[911InsideJobbers] Re: Request for Critique from Group: Blog Post about Michael B. Green

It seems #s 4 and 6 could have easily come afterwards, as part of a
cover-up. But certainly the others were planned ahead of time. And
that's why I don't get where Ron is coming from.

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Bill Giltner
<bill.giltner@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not trying to change the subject here, and just ignore me if you
want to
> continue on the line of discussion that you are on.... but let's
step back a
> second.
>
> Elements of US based planning and execution include:
> 1) "planted" witnesses to report on 9/11 to media to public and
following
> 2) planted videographers
> 3) planted evidence (hijackers, hijacker password),
> 4) other suspicious limited hang outs, e.g. Michael Moore
Fahrenheit 911
> 5) Insiders to assisted cover up in high places: Guiliani
> 6) Clear anticipation of need to have the 911 Victims Fund to
manage risk
>
> this is a tiny list of the whole
>
> Regardless of where the military grade weapons came from to do the
attacks,
> the idea that there would be any discussion about whether there is
massive
> participation by elements within the US is just offensive.
>
>
> On 2/9/06, ron_winn <ron_winn@...> wrote:
> >
> > It's this word elements within that needs a definition. Many are
naming
> > the element within as people in the administration but there are
of course
> > other elements. Religious, political, military, environmentalists,
business
> > & criminal elements.
> >
> > Not only does the word terrorism need defining but inside job
needs one
> > too. A few have defined what they mean as an inside job. But other
use an
> > inside job to encompass all the above elements which only infers
that that
> > excludes those accused in the official story. It might help the
"movement"
> > if an "inside job" was defined. It might be more of a selling
point if what
> > was put to the people was "al Qaida didn't do 9/11. How could they
when
> > 67(?) times in the past smaller aircraft have been located in American
> > skies and got themselves a fighter escort."
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > *From:* alexldent <alexldent@...>
> > *To:* 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:39 PM
> > *Subject:* [911InsideJobbers] Re: Request for Critique from Group:
Blog
> > Post about Michael B. Green
> >
> >
> > You are touching on a fascinating idea-- that the navy shot the
missiles
> > that
> > were used on 9/11 and the F16s were sent out to check out what the
navy
> > was doing (?)-- but I really don't follow your overall point.
Maybe the
> > problem
> > is just semantics on what "inside job" means. What is your
definition of
> > "inside
> > job"? Mine is simply that some elements of the USG were involved
actively
> > in
> > the attacks.
> >
> > --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "ron_winn" <ron_winn@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > We know that F16's were sent out to sea which has never really been
> > explained. In fact it seems such a stupid thing to do. Or else too
> > obvious
> > sending them on a wild goose chase as if to get them away from
where they
> > might hinder the "inside job". NORAD say that every defence system was
> > pointing outwards towards an external threat. What forms of external
> > threat is
> > there? Well, many speak of missiles. Missiles have to be lauched from
> > somewhere. Also why was the US Navy made ready soon after 9/11 was all
> > but over? What was the Navy going to do that the airforce couldn't and
> > apparently didn't on the day? The threats, we are told were purely
> > domestic
> > flights. The atc's, the FAA and all other agencies were
concentrating of
> > domestic flights. So NORAD sends out the F16's out to sea [and
Lord knows
> > where the F15's got to] sounds very stupid, right. Do you think
the pilots
> > would
> > have been so silent if they knew they had been sent on a fools'
errand?
> > >
> > > IMO F16's were not sent on a wild goose chase and the Navy
wasn't made
> > ready for a "domestic" inside job that was all but over. You can
speak of
> > missiles but they had to come in from somewhere. And F16's sent up
must
> > have been sent up with a purpose and that wasn't surely to get
them out of
> > the
> > way. The threat was "in your face" domestic. The military are not
dumb.
> > That
> > fits in too conveniently with the case of negligence that gets the
admin
> > off the
> > hook. You think the airforce F16's would have done a "victory"
flyover at
> > the
> > Pentagon if they had just come back from a wild goose chase.
> > >
> > > You see, it looks too obviously an inside job although that is
not to
> > say
> > assistance had to be obtained from insiders. This goes to the
point and
> > the
> > question - why if it was an purely an inside job wouldn't 767's
from their
> >
> > graveyard in the desert have been used. If they had we wouldn't be
here
> > today engaged in our search for the truth.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: alexldent
> > > To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 3:04 AM
> > > Subject: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Request for Critique from
Group: Blog
> > Post about Michael B. Green
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> I've never been convinced of an inside job although I have
an open
> > > mind.<<<
> > >
> > > Wha????? If it wasn't an inside job, what were they covering up?
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "ron_winn" <ron_winn@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your link doesn't work.
> > > > Unfortunately the other one does.
> > > > Interesting statement because if two real 767's or
substitutes were
> > > in the plan then "11" would have been a scheduled flight. And
so would
> > > "77". Or both flights would have been reported to be private
charters.
> > > >
> > > > Something flew into the north tower and to hastily cover up
what it
> > > was flight "11" was used.
> > > >
> > > > I've never been convinced of an inside job although I have
an open
> > > mind. So far there is enough to support a hasty cover up. The
Pentagon
> > > attack being the most speedily concocted one, I believe.
Although 93
> > > is running a close second.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Bill Giltner
> > > > To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:19 PM
> > > > Subject: [911InsideJobbers] Request for Critique from
Group: Blog
> > > Post about Michael B. Green
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Check out my blog post here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > http://bgtruth.blogspot.com/2006/02/we-believe-that-senior-
> > government.HTML
> > > >
> > > > Here's my main point:
> > > >
> > > > Additional Commentary by this Blogger:
> > > >
> > > > Where Dr. Green goes horribly wrong: (is this on purpose?)
> > > >
> > > > "To put matters plainly: any substitute plane would be an
exact
> > > duplicate of
> > > > AA11 or UA175. To do anything else would be inviting
disaster. "
> > > >
> > > > http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SPONSORED LINKS Government procurement Government leasing
> > > Government grants for women
> > > > Government lease Government contract Government money
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > a.. Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
> > > >
> > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS Government procurement Government leasing
> > Government grants for women
> > > Government lease Government contract Government money
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > a.. Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
> > >
> > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > Government
procurement<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+procurement&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Government+grants+for+women&w4=Government+lease&w5=Government+contract&w6=Government+money&c=6&s=154&.sig=S_3-2zVK9QQjTwxHvO91yw>
Government
> >
leasing<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+leasing&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Government+grants+for+women&w4=Government+lease&w5=Government+contract&w6=Government+money&c=6&s=154&.sig=ZAuP_XFQBkNiVw-hPWWJ-Q>
Government
> > grants for
women<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+grants+for+women&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Government+grants+for+women&w4=Government+lease&w5=Government+contract&w6=Government+money&c=6&s=154&.sig=R7KVvqXEVqN0Ct9WGPhKwg>
Government
> >
lease<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+lease&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Government+grants+for+women&w4=Government+lease&w5=Government+contract&w6=Government+money&c=6&s=154&.sig=FM8lkJddvatAkQNo00D_Cw>
Government
> >
contract<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+contract&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Government+grants+for+women&w4=Government+lease&w5=Government+contract&w6=Government+money&c=6&s=154&.sig=fTrsbvxC-m39UjtOdMcT-Q>
Government
> >
money<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+money&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Government+grants+for+women&w4=Government+lease&w5=Government+contract&w6=Government+money&c=6&s=154&.sig=HB73LsQrRnXy-2WkBh3LyA>
> > ------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > - Visit your group
"911InsideJobbers<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers>"
> > on the web.
> >
> > - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/