The Pentagon is one of the largest office buildings in the world. It is the supreme headquarters of the United States armed forces. The Pentagon occupies an area of 6.5 million square feet, it is 921 feet long on a side, that's a total of 4605 feet around. I would imagine that surveillance cameras monitored all sides of the building. If they were divided equally around the building, then only 17 were on the side hit by the jet.

Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most or all surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), generally at one frame per second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to over 550 mph, caused some image blurring and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).

9-11TV DVDs by and for the 9/11 truth movement

The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras

According to the FBI, there were 85 video surveillance cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon that might have captured some parts of the Pentagon event on 9/11. The FBI confiscated some of the recordings from those cameras very shortly after the event, and the rest over the following days. This act by the government fueled the suspicions of those questioning a large plane impact into the Pentagon. It is known that the FBI confiscated much 9/11 evidence, including evidence at all four crash sites; thus their confiscations at the Pentagon were typical, not unusual. However, since the two videos that were released do appear to contain useful information about what hit the Pentagon, we should not automatically assume the FBI is being dishonest here.

Why very few cameras captured the impact event

There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event.

Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most or all surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), generally at one frame per second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to over 550 mph, caused some image blurring and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).

History

The well-known “5-frames” from a Pentagon surveillance camera were first released in March of 2002. The only frame that appears to include the plane has a post obstructing the camera’s view of almost everything but the tail fin.

In December 2004, Judicial Watch, a public interest group, filed a FOIA request on behalf of Scott Bingham. The request was for surveillance camera footage that might show the plane approaching and/or hitting the Pentagon.

The FBI identified 85 surveillance cameras that were located in the vicinity of the Pentagon that might have revealed the plane. After the Zacarias Moussaoui trial ended in 2006, the Department of Defense released 4 of those videos2, including a 200 frame extended version of the 5-frame sequence first released in 2002.

Completely new to the public in 2006 were the 183 frames that were released from a second identical surveillance camera located adjacent to the first camera within the same security checkpoint. One of these new frames provided an unobstructed view of the plane, but at such low contrast and resolution it was not initially noticed or reported as such. Instead, what appears to be the same white smoke seen in the crucial frame from the first camera (released in 2002) is also seen at the edge of the second camera’s crucial frame. The shape of the white smoke was mistakenly identified in news media as the plane’s nose.3

What the two Pentagon camera recordings reveal

Both of the two Pentagon surveillance cameras were in a security check point located about 833 feet north of the impact point. Both cameras show what appears to be white smoke trailing the approach of a rapidly moving object. The frames that followed the impact of that object show a massive orange fireball, quickly followed by a rising column of black smoke, and then debris fragments raining down and landing near the two cameras six to nine seconds after the impact.4

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 a somewhat out-of-focus airliner, including the tail fin and trailing smoke as seen in the adjacent “5-frame” camera.

Jonathan Pollard clearly had issues beyond dim-wittedness. Even his navy boss said he should have fired him long before any of this came to light but he didn't. They even pulled his security clearance at one point. By the way, Pollard was an American citizen, not a 'foreign agent'.

As for AIPAC, as far as I know they don't break any laws. If they exert excessive influence on American politics, the laws should be amended to reduce that influence. As of now, they're just doing what they're allowed to do, which is to pay corrupt politicians for actions that work in their favor. Don't expect those same politicians to kill the goose that keeps laying all these golden eggs anytime soon.

Tit for tat?

"Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law on Saturday new measures allowing authorities to list foreign media outlets as “foreign agents” in response to what Moscow says is unacceptable U.S. pressure on Russian media."

"Russia’s move against U.S. media is part of the fallout from allegations that Russia interfered in last year’s U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump."

Oh dear!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-media-restrictions/russias-putin-signs-foreign-agents-media-law-idUSKBN1DP0I2?il=0

Ong and Sweeney made their calls on the air phones installed in the cabins. Sweeney had to borrow a credit card to make the call.

13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty-two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified). Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that Flight 93 was supported by several cell sites. There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11, five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77. Two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants: Betty Ong on Flight 11 and CeeCee Lyles on Flight 93

Alexa Graf, an AT&T spokesperson, said it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations. Marvin Sirbu, professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University said on September 14, 2001, that "The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight." Other industry experts said that it is possible to use cell phones with varying degrees of success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights.