Th..tha...thats all folks
LooneyTunes and assets are back.
:orly:
I'll reply at my choice and to whom I shall reply.
Shills equate entering a buildng to knowing people that erected the WTC and VAB Kennedy Space Center or people that Do The Job.
not blovaite about those that do the job.
Comm Link Selectively Closed, no time left for bullshit bloviation.
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
FRANCIS BACON
Your linked pdf articles are key to the run-up. Here then is a synopsis:
BEGIN SYNOPSIS
DoD Watchdog Covered Up Intelligence Unit's Work Tracking 9/11 Terrorists
Iron Man would not provide the names of the individuals that the Asymmetrical Threats Division briefed because that information is classified. But the personnel included intelligence officials from CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, NCIS, NSA and high-level command officials at JFIC.
The most senior official who was present at the briefing was Vice Adm. Martin J. Meyer, the deputy commander-in-chief of Joint Forces Command. Vice Adm. Meyer is the military official who told Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, the commander of the Continental United States North American Aerospace Defense Command Region (CONR), and other high-level CONR staffers two weeks before the 9/11 attacks that "their concern about Osama bin Laden as a possible threat to America was unfounded and that, to repeat, 'If everyone would just turn off CNN, there wouldn't be a threat from Osama bin Laden.'"
Since Meyer was one of the individuals JFIC briefed on al-Qaeda's interest in attacking targets in the United States it is difficult to comprehend why he would dismiss the threats.
~~~
Intelligence Unit Told Before 9/11 to Stop Tracking Bin Laden
According to the narrative in the IG report, a previous JFIC deputy director of intelligence said that the JFIC commander, identified elsewhere in the report as Capt. Janice Dundas, US Navy, "directed him to stop tracking Usama Bin Ladin. The Commanding Officer stated that the tracking of Usama Bin Ladin did not fall within JFIC's mission."
At the same time, JFIC analysis of purported Afghanistan "terrorist training camps" was also curtailed, with an explanation that such activities were outside the agency's Area of Operations and "that the issues where [sic] not in JFIC's swim lane."
According to the report, the Asymmetric Threats Division was "realigned" in summer 2001 under the "Intelligence Watch Center." The Intelligence Watch Center may be the Combined Intelligence Watch Center associated with NORAD, which is an "indications and warning center for worldwide threats from space, missile and strategic air activity, as well as geopolitical unrest that could affect North America and US forces/interests abroad." This would be consistent with the work DO5 did with the JTF-CS.
The order to stop tracking Bin Laden, therefore, came sometime between the origin of DO5 in 1999 and its realignment just prior to, or right after 9/11. In 2005, the JFIC itself was renamed the Joint Transformation Command-Intelligence, still subordinate to and serving USJFCOM.
~~~
In addition, IRON MAN's allegations also included charges that the JFIC and specifically DO5, had developed information that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were the most likely domestic targets of an al-Qaeda attack.
~~~
Ex-Army Officer Accuses CIA of Obstructing Pre-9/11 Intelligence-Gathering
A decorated ex-clandestine operative for the Pentagon offers new revelations about the role the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) played in the shut-down of the military's notorious Able Danger program, alleged to have identified five of the 9/11 hijackers inside America more than a year before the attacks.
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer joins a growing list of government officials accusing former CIA director George Tenet of misleading federal bodies and sharing some degree of blame for the attacks. Shaffer also adds to a picture emerging of the CIA's Bin Laden unit as having actively prevented other areas of intelligence, law enforcement and defense from properly carrying out their counterterrorism functions in the run-up to September 2001.
~~~
In the wake of the devastating African embassy bombings of 1998, which left more than 200 dead, US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) - responsible for the Pentagon's secret commando units - brought together specialists from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to begin mapping the al-Qaeda network. Based in the Information Dominance Center - also referred to as Land Information Warfare Activity, or LIWA - at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the team's advanced data-mining software found connections between known terrorists and subjects with matching profiles. This highly classified project was code-named Able Danger.
The project first came to public attention in June 2005, nearly one year after the 9/11 Commission released its report, when Congressman Curt Weldon gave a special orders speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. Following attacks on Weldon's credibility, five Pentagon whistleblowers came forward to back up his claims, including Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a CIA-trained senior intelligence operations officer, Bronze Star Medal recipient and reserve Army lieutenant colonel with more than 22 years in the intelligence community.
~~~
In other words, the collecting of information about al-Qaeda's cell structures was only meant to be a first step in a larger action to be taken using the data. "It wasn't simply an experiment. My actual assignment wasn't Able Danger. I could never testify to the actual operational objectives assigned to me and my unit for the purposes of Able Danger." The Able Danger project, portrayed in most media reports as a mere data-mining exercise, was in fact fully integrated into a larger military effort to target and disrupt al-Qaeda. Its actual capabilities and objectives remain classified.
Shaffer contends that the most damning revelations lie in that still-classified aspect of the project, the operational side. Asked what the next step was to be against the so-called Brooklyn cell identified by Able Danger which he says included five of the 9/11 hijackers, Shaffer responded, "I can't talk about that."
At the center of the military's intended action was a long-term asset recruited by DIA years before Able Danger, a retired Afghan general who had direct access to al-Qaeda activities in Afghanistan. "We had a clear access point to al-Qaeda we were using for our operational purposes," says Shaffer. "The asset was a separate operation we were going to use for access. We were going to use still-classified capabilities." That all changed when CIA got involved.
~~~
How the CIA's go-it-alone attitude regarding al-Qaeda helped enable the events of 2001 has only recently gained wider public attention. The story, reduced to an obscure endnote in the 9/11 Commission Report, exploded in 2011 when itemerged that Richard Clarke, counter-terror director for both Presidents Clinton and Bush, had, in a filmed interview, accused the CIA of deliberately withholding information on two of the 9/11 conspirators, the same ones separately discovered by Able Danger.
According to Clarke, some 50 employees in Black's and Blee's units would likely have known from early 2000 that conspirators Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi - among those who would commandeer American Airlines Flight 77, and reportedly the closest to Bin Laden himself - were working for al-Qaeda and had arrived in the United States.
Incredibly, the agency sat on this information for up to 18 months, ignoring standard protocol requiring them to tell the FBI and Clarke's team on the White House National Security Council.
Only a high-level decision could explain the silence of officers he spoke with regularly, Clarke believes. Pressed by John Duffy, the former head of counter-terrorism sensationally placed the blame on the CIA director. Tenet and others were quick to issue a dismissive press statement. But it can now be revealed the CIA's negligence went far beyond keeping critical intelligence to itself.
Around the same time Alec Station learned of al-Mihdhar's and al-Hazmi's likely arrival in the US, Able Danger's data-mining also unearthed the same individuals' domestic presence. According to several people who directly participated in the project, by mid-2000 their data mine had identified five "hotspots" for al-Qaeda activity including the German- and New York-based cells later implicated in the hijacking plot. Much of the controversy has centered on whether, more than a year before the events of 2001, Able Danger had identified lead hijacker Mohammed Atta. A Senate Intelligence Committee investigation and Defense Department Inspector General (IG) report have concluded otherwise. Still, Shaffer and colleagues remain adamant that key witnesses were ignored and testimony distorted in theIG's final report. In other words, it was a classic whitewash.
"We found two of the three cells which conducted the [9/11] attacks," says Shaffer. "They were the 'Brooklyn cell' not by geography, but they were the Brooklyn cell because members of the cell formed a similar profile to those who conducted the '93 World Trade Center bombing. We were looking at individuals, groups, and who they talked to, relationships, if they went to a certain mosque during a certain period of time." LIWA analysts created a massive chart with the names and photos of these terrorists. "We discovered these guys here and the CIA apparently knew these guys were here," he insists. "And yeah, nobody really seems to know what was going on." Shaffer says the significance was understood at the time. "We were scared to death that we had found operational cells ... within the United States. We did not have all the pieces of the puzzle, and we were not able to make sense of everything we had. Military action was going to be the ultimate outcome of the project.'
~~~
"It became clear that someone didn't want us looking at the data, and they gave an extraordinary direction." Army staff lawyers directed Capt. Eric Kleinsmith to destroy some 2.5 terabytes of publicly sourced data. In March or April 2000, the offices of Orion Scientific Systems, a private contractor employed by LIWA for the program, were stormed by armed federal agents. Much of the material produced for Able Danger was confiscated - and with it went the US military's best shot at unraveling the hijacking plot.
Soon after the end of the data collection aspect of Able Danger, the CIA pushed for the shut down of the operational side.
~~~
"We felt CIA made a huge mistake for political reasons, only to back off ... with regard to the asset in Afghanistan. But in hindsight it is very clear the CIA had its own game, and they were not interested in cooperating to the point where they were interfering with our ability to conduct our own offensive capability against al-Qaeda." Based on Tenet's testimony, Congress ordered DIA's asset - with direct access to al-Qaeda activities in Afghanistan - terminated. Shaffer characterizes Tenet's deception as causing "huge damage" to the overall concept of his part of the program.
~~~
In late 2000, the data mining aspect of the military's project was reconstituted as "Able Danger II" and moved to a classified private intelligence research center in Garland, Texas. When command of SOCOM changed hands from the retiring Gen. Schoomaker to Gen. Charles Holland in November, Holland again ordered termination of the efforts in Texas and for the personnel to return to SOCOM headquarters in Florida.
Shaffer claimed there were at least three senior military exchanges over the order that resulted in yelling contests. Most notable was in December when Maj. Gen. Rod Isler, director of operations for DIA, called in their boss Admiral Tom Wilson, the DIA Director, who reported to Tenet. In a shouting match, Wilson directed Isler and Shaffer to stop supporting Able Danger II.
In January 2001, with a new President, George W. Bush, in the White House, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer briefed Gen. Hugh Shelton, the man who had originally supported the formation of Able Danger, on the program results and operational options, including the possibility of reactivating the retired Afghan general asset that George Tenet had caused to be disengaged.
Shaffer said he provided a variation of the same briefing to Tenet himself in February, with DIA Director Adm. Tom Wilson present. The following month, Gen. Ron Isler ordered Shaffer to completely end his work on Able Danger II. Shaffer strongly disagreed, resulting in an argument, before Isler pulled rank on him. From that point on, Able Danger II was essentially done.
END SYNOPSIS
Phil's footnote: This is much of a muchness with the sabotage and sidelining of FBI Counterterrorism Chief John O'Neill
08-08-2013, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2013, 10:25 AM by Tony Szamboti.)
Jim Hackett II Wrote:The presented tale of the fall of the towers is bogus.
Two reasons present.
First the things I was told by Ironworkers and Operating Engineers that went to NYC on the afternoon of the 11th.
Second, my own observation of the towers fall that day.
Not enough thermal energy was ever available to soften the steel as the fable is told.
I know how much heat and pressure it takes to "rebend" structural steel.
Misfabrication at the shop occurs, it is then the job of the Ironworker to apply the heat and pressure to bend the beam into the proper shape/alignment in the field.
So it is the old Richard Pryor thing, who ya gonna believe "Me or your lying eyes?"
No other story building ever collapsed from internal and sustained fires of paper and wood. Ignited by kerosine quickly consumed.
Not even buildings that burned for DAYS.
So someone rewrote the laws of physics for just that one day.
Or WE WUZ HAD like we were in Sept. 1964 when the WC published their bullcrap.
After these issues came forth I don't pay much attention to 911.
I know when I am being LIED to by my Government.
It has become easier to detect after years of deception.
You have it right about there not being enough heat to cause what we observed. The NIST didn't find evidence of high temperatures on the steel. They only found three pieces out of the 236 they got from the twin towers that had even seen temperatures beyond 250 degrees C, where steel hasn't even begun to lose strength.
It isn't just that the collapse couldn't have started because there wasn't enough heat. There is another clue that it was unnatural as the acceleration through the first story was constant at 5.1 m/s^2. In a natural heat weakening situation the columns would have been softened to the point where they just couldn't handle the load when they began to fall. With constant acceleration, the average resistance should have been the strength just below where yield would start. So it should have been quite slow, but it was not. The observations of constant and rapid acceleration through the first story, along with the point that in a natural situation the fall would start when the columns would have been heated to where they just started to yield, are not consistent with heat weakening in a natural collapse.
The horizontal propagation across the entire 98th story of the North Tower in 0.5 to 0.7 seconds is not probable with heat weakening either.
Of course, Jeffrey simply says something along the lines he said to you here
I think you are neither familiar with the design nor understanding where the possible failures may have been. First, there were no columns which were melted or even heated hot enough to bend them. Heat weakens steel and if it weakens it below the service load it buckles and bends from BUCKLING not from plastic deformation. Second the failures in the frame were more likely the CONNECTIONS and they were not as strong as the sections themselves.
and I have asked him many times on other forums to explain how the rapid constant acceleration through the first story would be possible with heat weakening caused buckling of columns or the column connections breaking. He just goes into a "we can't see inside" mode and never tries to provide a technically plausible explanation. I have to believe that is because there isn't one, but that doesn't give him reason to pause and possibly re-evaluate his position. No, he keeps on repeating the same unsupported points about heat weakening being the cause. Bottom line is Jeffrey can't explain the details of the collapse in natural cause terms, but he will tell you he is sure it was a naturally caused event due to the effects of impact damage and fire with a poor design (he never explains the poor design either), and that those with the motive to take advantage of the event (the oil cabal with operatives like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld etc.) just waited for it to happen. Given the natural cause problems and the aftermath, that position is at the very least naïve in the most extreme sense, and all of the time Jeffrey seems to have to post long winded replies all over the Internet on this issue (he is on several 911 related forums) along with his problems with NYC CAN and AE911Truth make me wonder about his motives.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:You have it right about there not being enough heat to cause what we observed. The NIST didn't find evidence of high temperatures on the steel. They only found three pieces out of the 236 they got from the twin towers that had even seen temperatures beyond 250 degrees C, where steel hasn't even begun to lose strength.
You ignore the building motion pre release which indicated the core had begun to collapse, fail and the motion led to lateral motion and fracturing of column connections. You don't know the temps and where they were applied and you've made up the facts to suit your theory. The link provided explains the flaws in your thinking.
Ed De Paolo examined the steel and stated the heat destroyed the strength of the steel. I suggest you take it up with him not me. I can give you his contact info or look it up yourself - Severud Associates.
1) Inertia is mentioned only in "6." wrapped in a false assumption that the "upper section" was static prior to release. The word Placticity is not contained in the main body of the paper.
2) Tony has demonstrated he had no idea about the real-world motion of the building, and clearly was in no position to "correct" any "assumptions related to the beginning of downward motion". He has now accepted "tilt" and "perimeter unzipping", and really should be accepting higher quality motion data, and its derivatives.
3) Whilst it is fairly clear the paper highlights errors in the Bazant and co. calculations, extrapolating to "conclusions" is over-reaching.
interested persons can find a discussion and critique of Tony's theories and erroneous conclusions at the links previously provided.
08-08-2013, 11:09 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2013, 11:35 AM by Tony Szamboti.)
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote:You have it right about there not being enough heat to cause what we observed. The NIST didn't find evidence of high temperatures on the steel. They only found three pieces out of the 236 they got from the twin towers that had even seen temperatures beyond 250 degrees C, where steel hasn't even begun to lose strength.
You ignore the building motion pre release which indicated the core had begun to collapse, fail and the motion led to lateral motion and fracturing of column connections. You don't know the temps and where they were applied and you've made up the facts to suit your theory. The link provided explains the flaws in your thinking.
Ed De Paolo examined the steel and stated the heat destroyed the strength of the steel. I suggest you take it up with him not me. I can give you his contact info or look it up yourself - Severud Associates.
So now you want to say a vertical drop of the core caused a large side to side motion that fractured perimeter connections. How did the core drop and why would it cause a large horizontal motion? Additionally, if the perimeter connections were so susceptible to horizontal motion the wind resistance of the design would not have been nearly what the designers purported it to be.
The chief engineer John Skilling is on record explaining to authors Glanz and Lipton
The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. --City in the Sky, p 133
It is obvious that you still can't provide a plausible mechanism for heat weakening causing the rapid horizontal propagation (the NE corner 300 feet away fell within 0.7 seconds of the SW corner) and the constant and rapid (5.1 m/s^2 or 17 feet/s^2) vertical acceleration of the first story of the collapse of the North tower at the 98th floor.
Maybe you can show us some of your cartoons you say you use for understanding and we can see why you can't explain things.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:You have it right about there not being enough heat to cause what we observed. The NIST didn't find evidence of high temperatures on the steel. They only found three pieces out of the 236 they got from the twin towers that had even seen temperatures beyond 250 degrees C, where steel hasn't even begun to lose strength.
You ignore the building motion pre release which indicated the core had begun to collapse, fail and the motion led to lateral motion and fracturing of column connections. You don't know the temps and where they were applied and you've made up the facts to suit your theory. The link provided explains the flaws in your thinking.
Ed De Paolo examined the steel and stated the heat destroyed the strength of the steel. I suggest you take it up with him not me. I can give you his contact info or look it up yourself - Severud Associates.
So now you want to say a vertical drop of the core caused a large side to side motion that fractured perimeter connections. How did the core drop and why would it cause a large horizontal motion? Additionally, if the perimeter connections were so susceptible to horizontal motion the wind resistance of the design would not have been nearly what the designers purported it to be.
The chief engineer John Skilling is on record explaining to authors Glanz and Lipton
The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. --City in the Sky, p 133
It is obvious that you still can't provide a plausible mechanism for heat weakening causing the rapid 0.5 to 0.7 second horizontal propagation and the constant and rapid (5.1 m/s^2 or 17 feet/s^2) vertical acceleration of the first story of the collapse of the North tower at the 98th floor.
So why bother with all the columns if they weren't needed? That's a BS quote and taken out of context.
Not spending more time arguing with you Tony as you refused to see the facts the inconvenient truths which destroy your pet theories.
I've tried to be open and objetive and my views have evolved and will continue ton evolve. You have not made a case that convinces me and you are stuck like a broken record. Others much smarter than I have shown you your mistakes and you simply do not answer and take flight to peddle your theories on another site such as this. Good luck! I am sure some will embrace your smoke and mirrors as the next best thing to sliced bread for the truth movement.
It's been 12 years and there are remarkably less than a handful of truth people who have even taken in a scientific technical study. They have shown that NIST did a poor job with its work, but have not provided a convincing argument for what DID happen... with your efforts being one of the handful. Very sloppy work trying to pass as rigorous scientific and engineering analysis. It convinces the truth lay guys but is not convincing the huge engineering and scientific community. Why is that? Please don't answer that they are all in on the inside job or intimidated that they will suffer consequences.
We DO need a proper explanation and more data derived from evidence... but you are not providing it. You make stuff up to suit your preconceived views.
We have seen the government abuse the trust of the people and the MIC and the NSS/intel monster grow to enormous proportion and suck all the air out of the room and are running rough shod over the world and the nation. They have the power to do virtually whatever they want... but they don't orchestrate every single world event... even when they behavior causes many of them. They try and successfully turn all world events into an excuse to advance their agenda of achiving more control and less opposition... in the name of security. This is has been foreseen in Brave New World... and 1984.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:We have seen the government abuse the trust of the people and the MIC and the NSS/intel monster grow to enormous proportion and suck all the air out of the room and are running rough shod over the world and the nation. They have the power to do virtually whatever they want... but they don't orchestrate every single world event... even when they behavior causes many of them. They try and successfully turn all world events into an excuse to advance their agenda of achiving more control and less opposition... in the name of security. This is has been foreseen in Brave New World... and 1984.
So in your mind these guys just sit around and wait for something like a once in a generation occurrence (such as the JFK assassination or 911) to happen so they can move forward with their plans. Doesn't sound like they are the same type of guys who would proactively lie us into a war with Iraq. That sort of points to the fact that they don't wait around. They make it happen.
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.
"These guys" is a rather ill defined term. My sense is that the NSS and people in positions of power all pretty much have the same "paranoid" view of the world. Some will abuse their position of power more than others... perhaps most are just right wingers and not necessarily with no moral compass. The have always been and there always be people who get into the inside of the power structure with criminal minds, hidden agendas and will abuse their position to advance their agenda.
I am just guessing that the neocons flooded the MIC and the NSS and then wanted to find the excuses to move policy where they wanted it to go. There is some pretense as transparency and so starting a war and submitted bloated nonsense (seeming) procurement budgets is not possible. The MIC etc. is already sucking up too much and has too much discretionary power with no oversight.
In the early 60s intel was given the green light to engage in covert operations around the world. This was justified as the more effective foreign policy for the US (empire... and corporations which make up the Empire along with the military). There have been assassinations successful and not and support of rebels like the contras to remove popularly elected leftist governments. Any state that is not capitalist is deemed an enemy. The CIA ran rampant thru Latin America, Philippines and Africa and the ME installing and propping up pro capitalist authoritarian governments... The DOD sucked the US into disastrous wars in SE Asia which they did not win. The US talks democracy but acts fascist around the world. The PR is not impressing the oppressed. And the right (MIC-NSS- fascists-transnational corps) wanted to take of the gloves and with the collapse of the USSR become the planet's unchallenged bully installing puppets and taking whatever they wanted without challenge.
Right wing governments in EU etc fell right in line and their leaders were partners in corruption such as Noriega until they showed some independence and then were useless and taken down. Insurrection is the problem for the fascists and the more oppressive they are the more brazen the abuse the more fuel they provide to rebels, insurgency groups and so called terrorists... who struggle to get the empire off their backs and out of their lands. It's a very asymmetrical struggle.
The insurgencies believe that to win the empire will have to crumble from within.. a victim or its own corruption and excessive funding for military adventures which will bankrupt the country and plunge it into economic collapse. USSR seems to have fallen under the burden of too much spending on military defense... in the cold war. That is now taking place in the US-NATO empire. A democracy will not allow this to happen and so the US democracy has been devolved and exists in name only. US is a fascist state which is now collapsing under the burden of militarism and corruption. There is no means to change this trajectory. It will consume itself and turn the world into a vast neo feudal state or crumble. The outcome is yet to be determined.
The neocon fascist types are pushing for more and more control and less and less democracy and transparency. There's little left now. What we have is a veneer with no substance with a fascist agenda. But clearly not everyone inside the MIC-Military and NSS is active in promoting fascism... a fair amount are simply sadists who want to protect the greedy American way of life called a consumerist driven "free market".
We've seen how little accountability and oversight there is... how much of what the NSS and intel does is hidden and beyond scrutiny... how often policies are simply rubber stamped and hidden from the public. They lied big time about the breath and scope of the surveillance state... who created those programs and who is taking the surveillance data and what are they doing with it?
We've also seen how control and secrecy is protected with compartmentalization and plausible deniability... all done in service to allowing criminal behavior to go unnoticed.
The CD project and the vast conspiracy would involve hundreds if not thousands choreographed to precision without rehearsal. This alone makes the CD inside job conspiracy hard to swallow and the more likely one that insiders intent and changing foreign policy used intel to allow the supposed pretext for that new policy... even authoring the USAPATRIOT in advance. Think tanks like PNAC are pushing their agenda... why would they do it so openly?
The bureaucracy is tripping over itself.... it's only a matter of time before it shatters. But when it does these guys are not going gently into that good night, but with all their gins blazing.
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
