Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Whenever I spy Shrubs visage I am reminded of what Alice Roosevelt said of Thomas Dewey.

"HE LOOKS LIKE HE WAS WEANED ON A PICKLE." she also famously called him, "THE LITTLE MAN ON THE WEDDING CAKE."

[Jack White]

I have become acquainted by email with the operator of

a new 911 website. His name is Russell Pickering. Today he

wrote:

Subject:

Fw: New OPERATION NORTHWOODS page

Jack,

For the first time I read and studied the Operation Northwoods document in detail. I found a lot of information I didn't know.

They mentioned things like:

!) Using plastic explosives

2) Planting aircraft parts

3) Using air defense exercises as a cover

4) Radio controlled detonation of an aircraft

5) Conducting funerals for mock-victims

6) Having an attack in D.C.

It contained every element of 9/11 in detail. I posted full-size versions of the papers linked in the sidebar and underlined in red all of the key points to save time for viewers.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/north.html

Russell

[Len Colby]

I have become acquainted by email with the operator of a new 911 website. His name is Russell Pickering. Today he

wrote:

Subject:

Fw: New OPERATION NORTHWOODS page

Jack,

For the first time I read and studied the Operation Northwoods document in detail. I found a lot of information I didn't know.

They mentioned things like:

!) Using plastic explosives

2) Planting aircraft parts

3) Using air defense exercises as a cover

4) Radio controlled detonation of an aircraft

5) Conducting funerals for mock-victims

6) Having an attack in D.C.

It contained every element of 9/11 in detail. I posted full-size versions of the papers linked in the sidebar and underlined in red all of the key points to save time for viewers.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/north.html

Russell

Gee, there are some superficial similarities between parts of Operation Northwoods and some of the wilder 9/11 CTs, I guess that proves PNAC did it LOL. Compare any roughly similar events (terrorist attacks on the US) and you will, if your look hard enough, be able to find similarities.

The Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations are a case in point.

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.

John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.

John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both Presidents were shot in the head.

Both were supposedly assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.

Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1838.

Lee Harvey Oswald, who supposedly assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Both names are composed of fifteen letters.

Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.'

Kennedy was shot in a car called 'Lincoln' made by 'Ford.'

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

A month before Lincoln was assassinated he was in Monroe, Maryland.

A year before Kennedy was assassinated he was in Marilyn Monroe.

Does this prove something sinister?

They also proposed sinking an American warship in a Cuban harbor (Guantanamo Bay)

Is that evidence that American agents were responsible for sinking the Maine?

1) Using plastic explosives

There is no evidence plastic explosives were used on 9/11. In any case using explosives in a terrorist attack is hardly unusual. I would expect they were used in about 80% of terrorist attacks and most of those involved plastic explosives. No know plastic explosives could have brought down the WTC because it would have been imposible to plant them and prep the buildings with out being noticed. Also CTist make much of the “molten steel” plastic explosives DON’T melt steel.

2) Planting aircraft parts

There is no evidence parts were planted.

3) Using air defense exercises as a cover

Where in the official explanation does it say that they were unable to intercept the planes because of air defense exercises? IIRC 'war games' played a very different role in Operation Northwoods.

4) Radio controlled detonation of an aircraft

I’ve never even heard that CT, who is claiming the planes were detonated? It seems obvious they exploded due to impact. What evidence is there of radio detonation

5) Conducting funerals for mock-victims

There is no evidence of mock victims; I guess all the relatives of those mock victims were fake too, as were those profiles of them in the local papers. Just because some lunatics in the JCS proposed something forty years ago doesn’t mean that it was feasible then, let alone now. Even back then they were worried about the truth coming out, ‘ ''Any of the contrived situations described above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty,'' a memo said.’

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:ajVBOGbhnvMJ:www.hannibal.net/stories/013198/Castro.html . If one wants to believe there were no people on those planes the number of people “in on” the conspiracy would be enormous, it would have to include dozens of people from United and American airlines and Logan, Newark and Dulles airports and the mock relatives of the mock victims. If no one was aboard flight 93 where did the “about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue” come from?”

6) Having an attack in D.C.

Wow, two terrorist attacks on the US (one fake, one real) both included attacks on the nation’s capital, what an amazing coincidence. The IRA and al-Qaeda both bombed London so did the Germans during WWII, ETA and al-Qaeda both attacked Madrid. The Allies bombed Berlin and Tokyo. The British attacked D.C. in the War of 1812, the Confederates tried during the Civil War and the Union tried to take Richmond etc etc. If a country or terrorist group wants to attack a country, the country’s capital is the most obvious target. IIRC, the Pentagon, White House and Capitol (building) were NOT mentioned as targets in “Operation Northwoods”

This also an example of “missing the forest for the trees”, it didn’t contain “every element of 9/11 in detail” it didn’t even include the two most distinctive features of those attacks: 1) the hijacking of civilian aircraft in order to fly them into iconic targets and 2) the collapse of large office buildings killing thousands of innocent civilians.

The site does have some value though. It makes a good case that 757 parts were found at the Pentagon.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/757debris.html

ROTFLMHO

Edited March 23, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Just wanted to give this thread a bump

[Ron Ecker]

Len,

You go to an awful lot of trouble to completely miss a point.

The point being, people keep saying how unthinkable and absurd it is to think that our own government would be behind terrorist attacks like 9/11, when our own government has in fact proposed taking such actions in the past.

Does Operation Northwoods prove the government was behind 9/11? Of course not. What it proves is that the government is perfectly capable of such things, has contemplated it, and at least part of that government has been more than willing.

But don't let that disturb you. Keep arguing about how laughable it all is.

Ron

[Len Colby]

Len,

You go to an awful lot of trouble to completely miss a point.

The point being, people keep saying how unthinkable and absurd it is to think that our own government would be behind terrorist attacks like 9/11, when our own government has in fact proposed taking such actions in the past.

Does Operation Northwoods prove the government was behind 9/11? Of course not. What it proves is that the government is perfectly capable of such things, has contemplated it, and at least part of that government has been more than willing.

But don't let that disturb you. Keep arguing about how laughable it all is.

Ron

What it proves is that the government is perfectly capable of such things, has contemplated it, and at least part of that government has been more than willing.

But that's not the point that the author made, he seemed to see ON as a blueprint for 9/11 and mentioned what he considered to be 6 parallels between the two. I jusy wanted to show that his comparisons were spurious.

I never denied that Bush and Chenney etc. would be capable of carrying out such a plan, just that the evidence of an "inside job" and controlled demolition of the WTC is very weak.

I don't think ON proves much. The German government didn't just think about but actually carried out attrocities far worse that 9/11 and ON, would that indicate the German government decades later would be capable of similar acts?

[Ron Ecker]

The German government didn't just think about but actually carried out attrocities far worse that 9/11 and ON, would that indicate the German government decades later would be capable of similar acts?

It indicates that any government is capable of such acts. All it takes is for the people to do nothing about it, using whatever excuses they have, such as "the government wouldn't do such a thing."

[Len Colby]

The German government didn't just think about but actually carried out attrocities far worse that 9/11 and ON, would that indicate the German government decades later would be capable of similar acts?

It indicates that any government is capable of such acts. All it takes is for the people to do nothing about it, using whatever excuses they have, such as "the government wouldn't do such a thing."

In any case i don't dispute that "Baby Doc" Bush and cohorts would be capable of such an act, but the evidence just isn't there that there was an "inside job"

Edited March 27, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Al etc,

I hope you don’t mind being put on the spot but you’re the only person I have any sort of contact with who is qualified to answer my questions.

Questions have been raised about the delay in removing Bush from Booker Elementary after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. CTists have suggested that this is a sign that Bush knew what was going to happen. However according to Cooperative Research’s “9/11Timeline” the Secret Service asked about fighter escort at about 9:03 but was told it was not available. Norad was only notified of a 3rd hijacking (flight 77) at 9:24 and the FBI’s Washington Field Office at “around 9:20”; it is not clear when this information was give to the president’s entourage. The president left the school at about 9:34 (about the time the hijacking of flight 93 was confirmed).

Based on your experience with presidential security and based on what was known at the time do you believe the delay in removing Bush from the school was:

1) the most prudent thing to do,

2) bad judgment but no a sign of foreknowledge or

3) a definite or probable sign of foreknowledge?

The above answers are only suggested don’t feel pigeonholed by these options.

Also who’s call was it Bush’s or the head of the SS detail’s?

I asked Al, but of course anyone can answer, however I hope that only people who have some specific knowledge will offer their opinions. Others please inicated what experience / knowledge you answers are based on.

Len

All times above from the 9/11 timeline which was compiled by conspiracist site but based on reports from mainstream media.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...ne&startpos=100

[David G. Healy]

Colby penned:

[...]

I asked Al, but of course anyone can answer, however I hope that only people who have some specific knowledge will offer their opinions. Others please inicated what experience / knowledge you answers are based on.

[...]

hmmm "... experience/knowledge your answers are based on." Why do I find that qualifier a joke coming from you?

[Ron Ecker]

It was the Secret Service's call. And the 9/11 Commission Report sums up this controversial issue in one sentence: "The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door" (p. 39). So they hung around Bush's known location, a schoolhouse full of children, for another half hour.

Meanwhile, VP Dick Cheney was promptly run out the door of his office by the Secret Service, which took him to a White House bunker, where Secretary of Transportation Mineta found him at 9:20 am.

[Len Colby]

It was the Secret Service's call. And the 9/11 Commission Report sums up this controversial issue in one sentence: "The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door" (p. 39). So they hung around Bush's known location, a schoolhouse full of children, for another half hour.

Meanwhile, VP Dick Cheney was promptly run out the door of his office by the Secret Service, which took him to a White House bunker, where Secretary of Transportation Mineta found him at 9:20 am.

so ron it sounds like you would choose answer .

You left out the next paragraph which actually came from one of the staff reports

'Between 9:15 and 9:30, the staff was busy arranging a return to Washington, while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks. No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. As far as we know, no one was in contact with the Pentagon. The focus was on the President's statement to the nation. No decisions were made during this time, other than the decision to return to Washington.

The President's motorcade departed at 9:35, and arrived at the airport between 9:42 and 9:45. During the ride the President learned about the attack on the Pentagon....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007

[Ron Ecker]

so ron it sounds like you would choose answer .

I would choose answer C. It was worse than bad judgment if there was actually a possibility that Bush was a target.

You left out the next paragraph which actually came from one of the staff reports

Okay, let's look at it since you think it's important. It relates nothing more than the excuses made for hanging around the schoolhouse for half an hour after knowing that "America is under attack."

'Between 9:15 and 9:30, the staff was busy arranging a return to Washington, while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks.'

What does "busy arranging a return to Washington" mean? What did they have to arrange about going outside, getting their cars, and getting their butts to AF1, or just riding around town to be at least a moving target (which would make as much sense as taking off and flying hither and yon in AF1 as a moving target)?

'No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing.'

So they therefore assumed there were no more hijackings and missing planes, and they could hang around a while and talk about Bush's "remarks"? Brilliant thinking under the circumstances.

'The President's motorcade departed at 9:35.'

Absolutely inexcusable. But of course the long delay was because they knew Bush was in no danger, and they wanted to keep him there inactive ("no decisions were made") and working on his "remarks" till the attacks were completed.

It is not my intent to engage in another debate with you on this as on previous subjects. I thought that your question had a simple answer so I answered it.

[John Simkin]

Members of the Forum might be interested in the article: The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True by David Ray Griffin.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

[Sid Walker]

Members of the Forum might be interested in the article: The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True by David Ray Griffin.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Yes, it's a very fine article John.

I'd like to recommend a 9-11 site - Physics911.net

It takes a science-based approach, has a section critiquing the official account (what did not happen) - and also advances a few hypotheses regarding what may have happened.