Wal MArt has 21 Cameras in the Parking Lot ALONE!

I live in a SAFE suburb of Detroit, yesterday I noticed our local Wal-Mart has 21, TWENTY ONE, cameras pointing OUT at the parking lot alone... TWENTY ONE and that is just on the front of the building.

They have no military secrets to protect.
Top commanders to protect.
Emotional target value...

You get my point.

So you tell me... what is up with the Pentagon security system? Why does a bumpkin Wal Mart have TWENTYONE times the CCTV cameras facing the lot than the Pentagon?

This is just laughable to me. I will post a picture of all of their cameras later.

aha but don't they also have a sign saying that if anything happens in said parking lot it's got nothing to do with Walmart?

and

should a passenger aircraft crash into the parking lot you will find that none of the cameras were working that day.

My guess is that Walmart has always had to deal with security issues--shoplifters, car thefts, etc., while the Pentagon probably had quite a bit of arrogance by the time 9/11 happened. Headquarters of defense for the most powerful country in the world, I'm sure they had a fairly decent security task force inside the building ready to take on any threats that were reasonable at the time (which does not include a plane or missle or whatever you want to say it was crashing into the building. Wasn't reasonable at that time at least.)

Besides, if you want to start throwing out places with more outside cameras, most gas stations I've been to with more than one pump island have probably three or four outside cameras. At the same time, I have yet to see a bank with an outside camera other than what may be on an ATM, and I'd imagine they'd have more to lose from a robbery than a gas station or Walmart.

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
aha but don't they also have a sign saying that if anything happens in said parking lot it's got nothing to do with Walmart?

I don't get where you are going with this.

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
should a passenger aircraft crash into the parking lot you will find that none of the cameras were working that day.

Since modern CCTV systems record REMOTELY via coaxial cable or via IP over UTP, the loss of cameras does not equal the loss of the footage... just the cameras.

You have to take out the recorders which are remote in a 'control center' or security center. Even if you do that, most modern security systems route to redundant recording devices.

Originally posted by MCory1
... the Pentagon probably had quite a bit of arrogance by the time 9/11 happened. Headquarters of defense for the most powerful country in the world, I'm sure they had a fairly decent security task force inside the building ready to take on any threats that were reasonable at the time

Arogance is ther excuse for NO security now? Laughable.

The threats of a missile or errant plane were KNOWN, REAL and REASONABLE threats. ONE STINGER MISSILE is all it would take.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Also, wouldn't you point a camera at the helipad at least?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Arogance is ther excuse for NO security now? Laughable.

Not their excuse; my uneducated, 7 AM Monday morning guess at it.

The threats of a missile or errant plane were KNOWN, REAL and REASONABLE threats. ONE STINGER MISSILE is all it would take.
[edit on 14-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Okay, I hate to sound like I'm just trying to be argumentative, but could you give me proof that these threats not only existed, but had such credible evidence as to take them seriously before 9/11 happened? It's much easier to look back on something and say "Hey, we should've seen this coming," than it is to look ahead at something outrageous and say "Yep, that's going to happen."

Walmart suffered many unwarranted lawsuits for a myriad of reasons cooked up by folks looking for a quick buck because walmart can be sued.

The government cannot be sued like a corporation.



Had the government installed cameras to the extent walmart had pre 9/11 then that would have been viewed by many as signs of police state.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Had the government installed cameras to the extent walmart had pre 9/11 then that would have been viewed by many as signs of police state.

Or maybe as a sign of the protection of our military HQ?

Couldn't the disguise them a bit?

I am sorry for this term, but the answers here are very "apologist".

Bottom line: The HQ of the US militaries either

1. Had the MOST sickeningly inadequate security systems and someone (a lot of people) needs to be fired for allowing such an asset to be stuck. (Think Trillion dollar budget.)
or
2. They will not release the footage they hold.

Or it could mean they relied on physical guards more than video cameras.

I'm sure the pentagon did not want detailed records of when everyone was coming and going, and other such information someone could gain from stealing security camera tapes.

It does make sense that they wouldn't have wanted those kind of records available.

Since many - if not all - Walmarts are open 24 hours, the camera's are probably there to add a sense of security for after dark shoppers.

Walmart does have a little patrol car running the parking lots at all of the Walmart stores I've seen.

Remains to be seen though . . . whether a retired, unarmed older gentleman could do much of anything to prevent a problem other than calling indoor security for aid.
Then they'd have to call the local police which is another delay.

So in the end, the crime or assault or whatever would be over . . . but they'd have it on tape.

Which probably wouldn't do any good because the bad guys tend to park elsewhere, walk in, do the crime and walk out....

So, essentially, what I am gathering here is that every:

Large retail store
Convenience Store
Gov't building
Gas Station
Bank
Corporate Office
ATM
Datacenter
Border Crossing
Highways
Some homes
Donut shops
and
Most Intersections (where I live)

Have better CCTV than the HQ of our militaries and this is:

1. To be expected.
2. Perfectly OK.
3. Standard Operating Procedure

I am laughing at this so hard I might puke.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


I am sorry for this term, but the answers here are very "apologist".

Well then I'm just as sorry to say that the "premise" is illogical.

Thus,

My theory is correct but its that darn government withholding info thats keeping me from proving it to anybody.

Using negatives to attempt an advancement of the aircraft question at the pentagon is not going to advance the issue at all.

What will make cameras an issue is finding reference in obscure government records such as a contract, vendor records or reference to storage of camera data prior to 9/11 in order to support further FOI requests - then some logic could be ascertained in the assertion that began this thread.

Maybe you need to do an FOI on all camera related documents prior to 9/11? Especially numbers and location. You don't have to ask for video, only show that they existed.

Until then...........its just - shoulda, coulda wishful thinking to compare walmarts cameras to the pentagons cameras because the reasons for coverage as well as use are completely different.

Walmart = wide area coverage for lawsuit prevention.

Pentagon = narrow coverage of entry points for individual ID for intell reasons.

Last but not least I'm not apologetic for them, just being practicle.

How many cameras does that Walmart have covering the entrance of parking lot?

One Stinger missile is all it takes? Wow!Didn't know the Stinger is able to pulverize a passanger jet or to stop it dead in its tracks. How long would it take to arm the missile and get ready to fire? How much damage would the warhead cause? Would the damage be enough for the plane to not hit the building?

And btw Pentagon does have air defense. It's called NORAD. But prior to 0911 the threat coming from inside the USA wasn't expected.

Originally posted by tuccy
One Stinger missile is all it takes? Wow!Didn't know the Stinger is able to pulverize a passanger jet or to stop it dead in its tracks. How long would it take to arm the missile and get ready to fire? How much damage would the warhead cause? Would the damage be enough for the plane to not hit the building?

Actually a Stinger wouldn't do that much damage to an airliner. If the aircraft was brought down it would be from the engine's catastrophic failure or fire due to the Stinger. It is entirely concievable that the plane would make a successful emergency landing after being hit by a Stinger. I think that there are pictures on the Internet of a DHL cargo plane that was hit by a MANPADS misslie.

As far as the Pentagon is concerned, It has excellant manned perimeter security, so the need for external cameras in minimal.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

As far as the Pentagon is concerned, It has excellant manned perimeter security, so the need for external cameras in minimal.

Oh come on now!! Cameras are always used where security is needed, its the most inexpensive way to have good security, thats why retailers use them. Cameras have been on the outside perimeter of the Pentagon since the cold war!

reply to post by Phoenix


I'd have to agree with Phoenix. Who says there aren't plenty of cameras at the Pentagon. What information are you basing this on? Even if you can't see any does that mean there aren't any? I'm sure the Pentagon would not want to release any video footage thus showing where cameras are located. Yes, I'm sure our military HQ has plenty more security than the average WalMart!