentagon, and we know what kind of camera you speak, nothing is known at the time the registration system.

Already this should, for obvious caution, suggest caution in expressing opinions cutters on the truth or falsity of the film.

If we consider that the distributed movie and also analyzed by Murru is a copy, it is unknown how the same, the original, is even more clear that it makes no sense to speak of evidence, because it is not physically possible to try anything.

Always to do mundane examples, it would like to assess the originality of a document by observing a photocopy or reproduction: it makes no sense.

Anyone wishing to know more, could read this article about the formation of the test process.

But back to the Pentagon and its surveillance cameras.

Murru makes some important statements in his article:

"In order to understand the characteristics of Philips Bosch in 1261 that returned the frames in analysis publish sensitive data provided by the same parent:

The product specified Shall be 520 TVL high resolution (768H x 494V picture elements ), high sensitivity Day / Night NTSC room using a ¼-inch format CCD color imager prepackaged in an impact-resistant cast aluminum housing with a 101mm (4-inch ) polycarbonate dome.

The room shall come complete with a 2.8 - 5.8mm, f1.4 to 200 varifocal DC auto-iris lens, and Provided for high-speed electronic shutter, selectable automatic / manual white balance, backlight compensation and intelligent.

The room Shall accept AC or DC power. The room Shall have line lock phase adjustment and capability ...

it's still:

Full-featured, Fixed Camera in a Cast Aluminum Alloy Housing ... Endures the equivalent of 120 lbs of Force High Resolution Integrated Color Varifocal Lens Line Lock with Phase Adjustment For Use in Indoor and Outdoor Applications

The Phortress VariDome includes a high resolution colored room with an integrated varifocal DC iris lens, Which accepts Both AC and DC voltages. If AC is employed, the user can take advantage of line lock and phase adjustment capabilities. Backlight compensation can be adjusted on all Phortress models. The Phortress VariDome is ready to use and easily mounts to ceilings and walls. They are configured for use with a single gang electrical box, and can be wired through the side or back of the housing via a standard 3/4 in. conduit opening. The Phortress's wide range of options, including fiber or UTP transmitter option, make it an ideal replacement for traditional room installations, where extra security is required.

Translated for non-experts the room in question has the characteristics of excellent and well above the mid-range of products of this type. The 1261 returns 30frame NTSC / second at a resolution of 520 TV lines well with 768x494 pixel native resolution. The shutter electronic system guarantees minimum speed of 1/60 that return a perfect representation of even faster objects (given the distance involved). "

But these statements, so pompous, just ... are not true!

I realize that such a statement is even stronger than anyone could expect from a counter-analysis; then we see why.

The above statements are not true for the simple reason that there is no Philips camera Bosch in 1261, because the code identifies today a SERIES or FAMILY of cameras, ie cameras in the PHILIPS LTC 1261 SERIES, not a model in particular.

Staying in the examples down to earth, would be like saying that a certain photograph has been taken with a camera Canon Eos, without specifying more ... which Eos model, since there are professional and amateur, traditional or digital ?

And here the fun begins, because you just do an Internet search to see that there are various camera models in this series, of very different characteristics, all identified by name Philips LTC 1261 (this is the exact name of the Pentagon cameras family) , followed by the model, in which the characteristics described by Murru, incidentally, are those of the top models of the family.

So you have, for example, the following models (I am limited to the first that I found, I certainly did not claim to be exhaustive):

• LTC 1261/21
• LTC 1261 / 21DN
• LTC 1261 / 22DN
• LTC 1261 / 21N
• LTC 1261/11
• LTC 1261 / 21F
• LTC 1261 / 22DN-N
• ...

So we are at the usual speech: as soon as you control the sources, all the conspiracy analysis falls to the ground in compliance with the rules of physics, that is, with the speed of a serious, since not leaning on anything!

They have allowed then some loud reflections:

• if Bosch has acquired the line of Philips security cameras in 2002, how can we be sure that one of its officials or technical know exactly the characteristics of an installation of a Pentagon surveillance system (hardware and settings) that was already in service in September 2001, and then was placed certainly before?

And 'perhaps for this reason that you see written in quotes: 

"The product specified Shall be 520 TVL high resolution ..."

"The room Shall come complete with a 2.8 - 5.8mm ..."

"The room Shall accept AC or DC power. The room Shall have line lock phase adjustment and capability ..."

Beware, I am not saying that it is not so, but to make serious allegations such as those of Article need evidence, not opinion, and do not even know which camera model you're talking about, let alone then he spoke of ' registration system.

• When these cameras have been installed?

• There are no data on this, of official sources and not the usual conspiracy chatter, specifying the model, the polyembryon and the complete configuration of the processing chain and signal recording?

This being clarified, that does not seem at all marginal, there is another question to be asked of all common sense, but it is possible that these models of surveillance cameras, with the characteristics indicated by Murru, are in production since 2001 and is still marketed, unchanged in their technical characteristics, in 2007, that is, six years later, simply with the Bosch brand when we know that the parts of the video technology has fast-paced?

After the critical analysis, I would like to make a contribution, just to do a little step further forward towards the Truth: I retrieved the data book of the Philips monitoring systems in 2002 1 issue .

Certainly the source would seem to be appropriate to document the existing family camera LTC 1261 models in September 2001, the date of the attack, and patterns not present on this data book should have been, in all probability, produced after the date of issuance data book.

Caution, to avoid misunderstandings I stress that I am talking about probability, not certainty about the types of camera models in the Philips LTC 1261 series as of September 2001.

In the catalog, consisting of well 380 pages, only the following models appear:

• LTC 1261/11 (PAL)
• LTC 1261/21 (NTSC)
  

and since the recording should be in the NTSC format, the standard spread in the American market, it is deduced that the model should be the LTC 1261/21 whose characteristics are reproduced in the attached image:

And since I would not want to doubting what I say in conclusion, I also add a table taken from the instruction manual of the model in question:

from which we see that there are considerable differences with the statement made by Murru!

In particular, it notes the absence of "high-speed electronic shutter" that could stop an airplane in flight at high speed due to low shutter speed, and the number of lines of the camera which is the standard one of 480 of the NTSC format.