Trying to sort out some of this "negligence" which was apparent on the day.You are including another group of "actors" [in both senses of the word] and yet our argument is that there isn't the witnesses there should be to the two planes. There are many witnesses to bomb explosions at the towers. What have any actors contributed towards the official story at the towers? No number of actors would have countered the mass of witnesses - those numbers of ordinary people who survived the attacks. You are also increasing the number of people whose charactor would have to be assessed as not thinking twice of supporting a mass slaughter of innocent people on 9/11 or suddenly becoming aware of the gig they thought was a drill going live and very real. Need to be a damn good actor to play that part. Then being for evermore in fear of THEIR lives because of knowing too much.
Do you really think that a totally domestic "war zone" would send F16's and F15's responding to an external threat scenario if there was no indicators pointing to an external threat?
What are we talking about at the towers? Missiles, drones, mysterious orbs & helicopters. Not internal passenger flights. Not necessarily domestic situations are they? Afterall didn't the guy say "175" had no windows and he hadn't seen anything like it flying in the States.
----- Original Message -----From: Nico HauptSent: Friday, February 10, 2006 5:07 PMSubject: Re: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Request for Critique from Group: Blog Post about Michael B. Green> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
> An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Request for Critique from Group: Blog Post
> about Michael B. Green
> Datum: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:02:14 -0000
>
we figured, that some of the 'witnesses' could have been extras, coming from
an actor payroll list of the naudet film crew, maybe "waiting" for their gig
downtown and then easily confusing their gig with the 'reality', recalling
it from their script.
>>>>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<<<
--
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie
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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
>
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