[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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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/