that it is a MUCH BETTER explanation for the lack of air defense than a stand-
down order that has been kept shrouded in secrecy even though it would
have had to been given to every military air base in the northeastern part of
the US.
--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Rosalee Grable <webfairy@...>
wrote:
>
> I think you're a living example of why knowing they didn't really use
> planes is a useful wake-up tool.
> It's a bullshit sifter.
> The stand down arguement sounds good, and was once state of the art, and
> the outer limit of permissible dissent without falling into conspiracy
> nutter-land.
> hehheh.
> We've moved the limits inches and miles, but as long as they can keep
> things based on fictional planes and boogieman hijackers, they've still
> got game.
>
>
> Bill Giltner wrote:
> > Not that it matters how, but using bloglines.com, my daily tool to
> > keep up with blogs, I saw this:
> >
> > STANDOWN 9/11 : THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF PNAXE , ANTHRAX, &
SNEAK ATTACKS
> > http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10210
> >
> > So, I think that looks interesting, and start to read. However, as I
> > started reading about how so much was being made of the "stand down",
> > and having gotten a good education by this group over the last few
> > weeks, I realised more clearly than ever before: wait a sec., the
> > whole stand down argument implies that there were hijacked planes.
> >
> > This must have been obvious to the rest of you, but have to say I was
> > formerly brain washed on this point.
> >
> > My God, does the BS ever stop?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
> An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Reading my RSS Feeds...
> Datum: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:13:30 -0000
>
I always respond to critics, that the real 9/11perps might have planned to
use remote controlled planes first (and tested it several times), but then
dropped the idea, because there would have had too many witnesses among the
ATCs and within the FAA.
That's also one of the biggest reasons, why they evacuated the towers of
Pennsylvannia, Jonestown and Cleveland. To reduce non-sighting reports or
grounding reports of potential substitutes (Cleveland -> NASA Glenn).
That also explains, why Ronkonkoma's Air traffic reports got deleted.
There was no commercial aircraft in the NY Downtown area and most FAA people
know anyway. A potential substitute in the area of NY State was too far away
at time of both hits.
The plan screwed up also on their choice of the alleged flights.
Originally they picked "UA175" for the first tower and "AA11" (which did not
exist/BTS) for the second tower, which logically explains the order of the
collapses. I'm also sure, originally the pentagon should have been attacked
first
(in an own speculation at military code "14" =minutes before 9AM = 7/7)
A confirmation on the NY flight number "screw-up" is an FBI affidavit
(mirrored at team8plus) from sep12th, which still has the same mistake in
it.
Since they screwed up, that also explains why "UA175" was still missing in
late afternoon until the real 9/11 perps decided just to go with that
screw-up.
There was no chance to plant a commercial aircraft in the area of downtown.
What was visibly in the air at time of the 2nd hit, therefore must have been
an object between a small missile or a small drone hybrid
-and maybe in my own personal speculative scenario a smaller distraction
non-commercial aircraft, nearby 5th ave, but then continue flying, not
hitting the towers (but captured by amateur cams of "Camera Planet") and
possibly grounded at Staten Island, Fresh Kills, then later exploded in
mushroom style.
--
DSL-Aktion wegen großer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlängert:
GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
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/
No comments:
Post a Comment