9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

[skyeagle409]

i dont buy that building 7 came down from fire alone.

Since we have evidence of fires within WTC7, but no evidence of explosions nor evidence of explosives within the rubble of WTC7, simply means that fire, nor explosives, was responsible for the collapse of WTC7.

mr rodriguez story may have been a tiny bit inconsistent but that doesnt mean hes lying or discredited. i dont see any reason why he would make it up.

Let's hear what William Rodriguez has said.

William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

http://archives.cnn....ew.york.terror/

Now, let's review this video and understand there is no sound of an explosion prior to American 11 striking WTC1.

[media=]

[/media]

Since no explosions are heard prior to American 11 striking WTC1, is an indication that no explosives were used and why there are no explosions seen on video prior to impact.

Edited October 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

So the Ross and Furlong paper could be incorrect.

Funny, so tell me again how this is considered conclusive evidence in support of the WTC explosives then? You base your evidence on a 50% chance that it is correct? No very bright there.

I'm just getting down to the details. As I have already said. It does boil down to mere seconds. If you want the truth about whether or not explosions happened in the WTC prior to the planes crashing then it comes down to mere seconds.

It seems like your only argument here is by claiming those of us who follow the Official Narrative are backing up the Commission Report 100%. Thats your argument and direction you chose to discredit someone like myself.

Did i not just state that the FAA confirmation time of when both planes crashed could have a few second discrepancy? How is that following the report 100%?

Rightly so. How hard is it defending your no plane at the Pentagon position? Which is also clearly a lie.

Prove to me he was put under DURESS from the Pentagon.

Where's your proof??????????

Again Babe, you want to claim all these things without providing proof to your accusations.

Show me proof Wally Miller was put under DURESS by the Pentagon and maybe I will take you seriously from now on.

Yes Raptor, Ross & Furlong might be wrong. Yes, it is possible that their calculations started based upon an invalid assumption, that being that the time offered in the Commission report did not determine and calculate the position of the radar antenna in determining the actual time of collision.

But they make an assumption, and I accept it, that the time is accurate enough for sake of discussion. They assume that if it accurate enough for the high and mighty government Commission, it is accurate enough for them. I accept that, understanding that you MIGHT BE RIGHT.

Keep in mind Raptor, you are unable to prove that you are right on your theory, at least as far as I've seen so far here. You are unable to prove your theory, and it could very well be you are wrong. Who knows, maybe some number cruncher that worked for the Commission saw the same possibility for error that you do, and researched it. I don't know, and you don't know.

That you make such a mountain out of a mole hill suggests to me some measure of desperation. I can relate.

What their findings do is very simple--they corroborate the Rodriguez testimony that explosions (large enough to leave a seismic footprint) happened in the basement of one of the towers BEFORE the airplane struck. That's all Raptor. That's all it proves, that Rodriguez' story is backed up by seismic evidence.

You're just getting down to details?!?! Bravo! The funny part is that the details that contradict your position are conveniently ignored by yourself, or said to be lies, or said to not exist. You still cannot explain, and have now quit trying, the massive heat that was present that day and lasted for weeks. Details like FDR not being assigned to the accident aircraft, not being assigned to ANY aircraft. Cell phone calls that are impossible to be true and aerodynamic maneuvers that several hundred line pilots in the 75/76 class say THEY could not do.

Gimme a break Raptor.

You can kid yourself all you want. Still you offer the best posts here to reply to, but there is only so much artifice that I can stand.

You want to pick and choose from the Commission report like you're in a cafeteria line. It's juvenile, and indicative of a man attempting to defend the indefensible. Sorry.

[Babe Ruth]

just a question because ive esearched a lot about 911 but i never came across the list of passangers for any of the fights. im sure its out there as ive ony really watched docs on it.

but... why hasnt anyone took the list of passangers who supposedly died, gone to each one of tbe families, interview and try to verify those people were infact on the plane and are now dead.

has this been done

The surviving family members can be, for the sake of discussion, divided into 2 groups. Those who survived the death of a family member killed at WTC, and those who survived a family member killed in the several airplanes.

Both groups were eventually offered settlements in a class type action, and most everybody accepted the payout, but not all. When accepting the payout, the survivors agreed not to talk about it.

Because the government refused to conduct an investigation, many private citizens began investigations on their own, as best they could.

What some of those citizens discovered was that of the 2 groups--airplanes and WTC towers--the latter group was most interested in talking about it, just to learn anything they could about the death of their family member, while the former group did not like to talk at all. Did not want to be interviewed or offer information, and would not return phone calls.

That behavior provides some degree of insight.....

[skyeagle409]

ok black boxes could possibly been destroed but i dont buy it.

Buy it, and I must add that during aircraft accident investigations, the FAA and the NTSB used data and evidence from other sources in conjunction with black box data.

i never even see that evidence for the superthermite before,...

Because thermite was not used in the destruction of the WTC buildings.

the one i seen was some scientist who tested the dust from 911 in a lab and found traces of superthermite, i think.

Ever wondered why thermite is not widely used by demolition companies? Did you know that thermite is not an explosive?

...

also the reasoning for the pentagon crash is absurd.

Why?

...if they have the other crashes on film and all this controversy surrounding 911 surely they just release the tape, the people have a right to eee what happened.

9/11 conspiracist saw what happened on video when American 11 and United 175 struck the WTC buildings and we watched as 9/11 conspiracist sought to use the videos to push their disinformation. Besides, I have already identified a B-757 in an image taken at the Pentagon because I am familiar with the B-757.

[RaptorBites]

Yes Raptor, Ross & Furlong might be wrong. Yes, it is possible that their calculations started based upon an invalid assumption, that being that the time offered in the Commission report did not determine and calculate the position of the radar antenna in determining the actual time of collision.

then you base your theories on assuptions and not on actual hard evidence.

Not surprised at the least.

But they make an assumption, and I accept it, that the time is accurate enough for sake of discussion. They assume that if it accurate enough for the high and mighty government Commission, it is accurate enough for them. I accept that, understanding that you MIGHT BE RIGHT.

then you base your theories on assuptions and not on actual evidence.

Not surprised at the least.

Keep in mind Raptor, you are unable to prove that you are right on your theory, at least as far as I've seen so far here. You are unable to prove your theory, and it could very well be you are wrong. Who knows, maybe some number cruncher that worked for the Commission saw the same possibility for error that you do, and researched it. I don't know, and you don't know.

then you base your theories on assuptions and not on actual evidence.

Not surprised at the least.

That you make such a mountain out of a mole hill suggests to me some measure of desperation. I can relate.

So far the Ross and Furlong report is the only piece of evidence that you have brought up to support your explosives theory.

It does not bode well that it cannot really stand up to scruitny now does it?

What their findings do is very simple--they corroborate the Rodriguez testimony that explosions (large enough to leave a seismic footprint) happened in the basement of one of the towers BEFORE the airplane struck. That's all Raptor. That's all it proves, that Rodriguez' story is backed up by seismic evidence.

Rodriguez said rumble then later changed it to explosions. How is that evidence of a man willing to tell the actual truth.

You're just getting down to details?!?! Bravo! The funny part is that the details that contradict your position are conveniently ignored by yourself, or said to be lies, or said to not exist. You still cannot explain, and have now quit trying, the massive heat that was present that day and lasted for weeks. Details like FDR not being assigned to the accident aircraft, not being assigned to ANY aircraft. Cell phone calls that are impossible to be true and aerodynamic maneuvers that several hundred line pilots in the 75/76 class say THEY could not do.

Everything you said in this one statement has already been disputed multiple of times. Either your age has you forgetting that you have made claims on your personal experiences and knowledge in the field of aviation that has been ridiculed by members of this forum that have actual piloting experience.

Gimme a break Raptor.

I have given you a break. I have asked you for evidence. I have asked many things from you BR> Yet you still ignore the facts and go by life experiences and whatever it is that you want to call "common sense".

You can kid yourself all you want. Still you offer the best posts here to reply to, but there is only so much artifice that I can stand.

It is not me that is kidding myself. It is you.

You want to pick and choose from the Commission report like you're in a cafeteria line. It's juvenile, and indicative of a man attempting to defend the indefensible. Sorry.

Excuse me? When did i pick and choose from the commision report?

I merely picked the tpoic that dealt specifically with the Ross and Furlong report. When did i touch base with any other specific topic in that report?

[skyeagle409]

What their findings do is very simple--they corroborate the Rodriguez testimony that explosions (large enough to leave a seismic footprint) happened in the basement of one of the towers BEFORE the airplane struck. That's all Raptor. That's all it proves, that Rodriguez' story is backed up by seismic evidence.

Considering that there is no explosion in the video prior to American 11 striking WTC1 and the fact that William Rodriquez says he heard rumblings, not explosions, and the fact that seimic montors in the area did not detect explosions prior to American 11 striking WTC1, simply means you are making it all up.

details like FDR not being assigned to the accident aircraft, not being assigned to ANY aircraft.

I guess you didn't know that has no relevance because you have never been involved in anything related to aviation before. i guess you were unaware that the FAA and the NSTB uses other means and data to verify FDR data.

Cell phone calls that are impossible...

How amusing when I have used cell phones in flight, which once again, proves that you are just making things up.

...to be true and aerodynamic maneuvers that several hundred line pilots in the 75/76 class say THEY could not do.

How amusing that I have performed a similar maneuver as a low-time student pilot. Military and airline pilots I have spoken with do not support 9/11 conspiracy claims either. So once again, you are just making things up as you go.

You want to pick and choose from the Commission report like you're in a cafeteria line. It's juvenile, and indicative of a man attempting to defend the indefensible. Sorry.

Considering you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that refutes the official story, what more is there to say?! Basically speaking, not all 9/11 conspiracist agree with you either.

Edited October 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

The surviving family members can be, for the sake of discussion, divided into 2 groups. Those who survived the death of a family member killed at WTC, and those who survived a family member killed in the several airplanes.

Both groups were eventually offered settlements in a class type action, and most everybody accepted the payout, but not all. When accepting the payout, the survivors agreed not to talk about it.

Because the government refused to conduct an investigation, many private citizens began investigations on their own, as best they could.

What some of those citizens discovered was that of the 2 groups--airplanes and WTC towers--the latter group was most interested in talking about it, just to learn anything they could about the death of their family member, while the former group did not like to talk at all. Did not want to be interviewed or offer information, and would not return phone calls.

That behavior provides some degree of insight.....

any proof of this independant study?

[NocturnalWatcher]

you ask me for proof that fire alone didnt bring it down. as far as ivebeen told its the only skyscraper to ever come down from fire alone, and was deemed impossible by experts.

i agree the boxes could have been destroyed but i dont believe they were. can yiu discredit the volunteer who says he wa there when they found it in the rubble?

also ve heard of casez where the black box is destroyed but never seenwhere it was never found, has there ever been another case like that?

if steven jones is a scientist and found thermite i the dust what does it matter about the residue? if thermite was actually in the dust at all what xplanation would there be for that. also im tmore incli ed to belie e a scientist than a random forum person.

f

[NocturnalWatcher]

also u mentioned the foia but u still never gave a singlegood reason why the pentagon tapes were never shown.

babe ruth why do u think tbe other group wont talk?

yoy identified the b 257 from a photo? i wouldnt base mybeliefs on a photo, something thatcanbe easil faked.

sorry formy hoorible writing im on worlds worst tablet

[skyeagle409]

you ask me for proof that fire alone didnt bring it down. as far as ivebeen told its the only skyscraper to ever come down from fire alone, and was deemed impossible by experts.

On the contrary, I have posted articles and photos where fire collapsed the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain to where only the concrete core was left standing. I also posted facts surrounding the collapse of three steel structured buildings in Thailand due to fires.

You need to stay away from those 9/11 conspiracy websites because I have caught them pushing disinformation and misinformation on the Internet.

if steven jones is a scientist and found thermite

Steven Jones didn't find thermite because the ingredients were used in other materials used at the time the WTC buildings were constructed, a fact that left Steven Jones standing in the cold . To further add, Steven Jones has now been discredited for pushing disnformation and misinformation.

[RaptorBites]

you ask me for proof that fire alone didnt bring it down. as far as ivebeen told its the only skyscraper to ever come down from fire alone, and was deemed impossible by experts.

As far as you have been told? By whom? Any credentials on engineering?

i agree the boxes could have been destroyed but i dont believe they were. can yiu discredit the volunteer who says he wa there when they found it in the rubble?

also ve heard of casez where the black box is destroyed but never seenwhere it was never found, has there ever been another case like that?

1 witness out of thousands that where there. The odds of that aren't really in his/her favor.

If you can get me a name of this witness I will be glad to look up the information.

if steven jones is a scientist and found thermite i the dust what does it matter about the residue? if thermite was actually in the dust at all what xplanation would there be for that. also im tmore incli ed to belie e a scientist than a random forum person.

random forum person who is asking for evidence of the amount of aluminum oxide to corroborate the thermite theory.

Are you willing to believe a scientist that for some reason leaves an important piece of information such as that from his analysis?

[skyeagle409]

also u mentioned the foia but u still never gave a singlegood reason why the pentagon tapes were never shown.

What if all of the tapes were made available? The 9/11 conspiracist would simply distort the videos as they had done with the videos of American 11 and United 175.

yoy identified the b 257 from a photo? i wouldnt base mybeliefs on a photo, something thatcanbe easil faked.

It was not a fake. Furthermore, photos of B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon have been provided as well.

Edited October 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[NocturnalWatcher]

ive never read a conspiracy website except this one.

you guys seem to have an answee fr everything, but i dont know enough about certai tthings to know if what youre saying is true o just somecrap

[skyeagle409]

ive never read a conspiracy website except this one.

you guys seem to have an answee fr everything, but i dont know enough about certai tthings to know if what youre saying is true o just somecrap

Check this out.

[media=]

[/media]

Edited October 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

any proof of this independant study?

It's old information Raptor, going back 7 or 8 years or more I'm guessing. No, I don't have the link to information I read that long ago, and even if I did, most likely you would 'debunk' it somehow or other.

[RaptorBites]

also u mentioned the foia but u still never gave a singlegood reason why the pentagon tapes were never shown.

What tapes. Can you show me anything that shows where the other cameras at the Pentagon are located?

So before you go on about hundreds of cameras, you need to show proof that those hundreds of cameras exsist.

babe ruth why do u think tbe other group wont talk?

I am quite skeptical of his statement, but I will wait for him to post some sort of site that talks about the interviews.

yoy identified the b 257 from a photo? i wouldnt base mybeliefs on a photo, something thatcanbe easil faked.

B-757 parts were found and identified at the scence of the pentagon crash. Those most certainly could not have been faked.

can you tell me why someone would go through the trouble of faking this picture?

or this?

Perhaps this as well?

Edited October 16, 2012 by RaptorBites

[RaptorBites]

It's old information Raptor, going back 7 or 8 years or more I'm guessing. No, I don't have the link to information I read that long ago, and even if I did, most likely you would 'debunk' it somehow or other.

I will only debunk things that need to be debunked.

Or perhaps supply alternate explanations but at least I include evidence.

[NocturnalWatcher]

Ok I'm on a computer now.

I watched the video and I don't understand how anyone gets a plane from that little fuzzy gray thing in the video, but I'm not saying it isn't a plane, who knows. I just don't see it in that video.

There was just so many things about 9/11 that didn't seem to add up, and imo the U.S government lies to it's people so I would not be surprised if something is being covered up here.

So again I didn't see anyone discredit this yet so are the planes that hit the wtc's the only planes in history to have the black box not recovered? I seen some of the articles people posted I didn't have time to read them all but every one that I did read the black box was recovered but destroyed, and im guessing its extremely rare for a black box to be destroyed. Was the official story that neither of the 2 boxes were found or that they were found but destoyed?

Also for the guy who talked about the steel skyscrapers coming down is this fact written in history or is this a theory of yours? I only ask because in one of the videos I saw I beleive they said tower 7 was the only skyscraper ever to come down by fire alone. When were these other sky scrapers you say came down by fire built? Are they modern and made to withstand airplane attack like the WTS?

I remember watching an episode of conspiracy theory with jessie ventura he had one of the pentagon employees on there who was working at the time of the crash and crawled out of the hole in the wall. She claimed that she did not see any plane, wreckage from a plane, bodies, or anything resembling a plane. Why would she say this? Do you know about this?

I don't have proof there was hundreds of cameras, that is just what I heard and that is also what I would expect considering it's the pentagon.

Why would they fake the picture? How about disinformation? Do you know who took that picture? Were you there when he took it? That's all im saying.

I don't know what you mean when you say distort the videos like the other ones, what does that mean?

Also for the guy who asked what experts in engineering said it can't come down from fire alone. I don't know what their names were they were in one of the 10 documentaries I seen on 911. I mean obviously fire alone should not be able to bring down a building beyond that they had demo experts on the show who claimed the building came down exactly as a demolitioned building would, they even showed these close up shots of what appear to be explosion going off floor by floor as the building collapses, and you can see chunks of the building being blown out, have you seen this?

I don't remember where I heard this but apparently there was some guy in the white house during the attacks with the vice president, I don't remember his official job title, but apparently the Vice President got a call on the phone and said something to the effect of "Yes the order is still on". Not sure if that's entirely accurtate but begs the question what order was he talking about?

Also why didn't the military shoot the planes down? I remember I saw something that the military jets were on some type of training excersice too far away, or something like that, is this right?

Edited October 16, 2012 by NocturnalWatcher

[skyeagle409]

Ok I'm on a computer now.

I watched the video and I don't understand how anyone gets a plane from that little fuzzy gray thing in the video, but I'm not saying it isn't a plane, who knows. I just don't see it in that video.

There are things to look for, such as certain angles of the vertical stabilizer.

There was just so many things about 9/11 that didn't seem to add up,...

It only seems that way if you listen to those 9/11 conspiracy websites that are well-known for pushing disinformation and misinformation.

So again I didn't see anyone discredit this yet so are the planes that hit the wtc's the only planes in history to have the black box not recovered?

Also for the guy who talked about the steel skyscrapers coming down is this fact written in history or is this a theory of yours? I only ask because in one of the videos I saw I beleive they said tower 7 was the only skyscraper ever to come down by fire alone. When were these other sky scrapers you say came down by fire built? Are they modern and made to withstand airplane attack like the WTS?

Some were modern buildings such as the Windsor building in Spain.

I remember watching an episode of conspiracy theory with jessie ventura he had one of the pentagon employees on there who was working at the time of the crash and crawled out of the hole in the wall. She claimed that she did not see any plane, wreckage from a plane, bodies, or anything resembling a plane. Why would she say this?

The photos of wreckage of a B-757 inside and outside the Pentagon proves her wrong, and add to the fact that eyewitnesses confirmed that an airliner struck the Pentagon as well.

Edited October 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[NocturnalWatcher]

There are things to look for, such as certain angles of the vertical stabilizer.

It only seems that way if you listen to those 9/11 conspiracy websites that are well-known for pushing disinformation and misinformation.

Some were modern buildings such as the Windsor building in Spain.

The photos of wreckage of a B-757 inside and outside the Pentagon proves her wrong, and add to the fact that eyewitnesses confirmed that an airliner struck the Pentagon as well.

Vertical stablizer? I only see a grayish outline that's completely indistinguishable, but hey maybe my eyes are bad.

Again I don't hold much value to photos that can be easily faked. not saying they are but I just don't trust any photo anymore with technology we have today. Do you know who took those photos or where they came from?

I mean your last argument is that eyewitnesses confirmed that an airliner struck the pentagon... well... I'm pretty sure she's an eye witness too and she crawled out of the hole and she saw the wreckage up close because she was in it, how can you discount her as an eyewitness but give credit to the others? I'm not saying her story is correct, maybe she was hysterical and doesn't remember correctly, I'm just saying if you're going by eyewitness testimony then you have to be objective and listen to everyone right?

Also I added a few more questions in my post above if you can answer them.

And what is this supposed to be?

It looks like a model plane.

I do think a plane hit the building but I'd like to see actual real video of it instead of this choppy split second can barley make out an outline video that they have now.

Edited October 16, 2012 by NocturnalWatcher

[skyeagle409]

Vertical stablizer? I only see a grayish outline that's completely indistinguishable, but hey maybe my eyes are bad.

That's right and if you go back on one of the threads, you will find how I took a photo of another American Airlines B-757 and placed it just above the blurred imagery taken from the Pentagon video camera to make my point.

Again I don't hold much value to photos that can be easily faked.

You have to know what to look for in order to make that determination. For an example, someone posted a few months ago a doctored photo of a low flying B-757 in order to debunk the official story, but I tend to look at the little details and noticed that the dimensions of the B-757 didn't match the buildings and poles in the photo. In other words, the photo was hoaxed and the person didn't match the dimensions of the B-757 with objects in the photo.

I mean your last argument is that eyewitnesses confirmed that an airliner struck the pentagon... well... I'm pretty sure she's an eye witness too and she crawled out of the hole and she saw the wreckage up close because she was in it, how can you discount her as an eyewitness but give credit to the others?

Yes, because some of those witnesses watched at the B-757 hit the Pentagon, including a C-130 crew that tracked the B-757 just before it hit the Pentagon and afterward, they notified the controllers that the aircraft impacted the Pentagon. American 77 passed near that C-130.

I'm not saying her story is correct, maybe she was hysterical and doesn't remember correctly, I'm just saying if you're going by eyewitness testimony then you have to be objective and listen to everyone right?

First of all, you want to match eyewitness accounts with the physical evidence in the area to determine who was right and who was wrong.

And what is this supposed to be?

It looks like a model plane.

Actually, that is a real cruise missile, but the photo was doctored. Here is the actual photo before it was doctored and just another example of what I meant when I say, don't allow your mind to be poisoned but those websites.

Edited October 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[NocturnalWatcher]

Again I don't know what websites you are referring too I never allow things to "poison my mind" and I always come to my own conclusions.

Tell me about the explosions coming out of building 7, what causes this? I searched on google but I can't find the exact clip that I seen, which seems to show explosions coming from the building almost in a timed manner as the building starts to go down.

Maybe you know which video I'm talking about.

And what is the deal with flight 93? Did the crash just incinerate everything or what?

Edited October 16, 2012 by NocturnalWatcher

[skyeagle409]

Again I don't know what websites you are referring too I never allow things to "poison my mind" and I always come to my own conclusions.

Where are you getting your references?

Tell me about the explosions coming out of building 7, what causes this?

There were no explosions in WTC7. but look what happened when someone placed faked explosions in this video not knowing the video was deliberately faked.

[media=]

[/media]

And, look who was fooled, among many other 9/11 conspiracist.

Edited October 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[frenat]

So again I didn't see anyone discredit this yet so are the planes that hit the wtc's the only planes in history to have the black box not recovered? I seen some of the articles people posted I didn't have time to read them all but every one that I did read the black box was recovered but destroyed, and im guessing its extremely rare for a black box to be destroyed. Was the official story that neither of the 2 boxes were found or that they were found but destoyed?

No, other black boxes have not been recovered before. While rare for it to get completely destroyed it is also rare for it to be involved in a crash, uncontrolled fire and then have several tens of thousands of pounds of building dropped on it.

I don't have proof there was hundreds of cameras, that is just what I heard and that is also what I would expect considering it's the pentagon.

Really? I'd expect them to use most of their cameras in their most secure areas deep inside the building. The rest of the complex is better served by armed guards (had them), locked doors (yep), restricted access (got that too), and vigilant awareness of who should be in those restricted areas by those allowed in just as they do with secure areas in all the branches of the military all around the world. Cameras CAN be useful but the other things I mentioned are more effective.

What few cameras we have seen are exactly what I'd expect. Slow frame rate and aimed and focused at places other than empty fields. Consequently, they don't capture much if anything but they are good for what they were designed for.

Also why didn't the military shoot the planes down? I remember I saw something that the military jets were on some type of training excersice too far away, or something like that, is this right?

Some were but none that would have been used for air defense. The jets that were on alert, set aside and ready for air defense were the same in number before, and during 911.

Edited October 16, 2012 by frenat

[NocturnalWatcher]

Really? I'd expect them to use most of their cameras in their most secure areas deep inside the building. The rest of the complex is better served by armed guards (had them), locked doors (yep), restricted access (got that too), and vigilant awareness of who should be in those restricted areas by those allowed in just as they do with secure areas in all the branches of the military all around the world. Cameras CAN be useful but the other things I mentioned are more effective.

What few cameras we have seen are exactly what I'd expect. Slow frame rate and aimed and focused at places other than empty fields. Consequently, they don't capture much if anything but they are good for what they were designed for.

As someone who worked in the security industry for 5 years I think it's insane for a building like the Pentagon not to have cameras watching the entire exterior of the building + more cameras on the perimeter. I mean really that's what you would expect? I've seen hospitals with better security systems outside, this is the pentagon, unreal.