This Is What Happened At The Pentagon On 9/11

[SFC Ollie]

'
Well, Sergeant Ollie, as a former [?] government employee and supporter of the Patriotism Scam, what do you make of these statements of Lieutenant Colonel Bob Bowman?

Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
Official version of events a conspiracy theory, says drills were cover for attacks

The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory, and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.

Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security....

Bowman said that privately his military fighter pilot peers and colleagues did not disagree with his sentiments about the real story behind 9/11.

Bowman slammed the Patriot Act as having, "Done more to destroy the rights of Americans than all of our enemies combined."

.

This is the same guy who is pitching an action fiction book to help the 911 truth movement....

I'm sorry, how does fiction and truth fit together again?

 

[SFC Ollie]

'
Which is more believable?

THIS :

OR THIS :

You decide.
.

So your pictures that show what you want them to show are real and anything that shows what doesn't fit into your little mind is faked....

Got it.....

 

[numan]

"
You haven't answered the question:

Which is more believable?

THIS :

OR THIS :

You decide.

.

 

[daws101]

'
Which is more believable?

THIS :

OR THIS :

You decide.
.

both

 

[numan]

Which is more believable?

THIS :

OR THIS :

You decide.

both

Clever, Daws, but you can't have it both ways. They are contradictory.

Either you have the mess depicted in photo #1, or the almost pristine lawn in photo #2.

One or the other.
.

 

[daws101]

Which is more believable?

THIS :

OR THIS :

You decide.

both

Clever, Daws, but you can't have it both ways. They are contradictory.

Either you have the mess depicted in photo #1, or the almost pristine lawn in photo #2.

One or the other.
.

no ,they're not
that were taken at about the same time. only in the foreground is the lawn "pristine".
appears you have a bad case of tunnel vision.
there is nothing nefarious about that piece of wreckage being where it is..
cause and effect.

 

[SFC Ollie]

How can one see those hundreds of small pieces of debris in that far back photo? Other than that lawn is far from being pristine or barely even green from that distance yet seems greener closer up...Maybe it's all that debris that makes the lawn look bad....

 

[daws101]

How can one see those hundreds of small pieces of debris in that far back photo? Other than that lawn is far from being pristine or barely even green from that distance yet seems greener closer up...Maybe it's all that debris that makes the lawn look bad....

not to mention it's late summer.....

 

[Gamolon]

'
Which is more believable?

THIS :

OR THIS :

You decide.
.

Why are you showing the viewpoint of the "clean lawn" that shouldn't have debris on it and comparing it to a photo of the area with debris that was to the extreme left of your "clean lawn"?

Do you know at what angle the jet impacted the face of the Pentagon? Why would debris end up back the way the jet had come from? That's like throwing a ball at a wall from a 60 degree angle and expecting it to come back to you.

Tell you what. Explain where this next photo's viewpoint/area is location-wise compared to your "clean lawn" area.

 

[numan]

'
Most of the lawn is pristine.

What your photo shows is clearly mostly bits of the building that showered down in a preferential direction. That is more consistent with a missile or missile-like vehicle hitting the building than the chaotic swirl of metalic material that would result from a relatively fragile airliner hitting the building.

You claim that, in my picture, we are looking from the direction the hypothetical airliner came in. There are structures and construction supplies in front of the building which the airplane would necessarily have hit before it reached the building. Those structures are almost entirely unscathed, or -- dare one say it? -- pristine.
.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

View attachment 26032
View attachment 26033
View attachment 26034
more pictures and eye witness accounts
http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

all easily plantable evidence. You live in a fairytale land as well ignoring reality that just like at bld 7, evidence was illegally destroyed and removed at the scene of the crime with FBI workers illegally confiscating video cameras at a gas station a block away.You also are not aware of the fact that spokespeople for that airliner have said that's not the wreckage of a boeing 757.

They have heard of photoshopping, right?

And showing the same photograph of planted "evidence" over and over and over....?

What a dreamworld they live in !!

.

yeah apparently they are clueless what the word photoshopping means or what planted evidence or what the sentence-illegally removing and destroying evidence means.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

'
Which is more believable?

THIS :

OR THIS :

You decide.
.

 

[numan]

'
Modern techniques for confusing people are very advanced. There are some eye-witnesses (presuming that they are not government-agent "plants") who claim to have seen an airliner hit the Pentagon, and there are other eye-witnesses who are sure that no airliner was involved.

Here is a possible scenario that could explain the discrepancy -- "the over-flight is faster than the eye."

After that, it's less than two miles to a convenient runway at Reagan National Airport:

Most of the intervening space between the Pentagon and Reagan Airport is roads, parking lots and wasteland. Not many people would notice the plane, and those that did would assume that it was part of regular traffic landing at the airport.

One other tidbit: there were evacuations and confusion at a number of key areas at Reagan Airport just before the explosion at the Pentagon!
.

 

[daws101]

'
Most of the lawn is pristine.

What your photo shows is clearly mostly bits of the building that showered down in a preferential direction. That is more consistent with a missile or missile-like vehicle hitting the building than the chaotic swirl of metalic material that would result from a relatively fragile airliner hitting the building.

You claim that, in my picture, we are looking from the direction the hypothetical airliner came in. There are structures and construction supplies in front of the building which the airplane would necessarily have hit before it reached the building. Those structures are almost entirely unscathed, or -- dare one say it? -- pristine.
.

wrong!

 

[SFC Ollie]

'
Most of the lawn is pristine.

What your photo shows is clearly mostly bits of the building that showered down in a preferential direction. That is more consistent with a missile or missile-like vehicle hitting the building than the chaotic swirl of metalic material that would result from a relatively fragile airliner hitting the building.

You claim that, in my picture, we are looking from the direction the hypothetical airliner came in. There are structures and construction supplies in front of the building which the airplane would necessarily have hit before it reached the building. Those structures are almost entirely unscathed, or -- dare one say it? -- pristine.
.

Um, a 25,000lb generator knocked off it's foundation. Unscathed, I think not.

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

'
Modern techniques for confusing people are very advanced. There are some eye-witnesses (presuming that they are not government-agent "plants") who claim to have seen an airliner hit the Pentagon, and there are other eye-witnesses who are sure that no airliner was involved.

Here is a possible scenario that could explain the discrepancy -- "the over-flight is faster than the eye."

After that, it's less than two miles to a convenient runway at Reagan National Airport:

Most of the intervening space between the Pentagon and Reagan Airport is roads, parking lots and wasteland. Not many people would notice the plane, and those that did would assume that it was part of regular traffic landing at the airport.

One other tidbit: there were evacuations and confusion at a number of key areas at Reagan Airport just before the explosion at the Pentagon!
.

You a real asshole aren't you?

 

[Gamolon]

You claim that, in my picture, we are looking from the direction the hypothetical airliner came in. There are structures and construction supplies in front of the building which the airplane would necessarily have hit before it reached the building. Those structures are almost entirely unscathed, or -- dare one say it? -- pristine.
.

Nice try.

The "construction supplies and structures" were to the right of the planes path. The plane did clip a part of the fence and a generator inside the fence.

Pristine...

 

[Gamolon]

Modern techniques for confusing people are very advanced. There are some eye-witnesses (presuming that they are not government-agent "plants") who claim to have seen an airliner hit the Pentagon, and there are other eye-witnesses who are sure that no airliner was involved.

What? No quotes from those witnesses who said that no airliner was involved?

Here is a possible scenario that could explain the discrepancy -- "the over-flight is faster than the eye."

Not the fly over crap again... It's 2013. Get with the times already.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Modern techniques for confusing people are very advanced. There are some eye-witnesses (presuming that they are not government-agent "plants") who claim to have seen an airliner hit the Pentagon, and there are other eye-witnesses who are sure that no airliner was involved.

What? No quotes from those witnesses who said that no airliner was involved?

Here is a possible scenario that could explain the discrepancy -- "the over-flight is faster than the eye."

Not the fly over crap again... It's 2013. Get with the times already.

He has to get the fly over crap out of the way before he moves on to the energy beam nonsense.

 

[numan]

You can always identify 9/11 scammers by the fact that they invariably show photos taken AFTER the Pentagon walls had collapsed, rather than the situation immediately after the penetrating missile hit the building:

VERSUS

Oh, by the way, more pristine lawn !!

And notice the reels of cable. The force of the supposed airliner explosion hasn't even knocked them over !!
.