Saturday, February 11, 2006

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

Your 6 examples, I believe have an inference of the planning but have much to do with the cover up. Motive is very much behind planning. Since the quality and the extent of the cover up required is dependant on the quality of the plan, you'd expect a better finished article. Operation Northwoods was small and contained [the crash into the sea with a sub marine sending up "bodies" & "debris" can't get more contained than that.  
 
Take the debris at the Pentagon. It raises more questions than it answers. How easy was it to actually obtain something from a 757. It's not rocket science, is it.
 
I'm sure we don't need to know the truth.
 
All the truth we need to know is that US foreign policy was turned around after 9/11 and that with shock and awe the status quo returned.
 
The unfortunate thing is that the US, probably in tune with most world countries respect only the strong. Such countries that mirror themselves.
 
The status quo has returned. 
 
But what that means is that the threat of terrorism needs to be kept alive for fear that 9/11 is not seen as a fait accompli which it probably was.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Request for Critique from Group: Blog Post about Michael B. Green

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@lineone.net> 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
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





SPONSORED LINKS
Government procurement Government leasing Government grants for women
Government lease Government contract Government money

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)