08-08-2013, 02:02 PM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Albert Rossi Wrote:Phil Dragoo Wrote:Albert Rossi
Your linked pdf articles are key to the run-up. Here then is a synopsis:
Phil, thanks for doing this. Does DPF consider it better protocol to inline or to attach information? If the former, my apologies for not summarizing as you did.
Yes, offhand, I do see a rhyme of history here of sorts. Choose a group that you have been working with, who has potential "blowback" capabilities, and monitor, manipulate, and fund them (like the Cubans in 1963: "You must eliminate Kennedy"). Run operations in parallel which preempt others, hold them at arms length, or even tell them to stand down ("hey, FBI, hands off Oswald: he's working for us, and we're running him in a special anti-FPCC program aimed at non-domestic penetration; that's why we sent him to Mexico"; so off goes the FLASH switch). Obviously, the JFK/WTC scenarios are not "exact" replicas of each other, but "intelligence operation" is written all over both of them. It certainly looks like more than just waiting around for it to happen.
I think this makes a lot of sense... and demonstrates the nature of the complicity but is hardly the so called inside job which planned the entire event to a T. Maybe
Well, as I said earlier, I am not in a position to pronounce on 9/11, but it is my view that the JFK assassination was indeed planned to a T from the inside, even if it may not have come off perfectly.