Reply #33: El Duderino - I'm not into that whole brevity thing

[Ezlivin]

Well, since I answered your question concerning the presence of cameras, now the discussion must necessarily switch to the capabilities of those cameras.

Let's suppose that the cameras mounted on the outside of the Pentagon were, in fact, time lapse cameras. Unless they were all synched to the exact same frame rate you still have the possibility of multiple cameras covering a single area, any one of which could have easily captured a clear image of whatever impacted the building. (A slow frame rate does not mean the camera does not have a high shutter speed.)

Security measures as detailed in my post does not negate the notion that the cameras mounted outside of the Pentagon were not time lapse cameras. There would be very valid reasons for each of these cameras to be real-time, monitored and recorded. For instance, my wife is a Navy veteran who worked at a very secure location (Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet Headquarters) in 1979. This building had real-time monitored closed-circuit cameras. In fact, every door inside the building that had key-pad access had cameras focused on them. If you had that sort of security for movement inside the building, would you expect no real-time camera security outside?

Real-time cameras that record are so ubiquitous that even convenience stores have them. They are dirt cheap, very capable and are very, very useful in solving crimes. This should be self-evident simply from watching the nightly news. To think that the Pentagon, with a trillion dollar budget, has less sophisticated video monitoring is simply ridiculous. Hell, go out to Area 51 and stomp around in the middle of nowhere and armed guards will show up to ask you what you are doing. If that remote area is that well monitored, the Pentagon, surrounded by people, damn sure is.