That "bulge" sticking out of the North side of WTC2 is consistent with a "Flight Sim" model, shadow and all.
Looks like someone messed up their timing and didn't hit pause fast enough on their game, as pausing 1 second earlier would have prevented the "telltale" fuselage from being visible coming out the North side.
--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "ron_winn" <ron_winn@...> wrote:
>
> May be, but it seems a very elaborate special effect to give the impression that something is passing through the inside and what pops out has passed the test of time [no argument as to its authencity] and that is a missile warhead. What that special effect would be achieving is that "their 175" was still going strong with its starboard wing stub cutting through the wall. It's requires too much thought process of both them and the public. It wasn't needed. You see, the concept of the plane in/missile out doesn't fit in with a no plane scenario. It needed to be adjusted to - no plane in/missile out. We can't argue a no plane scenario when we infer "plane in" but argue against missile out. Anyone like to counter that that is not a missile warhead popping out the north wall?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rosalee Grable
> To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Request for Critique from Group: Blog Post about Michael B. Green
>
>
> Nothing says those are "wings cutting through the building." That's WAY
> TOO Cartoon.
> More likely the side of the building is being raked by a tesla cannon or
> even preplanted explosives from some hollywood special effects department.
> Farking wings would not stay attached and would not be karate-chopping
> their way through floors and walls intact like superman.
> That's silly stuff.
>
>
> ron_winn wrote:
> > Anything launched like that is too small, Nico.
> > The clips "Plane In/Missile Out" gives us the size. And it had small
> > wings that can be seen cutting through the building on the outside not
> > small fins.
> > Missiles could have been used as a distraction when looking outward
> > there is no looking inward.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Nico Haupt <mailto:nicohaupt@...
> > *To:* 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> > *Cc:* alexldent@... <mailto:alexldent@...
> > *Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2006 5:03 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Request for Critique from
> > Group: Blog Post about Michael B. Green
> >
> > > --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> > > Von: "alexldent" alexldent@... <mailto:alexldent@...>
> > > An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> > > Betreff: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Request for Critique from Group:
> > Blog Post
> > > about Michael B. Green
> > > Datum: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:59:44 -0000
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't believe, they came from a ship. Too many witnesses, too long
> > distance.
> >
> > I believe, the missiles were handshouldered or from a device in a
> > downtown
> > building. Unfortunately we never really mapped that area,
> > comparing with the
> > video clips, so that everything is a kind of speculation, but my
> > favourite
> > buildings are still woolworth building, wtc 7 or maybe even one of
> > the US
> > Military Helicopters, operated by a mercenary, who later got
> > killed in a
> > third country.
> >
> >
> > >>>>Okay. Now-- what are you saying about what the F16s were
> > doing going
> > out to the ocean? And are you saying the missiles came from a US Navy
> > ship or not?<<<
> >
> > --
> > DSL-Aktion wegen großer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlängert:
> > GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Okay. Now-- what are you saying about what the F16s were doing going
> > out to the ocean? And are you saying the missiles came from a US Navy
> > ship or not?
> >
> > --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "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
> > > 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 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
> > <mailto: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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
> 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
- Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
No comments:
Post a Comment