"Operation Northwoods" Document Not Kosher?

[Cicero]

This was a previously unknown document that was supposedly declassified in 1997 that was part of the 1962 Operation Mongoose. This is often cited by the 911 truth grunions as the Golden Fleece of Bush culpability for 911

The hard core DRG 911 loons love to point to this single document as proof positive Bush 43 engineered 911. Yet even elements of the DRG 911 "truth" brigade question the veracity of the "Northwoods" document. The only thing that this "Northwoods" document suggests, whether it is Kosher or not, is that JFK and brother Bob commissioned all facets of the government to come up with any outrageous scenario to eliminate Castro. But somehow, all this 1962 Castro spit-balling is supposed to be some smoking gun for the Bush/Israel/Media 911 conspiracy.

If a segment of the conspiracy loving 911 "truth" grunions regurgitated this "Northwoods" document, and they bite on everything that has even a whiff of American perfidy, something must be amiss.

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, Cicero. I'll go with the assumption that Northwoods is a real document.

You got a few things wrong here. The most important one is that the Northwoods proposal was NOT cooked up by JFK, Bobby, or anyone else in the U.S. government. It was the work of Lyman Lemnitzer, the rabidly anti-Communist Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The memo was summarily REJECTED by SecDef McNamara. The U.S. leaders were still licking their wounds over the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and likely were in no mood for such James Bond shenanigans. BTW, Northwoods did not call for the murder of U.S. citizens.

So, it was not a U.S. government idea at all. It was rejected by the U.S. government, which sort of puts a kink in the conspiracy theory, don'tcha think? We pay our military to come up with all sorts of scenarios and contingency plans, some of which wind up being realistic and some of which are idiotic. Whether or not Northwoods had anything to do with Lemnitzer's subsequent demotion, I don't know.

[RedIbis]

Whereas it's true that Northwoods was rejected, the relevence of referring to the document during these discussions is that such types of false flag events were in fact conceived of and considered.

I'm not quite sure why, but making this observation somehow makes me a small silvery fish from California. Though I have been known to spawn in the wet sand.

[Cicero]

Welcome to the forums, Cicero. I'll go with the assumption that Northwoods is a real document.

You got a few things wrong here. The most important one is that the Northwoods proposal was NOT cooked up by JFK, Bobby, or anyone else in the U.S. government. It was the work of Lyman Lemnitzer, the rabidly anti-Communist Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The memo was summarily REJECTED by SecDef McNamara. The U.S. leaders were still licking their wounds over the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and likely were in no mood for such James Bond shenanigans. BTW, Northwoods did not call for the murder of U.S. citizens.

So, it was not a U.S. government idea at all. It was rejected by the U.S. government, which sort of puts a kink in the conspiracy theory, don'tcha think? We pay our military to come up with all sorts of scenarios and contingency plans, some of which wind up being realistic and some of which are idiotic. Whether or not Northwoods had anything to do with Lemnitzer's subsequent demotion, I don't know.

Gravy,

Thank you for the welcome....

I agree that "Northwoods" does not appear to have the flavor of the other Cuban issue documents initiated by JFK in 1962. I beleive a journalist has already pointed out the the presence of British colloquialisms and idiums in the "Northwoods" document, that are not present in the other Operation Mongoose documents, adds credence to "Northwoods" not being of American origin.

While General Lemnitzer's name accompanies the "Northwoods" document, many "truth" grunions claim that General Lansdale and Miami CIA station chief Ted Shackley's names appears on the "Northwoods" document. Lansdale's name is on the October 4, 1962 Mongoose document, but not on "Northwoods." The only names visible in the document are General William H. Craig, F.J. Blouin, M.J. Ingelido and Chief of Naval Operations Almiront Geroge W. Anderson Jr.

The earliest Operation Mongoose document of February 19, and February 20, 1962 also do not mention either Shackely or Lansdale.

The point about "Northwoods" is that it materializes so long after the Church Committee. The other components of Operation Mongoose were no less secret or illegal, yet they were made public back in 1975.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the document is genuine, were the plane-swapping and drone theories too much for JFK? Probably. But that does not mean that JFK rejected this Operation "Northwoods" (if it existed)because he had morals about taking down Castro through any means possible. It may have been rejected for the simple reason that it was logistically too complicated.

The true irony in this "Northwoods" document is that it only serves to reinforce how whacked JFK and his administration was in regards to the handling of foreign affairs. Yet the "truth" grunions always give JFK a pass on any skulduggery since they constantly have to shore up his image to keep their multiple assassination conspriacies in play.

[Jonnyclueless]

Whereas it's true that Northwoods was rejected, the relevence of referring to the document during these discussions is that such types of false flag events were in fact conceived of and considered.

I'm not quite sure why, but making this observation somehow makes me a small silvery fish from California. Though I have been known to spawn in the wet sand.

Actually, it proves just the opposite, that these things are rejected by the US government.

[Gravy]

Actually, it proves just the opposite, that these things are rejected by the US government.I agree with Johnnyclueless. I don't see how Northwoods can be used to condemn the JFK administration in any way. I've seen no evidence that it was commissioned or condoned by any branch of the government.

The reason I assume it's authentic is that if it wasn't I think the government and historians would have denounced it.

Cicero, the bold blue font you're using is a bit glaring on my eyes – doesn't make for pleasant reading. Perhaps that's just me, though.

[ConspiRaider]

I agree with Johnnyclueless. I don't see how Northwoods can be used to condemn the JFK administration in any way. I've seen no evidence that it was commissioned or condoned by any branch of the government.

The reason I assume it's authentic is that if it wasn't I think the government and historians would have denounced it.

Cicero, the bold blue font you're using is a bit glaring on my eyes – doesn't make for pleasant reading. Perhaps that's just me, though.
(bolding and coloring mine)

Actually I was going to say something as well. Cicero, if you could tone that down, would be appreciated. And welcome to the forum.

Northwoods is yet another red herring to try and "connect the dots", but it connects zip. As nutty as the idea that George Bush Sr. was lounging around on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository right after the assassination.

[Cicero]

I agree with Johnnyclueless. I don't see how Northwoods can be used to condemn the JFK administration in any way. I've seen no evidence that it was commissioned or condoned by any branch of the government.

The reason I assume it's authentic is that if it wasn't I think the government and historians would have denounced it.

Cicero, the bold blue font you're using is a bit glaring on my eyes – doesn't make for pleasant reading. Perhaps that's just me, though.


Gravy,

The JCS have never commented on the authenticity of any FOIA document. Why would they bother with this "Northwoods" document when Operation Mongoose documents, that incriminate JFK's plots against Castro, have been in the public domain since the Church Committee published their findings in 1975?

Considering what happened with Sandy Burger at the National Archives, expecting government institutions to authenticate an obscure 45 year-old documents is probably a bit too optimistic.

JFK's administration is self-condemning. Whether "Northwoods" is a fraudulent, or legitimate, document surely does not allow for a reprieve of JFK's less than stellar 1000 days in office.

The word "Northwoods" only appears once without any context on an outer document. The word "Operation" is never used (unlike Mongoose).

The last two living persons that were in JFK's administration question the validity of the "Northwoods" document, but oddly enough, not "Operation Mongoose."

"I've never heard of Operation Northwoods. Never heard of it and don't believe it," said Theodore Sorenson, Kennedy's White House special counsel. "Obviously, it would be totally illegal as well as totally unwise."

Robert S. McNamara, Kennedy's defense secretary, said: "I never heard of it. I can't believe the chiefs were talking about or engaged in what I would call CIA-type operations."

James Bamford in "Body of Secrets writes that besides the Joint Chiefs, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul H. Nitze also favored "provoking a phony war with Cuba."

"There may be a piece of paper" on Northwoods, said McNamara. "I just cannot conceive of [Nitze] approving anything like that or doing it without talking to me."

While both Sorenson and McNamara may have ulterior motives to further deny skullduggery during JFK's administration, I find them credible in this instance.

Why the 911 "truth" grunions believe the Bush Administration would take a page from the 1962 JFK Cuba playbook as their paradigm for 911, when this "Northwoods" document was publicized in "Body of Secrets" only five months prior to September 11, 2001, is also a head scratch.

[kameelyun]

What a small world! Are you bored with Amazon?

[gumboot]

Whether or not Northwoods had anything to do with Lemnitzer's subsequent demotion, I don't know.


Just a nitpick... Lemnitzer wasn't demoted. Although he wasn't allowed another term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, such terms are planned well in advance, so the end of his term a month later was probably coincidence. From there here moved to Commander, US Force Europe, and within a year was Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

Throughout his entire time he retained the rank of General - the highest rank a US Army Officer can achieve during peace time.

-Gumboot

[John Blonn]

Whereas it's true that Northwoods was rejected, the relevence of referring to the document during these discussions is that such types of false flag events were in fact conceived of and considered.

A hilarious standard of evidence. So if someone, somewhere thinks of an idea, this is evidence for the plausibility of its involvement in an event decades later?

[Jonnyclueless]

It's a good time not to be a straw for fear of all the grasping going on.

[Cicero]

What a small world! Are you bored with Amazon?

Kameelyun,

Have you visited the Amazon "WTC 7 and the 911 Conspiracy" thread recently? You would love it. The DRG "truth" grunions have over run the thread like the Chi-Comms pouring across the Yalu River in 1950.

But I am amazed to find you here. Do you find your 911 beliefs are reinforced or shattered in this forum?

But what about this "Northwoods" document that you always loved to cite as proof of the Bush administration complicity in 911?

[Brainster]

Welcome to the forums, Cicero. I'll go with the assumption that Northwoods is a real document.

You got a few things wrong here. The most important one is that the Northwoods proposal was NOT cooked up by JFK, Bobby, or anyone else in the U.S. government. It was the work of Lyman Lemnitzer, the rabidly anti-Communist Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The memo was summarily REJECTED by SecDef McNamara. The U.S. leaders were still licking their wounds over the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and likely were in no mood for such James Bond shenanigans. BTW, Northwoods did not call for the murder of U.S. citizens.

So, it was not a U.S. government idea at all. It was rejected by the U.S. government, which sort of puts a kink in the conspiracy theory, don'tcha think? We pay our military to come up with all sorts of scenarios and contingency plans, some of which wind up being realistic and some of which are idiotic. Whether or not Northwoods had anything to do with Lemnitzer's subsequent demotion, I don't know.

I don't believe it did; for one thing Lemnitzer's term was up; apparently September 30 is the common date for Joint Chiefs to step down. And Kennedy did subsequently appoint him to Supreme Commander of NATO.

Beyond that, it seems unfair to characterize Operation Northwoods as Lemnitzer's idea that arose in a vacuum. Let me point out that the opening paragraph of Lemnitzer's cover memo states:

1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to a request of that office for brief but precise description of pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.
(bolding added for emphasis)

In other words, Lemnitzer had been requested to provide pretexts for the invasion of Cuba. A pretext (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretext) is "something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse." Given that, it is hard to imagine how Lemnitzer could have come up with anything much different than he did.

Lemnitzer's "rabid" anti-communism was not out of place in the Kennedy Administration. The 1950s and early 1960s Democrats were rabidly anti-communist as well (certainly compared to the 1970s and 1980s Democrats); Kennedy ran in 1960 pledging to close a "missile gap" with the Soviets.

Many of the World War II vets who were in the inner ring of the Pentagon by the 1960s were convinced that the mistake with Hitler had been not confronting him earlier, and as with all military men, were determined not to make the same mistake in the next war. Oddly JFK's thesis (written in 1940) Why England Slept defended much of the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberlain (possibly because his father had been Ambassador to England at that time). It's safe to say that few historians today agree with that assessment, and I suspect JFK himself did not by 1962.

It is certainly interesting to hear that Sorenson and McNamara both deny knowledge of Operation Northwoods. Do you have links or citations to that information, Cicero?

[Vincent Vega]

Whereas it's true that Northwoods was rejected, the relevence of referring to the document during these discussions is that such types of false flag events were in fact conceived of and considered.

.

Yeah sure. REAL comparable. NORTHWOODS employ's ridiculous complexity in order NOT to kill anyone...the 9-11 CT would've been ludicrously complex in order to commit MASS MURDER.

But one begits another. :confused:

[Swing Dangler]

I know you have me on ignore but I'm going to correct you yet again...

[QUOTE] BTW, Northwoods did not call for the murder of U.S. citizens.
Not directly of course, but murder could happen as an indirect result of the proposed terror campaign and other activities.


So, it was not a U.S. government idea at all.
Here Gravy shows his lack of knowledge about the government he resides under. The Army is a department of the United States Government. You can choose not to trust me and read for yourself here at Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml) which links to the various armed services.

So Gravy is wrong again by stating it was not a U.S. government idea.

It was rejected by the U.S. government, which sort of puts a kink in the conspiracy theory, don'tcha think?

If I'm not mistaken, the point of the Truth Movement with regards to Northwoods is to point to the fact that there are people in the U.S. Government, and yes Gravy that includes the military, that design, develop, and are willing to implement false flag operations.

[uk_dave]

Not directly of course, but murder could happen as an indirect result of the proposed terror campaign and other activities.




Accidental premeditated murder?

wow

:bunpan

[furrod]

Kameelyun,

Have you visited the Amazon "WTC 7 and the 911 Conspiracy" thread recently? You would love it. The DRG "truth" grunions have over run the thread like the Chi-Comms pouring across the Yalu River in 1950.

But I am amazed to find you here. Do you find your 911 beliefs are reinforced or shattered in this forum?

But what about this "Northwoods" document that you always loved to cite as proof of the Bush administration complicity in 911?



John McConnell is now the most rational person posting on that thread.

:eek: :scared: :jaw-dropp

[uk_dave]

.... with regards to Northwoods is to point to the fact that there are people in the U.S. Government, and yes Gravy that includes the military, that design, develop, and are willing to implement false flag operations.

And likewise points to the fact that such governments are unwilling to implement false flag operations, even when those operations are studiously planned to avoid killing their own citizens, excepting, of course, the unavoidable accidental premeditated murder part.

[Sabrina]

The US Army is a governmental agency of sorts, yes, but it is not in any way, shape, or form responsible for the governing of the people. I believe that is what Gravy meant, Swing. The US Army as an organization has little or no effect on governmental laws and policies being passed by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches; in fact, it does not fall under any of those three branches of government either, as it is a military force. Think of the military as being the government's police force; like the police, they have no effect on laws that are passed, but they are responsible, in some ways, for enforcing them.

[Cicero]

Just a nitpick... Lemnitzer wasn't demoted. Although he wasn't allowed another term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, such terms are planned well in advance, so the end of his term a month later was probably coincidence. From there here moved to Commander, US Force Europe, and within a year was Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

Throughout his entire time he retained the rank of General - the highest rank a US Army Officer can achieve during peace time.

-Gumboot


JFK personally awarded Lemnitzer The Distinguished Service Medal in the White House Rose Garden on October 1, 1962. Lemnitzer was described at the time as the outgoing CJCS. Since the disclosure of the "Northwoods" document in 1997, the Conspiracies-R-Us contingent has associated Lemnitzer's departure as a "firing" as the direct result of his connection to this document. By this rational, I guess JFK could have easily fired the Attorney General as well for his involvement. But nepotism rarely allows for such drastic measures.

[Cicero]

John McConnell is now the most rational person posting on that thread.

:eek: :scared: :jaw-dropp

furrod,


Now that's funny!!!

[ConspiRaider]

If I'm not mistaken, the point of the Truth Movement with regards to Northwoods is to point to the fact that there are people in the U.S. Government, and yes Gravy that includes the military, that design, develop, and are willing to implement false flag operations.
The Twoof Movement doesn't have a point, never has. If this "movement" has to go back in time 40 years to pull up a cockamamie plan as "twoof-pwoof" that 9/11 was an inside job - then you should easily be able to conclude that your "movement" has ground to a halt and gotten the Medusa look.

George Washington pulled off a canyonful of false flag operations during the American Revolutionary War. Do you think maybe 9/11 goes back that far? Forget about Prescott Bush - how about the Father Of Our Country?

[Cicero]

[QUOTE=Gravy;3214205]

If I'm not mistaken, the point of the Truth Movement with regards to Northwoods is to point to the fact that there are people in the U.S. Government, and yes Gravy that includes the military, that design, develop, and are willing to implement false flag operations.

Swing Dangler,

But if the "Northwoods" document was in fact not an American generated document, but a British spit-balling Cuba invasion document, if it ever actually existed back in 1962 at all, then it really does not constitute a precedent at all. Not to mention that if the 911 "truth" grunions accept this document at face value, it only makes JFK more duplicitous as a President who was willing to disregard the U.S. Constitution. Since we have absolute certainty that components of Operation Mongoose were carried out, JFK appears to be way more despicable then Bush.....

[Gravy]

Thanks to gumboot and Brainster for their corrections and clarifications above. I had never noticed the word "pretext" in Lemnitzer's cover memo. So, the request for ideas apparently did come from the government. This reminds me of when I was in Europe with a group of 25 college students. Groups of three would take turns doing all the shopping and cooking for the group. After seeing some patterns develop, I gave a talk encouraging them to be more creative with their cooking.

The next morning, there was a great deal of cinnamon in the scrambled eggs, to which I responded, "I said be creative, not be crazy."

As for JFK administration officials disclaiming knowledge of the Northwoods memo, that doesn't surprise me in Sorenson's case. He was a speechwriter and advisor, but we can't assume that this request came from JFK's office or was discussed there. Sorenson is a good friend of my family's, so I can check to see if he may recall, in general, other pretexts to invate Cuba being floated around. McNamara's denial also isn't surprising, but for a different reason. His memory seems to be quite situationally selective.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I know you [Gravy] have me on ignore but I'm going to correct you yet again...

Gravy - I will quote Swing Dangler for you again when he provides the promised corrections.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Just a nitpick... Lemnitzer wasn't demoted... From there here moved to Commander, US Force Europe, and within a year was Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

-Gumboot

In addition, to that, also remember the times in which Lemintzer was sent to Europe. It was the coldest days of the cold war, which if it ever turned hot, and soviet T-55s started pouring through the Fulda Gap, Lemintzer would have had his name carved in stone for all time.

Just think, how many people remember who the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe was on June 6th, 1944? How many remember who was driving the "top desk" in Washington on that date (I admit only knowing the former, myself)?

[Swing Dangler]

And likewise points to the fact that such governments are unwilling to implement false flag operations, even when those operations are studiously planned to avoid killing their own citizens, excepting, of course, the unavoidable accidental premeditated murder part.

At least in regards to this operation, yes. All operations? I don't think you can accurately argue that point as we are unaware of all false flag operations designed and/or implemented by the U.S. Government.

Sabrina The US Army is a governmental agency of sorts, yes, but it is not in any way, shape, or form responsible for the governing of the people. I believe that is what Gravy meant, Swing. The US Army as an organization has little or no effect on governmental laws and policies being passed by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches; in fact, it does not fall under any of those three branches of government either, as it is a military force. Think of the military as being the government's police force; like the police, they have no effect on laws that are passed, but they are responsible, in some ways, for enforcing them.

The U.S. Army, under the Department of Defense, is under the Executive Branch. Great graphic from the State Dept. here (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/outusgov/govchart.pdf) to help you refresh your memory from high school government class. Remember the Commander-in-Chief thingy? ;)

They have no effect on laws that are passed, but they are responsible, in some ways, for enforcing them.
If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the Posse Comitatus Act prevent the military from enforcing domestic law? Or was that Act scrapped in a piece of Bush legislation?

It isn't about what Gravy meant, it is what he stated. He was wrong. There is no interpretation to his statement.

[Swing Dangler]

The Twoof Movement doesn't have a point, never has. If this "movement" has to go back in time 40 years to pull up a cockamamie plan as "twoof-pwoof" that 9/11 was an inside job - then you should easily be able to conclude that your "movement" has ground to a halt and gotten the Medusa look.

George Washington pulled off a canyonful of false flag operations during the American Revolutionary War. Do you think maybe 9/11 goes back that far? Forget about Prescott Bush - how about the Father Of Our Country?

ROFL... proof? LOL. No I don't think, and I could be wrong, that the Truth Movement uses Northwoods as proof of an inside job.
The point which you must have missed was the intent and motivation of Northwoods to silence those debunkers who would state: the U.S. would NEVER commit false flag terror against its own country. When in fact it considered a false flag operation against its own country to further foreign policy objectives.

[Cicero]

It is certainly interesting to hear that Sorenson and McNamara both deny knowledge of Operation Northwoods. Do you have links or citations to that information, Cicero?

Brainster,

"New book on NSA sheds light on secrets
U.S. terror plan called Cuba invasion pretext"

By Scott Shane and Tom Bowman
The Baltimore Sun Staff
Originally published April 24, 2001

Apparently, per JREF's rules, I can not post urls until I have accumulated 15 posts.

[Sabrina]

It isn't about what Gravy meant, it is what he stated. He was wrong. There is no interpretation to his statement.

There is always interpretation to any statement, Swing; his, yours, and everyone elses. It's called "perception" in psychology. Look it up. What he meant may not necessarily be what you saw.

ETA: I appreciate the correction on where the military is located in the government, incidentally; you'd think I'd know that, being a member of the organization you mentioned. However, it doesn't change the fact that the US Army has no effect on policies or laws that are passed, for the most part; there is no person in any military service that is able to vote on, propose, or veto laws and policies of the US Government that I am aware of.

[Cicero]

ROFL... proof? LOL. No I don't think, and I could be wrong, that the Truth Movement uses Northwoods as proof of an inside job.
The point which you must have missed was the intent and motivation of Northwoods to silence those debunkers who would state: the U.S. would NEVER commit false flag terror against its own country. When in fact it considered a false flag operation against its own country to further foreign policy objectives.


So JFK was assassinated by over zealous "truth" patriots because he considered a "false flag," "psyops" operation against his own country? That's a much better scenario than the nonsense that JFK was assassinated for his intention to pull out of Vietnam, which is of course the opposite of what he intended.

[Gravy]

Gravy - I will quote Swing Dangler for you again when he provides the promised corrections.I'll be interested to see his proof that the U.S. military is a governing body.

[Sabrina]

I'll be interested to see his proof that the U.S. military is a governing body.

If he does, I'll have power over you all!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!

[Mr. Skinny]

Whereas it's true that Northwoods was rejected, the relevence of referring to the document during these discussions is that such types of false flag events were in fact conceived of and considered.

A hilarious standard of evidence. So if someone, somewhere thinks of an idea, this is evidence for the plausibility of its involvement in an event decades later?

John,

He's not talking about "someone, somewhere". He's talking about people in the US Govt who proposed an idea to the Secretary of Defense. Even though the idea was REJECTED, RedIbis simply said that he was using it as evidence that such events "were in fact conceived of and considered".

[Swing Dangler]

There is always interpretation to any statement, Swing; his, yours, and everyone elses. It's called "perception" in psychology. Look it up. What he meant may not necessarily be what you saw.

Hmm how many ways can you interpret this, Sabrina?

So, it was not a U.S. government idea at all.
Itclearly refers to Northwoods written by the military.
It is not interpretation, dear, but reading comprehension.
The U.S. Government includes the military. Therefore, Northwoods was a document produced by the U.S. government.
But Gravy states it wasn't the U.S. Government's idea. Gravy is wrong. It is ok, I've pointed out his errors numerous times in the past. He is human and he is allowed to error, despite his position in the 'debunking' community.

Now here is my interpretation of the statement:
Gravy has no clue about the structure of the U.S. government. Many people don't realize that the U.S. Army is a part of the U.S. government, yourself included, apparently. But that is ok because Government class in high school was a many years ago and I'm not sure if being a member of the New York Tour Guide community has refresher courses on the structure of the U.S. government.

[Sabrina]

Swing, I stated that the US Army is a governmental agency or organization; therefore, by definition, it IS part of the government. So I do comprehend that it is part of the government, and I would like you to retract that portion of your statement please. HOWEVER... it is not a GOVERNING BODY in any way, shape, or form. And when I read Gravy's statement, I interpreted "government" as meaning the governing body of the time; i.e. the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. So you see, there are two possible interpretations; perhaps more, given that everyone's perception is unique. I hope that clarifies the matter.

[Sporanox]

Swing, I stated that the US Army is a governmental agency or organization; therefore, by definition, it IS part of the government. So I do comprehend that it is part of the government, and I would like you to retract that portion of your statement please. HOWEVER... it is not a GOVERNING BODY in any way, shape, or form. And when I read Gravy's statement, I interpreted "government" as meaning the governing body of the time; i.e. the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. So you see, there are two possible interpretations; perhaps more, given that everyone's perception is unique. I hope that clarifies the matter.

Indeed. Should the Army be a governing body, we would be under martial law...and I hope everyone agrees we are most definitely NOT under that now.

-Sporanox

[uk_dave]

Indeed. Should the Army be a governing body, we would be under martial law...and I hope everyone agrees we are most definitely NOT under that now.

-Sporanox

Ha! Ever the optimist, eh? :D

[kameelyun]

But I am amazed to find you here. Do you find your 911 beliefs are reinforced or shattered in this forum?

They (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2470688&postcount=10) are (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2470727&postcount=20) reinforced. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2483626&postcount=237)

In case you haven't been in the loop, Apollo20 is Dr. Frank Greening, who wrote one of the original papers in favor of global progressive collapse. This paper was widely touted by debunkers. At one point he was willing to debate truthers and defend the official story. He then backed off and later became a 9/11 "agnostic."

In a JREF private message to myself, Dr. Greening agreed with me that much of what the JREFers say is patent nonsense.. including a lot of BS about WTC 7, eyewitness accounts, the loss of thermal insulation, the temperature of the rubble pile... the list goes on and on. He also said the JREFers were resorting more and more to personal attacks to get him to stop posting here, because he was causing them too much embarrassment.

I first posted on here my own answer to Popular Mechanics to see how the JREFers would rebut me. I burst out laughing when UK Dave said "I think you should pause and consider that building are not designed to sustain structural damage." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2297503&postcount=7)

Such an extraordinary statement is, of course, completely at odds with what the WTC construction manager said. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM)

Neither myself nor anyone else in the 9/11 research community see the Northwoods Documents as "proof" that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11, and you are engaging in the whole straw man thing when you word it as such. But the NDs do show something: High level military generals do get tempted to orchestrate events to rile up the public to support a military venture. All those senior joint chiefs signed off on the plan; we have to be thankful that Lemnitzer and Kennedy had a conscience... utterly unlike Rumsfeld and Cheney.

[Cicero]

Neither myself nor anyone else in the 9/11 research community see the Northwoods Documents as "proof" that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11, and you are engaging in the whole straw man thing when you word it as such. But the NDs do show something: High level military generals do get tempted to orchestrate events to rile up the public to support a military venture. All those senior joint chiefs signed off on the plan; we have to be thankful that Lemnitzer and Kennedy had a conscience... utterly unlike Rumsfeld and Cheney.


Kameelyun,

Really? I wonder why you referred to "Northwoods" in your third post on the amazon "WTC 7 and the 911 Conspiracy" thread if this operation is not considered to be the smoking gun in your Bush/Israel/Media 911 conspiracy. It is also your go to source when you get frustrated with the non-believers.

"OK, your repeating falsehoods might be good for the readers of this thread because it gives me a chance to right them. For anyone on this thread who does not realize the falsity of Steve's above statement, google two things: "Operation Northwoods" and "9/11 Wargame Exercises." Dick Cheney was conducting simulations on 9/11 which involved hijacked jetliners being crashed into major US landmarks, including the Pentagon and WTC." Kameeluyn Jul 14, 2007


Since JFK and Lemnitzer did go ahead with Operation Mongoose, how does JFK's conscience differ from Rumsfeld and Cheney's? But thank you for confirming that the JFK assassination conspiracy theorists give a pass to JFK for all of the illegal activities that transpired during his 1000 days in office.

[uk_dave]

In case you haven't been in the loop, Apollo20 is Dr. Frank Greening, who wrote one of the original papers in favor of global progressive collapse. This paper was widely touted by debunkers. At one point he was willing to debate truthers and defend the official story. He then backed off and later became a 9/11 "agnostic."



It must be uncomfortable for you to know that Frank Greening, while inclined towards woo on so many subjects, still stands by his own assessment that the towers didn't need any help from explosives in order to collapse.

Kinda blows the whole 'pre-planted' demo charges idea out of the water...so to speak.... :D

[kameelyun]

Kameelyun,

Really? I wonder why you referred to "Northwoods" in your third post on the amazon "WTC 7 and the 911 Conspiracy" thread if this operation is not considered to be the smoking gun in your Bush/Israel/Media 911 conspiracy. It is also your go to source when you get frustrated with the non-believers.

"OK, your repeating falsehoods might be good for the readers of this thread because it gives me a chance to right them. For anyone on this thread who does not realize the falsity of Steve's above statement, google two things: "Operation Northwoods" and "9/11 Wargame Exercises." Dick Cheney was conducting simulations on 9/11 which involved hijacked jetliners being crashed into major US landmarks, including the Pentagon and WTC." Kameeluyn Jul 14, 2007

OK, I'll make this simple, and boy am I glad Amazon doesn't have a boldface option. Many people out there still believe in the myth of American Exceptionalism. Part of this myth entails the idea that our political and military leaders would never even dream of attacking their own people and then blaming it on a foreign entity as an excuse to go to war. The very existence of the ND's shows this to be false.

Have you only just now discovered this forum?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'll be interested to see his proof that the U.S. military is a governing body.

I'll be interested in seeing him be right on just about anything?

[kameelyun]

Kameelyun,

Have you visited the Amazon "WTC 7 and the 911 Conspiracy" thread recently? You would love it. The DRG "truth" grunions have over run the thread like the Chi-Comms pouring across the Yalu River in 1950.

I can't resist saying this again, Cicero. Your writing style and sense of humor are exactly like that of Bellerophon. :D

Are you Bellerophon's :socks:

[SpitfireIX]

. . . Many people out there still believe in the myth of American Exceptionalism. Part of this myth entails the idea that our political and military leaders would never even dream of attacking their own people and then blaming it on a foreign entity as an excuse to go to war. The very existence of the ND's shows this to be false.


Two major problems with your theory. Problem One: No friendly casualties were contemplated in Northwoods. Problem Two: the point of Northwoods was to fool the Soviets, and the United Nations, as is made clear in the document.

Further, your American Exceptionalism argument is a straw man, dreamed up by conspiracists in order to explain away the fact that practically no one takes them seriously: "They're all in denial that the US government could ever do such a thing."

[Cicero]

OK, I'll make this simple, and boy am I glad Amazon doesn't have a boldface option. Many people out there still believe in the myth of American Exceptionalism. Part of this myth entails the idea that our political and military leaders would never even dream of attacking their own people and then blaming it on a foreign entity as an excuse to go to war. The very existence of the ND's shows this to be false.

Have you only just now discovered this forum?


Kameelyun,

Wait a minute. Doesn't the existence (if it ever existed back in 1962) of this so called "Northwoods" document actually make for a a stinging indictment against JFK? After all, he is the one who tasked the NSA, CIA, JCS, and the State Department to come up with Cuba invasion strategies. You have transposed "Northwoods" to exonerate JFK and indite Bush. It is this sort of slight of hand that the DRG "truth" grunions engage in that relegates them to hysterical Harpy status.

If all this "truth" is getting momentum, as the "truth" grunions always claim, why are DRG's books, in most recent order of release, show such poor rankings in book sales?

12,991
13,574
50,297
73,666
31, 549


I discovered this forum nearly a year ago, but the amazon 911 "truth" grunions are cutting & pasting at such a fever pitch, that reading the thread is going to replace "waterboarding' as the next method of torture targeted by Amnesty International and the ACLU.

[kameelyun]

Two major problems with your theory. Problem One: No friendly casualties were contemplated in Northwoods.

There is a major problem with that statement. Just as I have not cited Northwoods as "proof" of anything, the fact that Northwoods did not contemplate friendly casualties does not "disprove" anything. No one has ever said that Northwoods is identical to the 9/11 plot. But that does not mean Northwoods is not relevant to the discussion of 9/11. "No friendly casualties" is the real straw man.

Problem Two: the point of Northwoods was to fool the Soviets, and the United Nations, as is made clear in the document.I don't get what you are saying. If they had pulled it off and staged a fake scenario of Castro shooting down an American plane with college students (the plane would really be a remote-controlled drone with no one aboard), are you saying this would be to fool ONLY the U.N. and Russia? Would U.S. officials tell American citizens, "Shhh!! It was just a false-flag to overthrow Castro. Don't let this leak to the outside world!" :confused:

Further, your American Exceptionalism argument is a straw man, dreamed up by conspiracists in order to explain away the fact that practically no one takes them seriously: "They're all in denial that the US government could ever do such a thing."My own father is one of these people in such denial. He refuses to look at either side of the argument; it's not as if he's seen truthers' arguments and debunkers' counterarguments and made an informed decision. He's an immigrant from Pakistan, who enjoyed a 30 year career as an engineer at G.E. The USA and Corporate America have treated him well, and when I've mentioned this subject to him, his eyes seem to wrinkle up with emotional pain.

In Cleveland, my favorite pizza parlor owner said, upon my declaration that the Jersey Girls believe the Bush admin is guilty of at least LIHOP, said without hesitation, "Stupid widows." A few minutes later he said "America has done some corrupt things in its time, but if you really believe that Bush deliberately allowed it to happen, go live in another country!"

And I could list many more personal examples. So no, it is NOT a straw-man dreamed up by truthers.

[kameelyun]

Kameelyun,

Wait a minute. Doesn't the existence (if it ever existed back in 1962) of this so called "Northwoods" document actually make for a a stinging indictment against JFK? After all, he is the one who tasked the NSA, CIA, JCS, and the State Department to come up with Cuba invasion strategies. You have transposed "Northwoods" to exonerate JFK and indite Bush. It is this sort of slight of hand that the DRG "truth" grunions engage in that relegates them to hysterical Harpy status.

If all this "truth" is getting momentum, as the "truth" grunions always claim, why are DRG's books, in most recent order of release, show such poor rankings in book sales?

12,991
13,574
50,297
73,666
31, 549


I discovered this forum nearly a year ago, but the amazon 911 "truth" grunions are cutting & pasting at such a fever pitch, that reading the thread is going to replace "waterboarding' as the next method of torture targeted by Amnesty International and the ACLU.

Bellerophon,

Hey, wait. Citing Amazon's book sales is my tactic, remember? ;)

Debunking 9/11 Debunking is currently beating Popular Mechanics' book by roughly 10,000 slots. The other releases... are still doing well enough to still be on the Barnes & Noble shelf... even though New Pearl Harbor came out in 2004, before even Fahrenheit 9/11. For books about politics and current events, those are pretty good numbers. Don't tell me you won't be impressed until DRG beats out Harry Potter?

[AMTMAN]

You know what Operation Northwood’s is proof of? It shows that the government can come up with harebrained schemes and can't keep a secret.

[kameelyun]

You know what Operation Northwood’s is proof of? It shows that the government can come up with harebrained schemes and can't keep a secret.


Uh, hello? 99.999% of the U.S. public didn't know about Northwoods until it came to light in the year 2000 through a Freedom of Information Act request.
“Truth does not have to be suppressed, simply delayed until it doesn’t matter anymore.” - Napoleon

Bush has said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on.”

[LashL]

At one point he [Greening] was willing to debate truthers and defend the official story.

Evidence?

[kameelyun]

Evidence?

http://www.teamliberty.net/id289.html

Plus you could always PM him and ask. :cool:

[Cicero]

Bellerophon,

Hey, wait. Citing Amazon's book sales is my tactic, remember? ;)

Debunking 9/11 Debunking is currently beating Popular Mechanics' book by roughly 10,000 slots. The other releases... are still doing well enough to still be on the Barnes & Noble shelf... even though New Pearl Harbor came out in 2004, before even Fahrenheit 9/11.


You gage the momentum of the DRG 911 "truth" grunions popularity in relationship to the Popular Mechanics book sales and you are also buoyed by the 12,991 positon of "Debunking?"

But Popular Mechanics isn't on the streets handing out free DVD's about 911 like you are. Wouldn't that account for the huge edge in the difference n the two books positon? Wow!

But could you address the perfidy of an administration that came up with Operation Mongoose and put into play.

[LashL]

]In a JREF private message to myself, Dr. Greening agreed with me that much of what the JREFers say is patent nonsense.. including a lot of BS about WTC 7, eyewitness accounts, the loss of thermal insulation, the temperature of the rubble pile... the list goes on and on. He also said the JREFers were resorting more and more to personal attacks to get him to stop posting here, because he was causing them too much embarrassment.


For the record, the only person Greening embarrasses here is himself.

[Gravy]

Cicero, the text bolding button is meant for highlighting. When used constantly it's just annoying.

[Cicero]

Uh, hello? [SIZE=-1]99.999% of the U.S. public didn't know about Northwoods until it came to light in the year 2000 through a Freedom of Information Act request.


Wrong again. The "Northwoods" document was declassified in 1997 as a result of the JFK Records Review Board. It was Bamford's book "Body of Secrets" that reproduced the "document' in 2001, before 911, and the DRG "truth" grunions have considered it the Ark of the Covenant ever since.

[Cicero]

Cicero, the text bolding button is meant for highlighting. When used constantly it's just annoying.

Gravy,

Your social amenities of greetings are sounding less genuine. I lost the blue color because you found that hard on the eyes, but chastising me for the use of bold font is just too persnickety. Both of these are used de rigueur on other forums and nobody complains.

[LashL]

http://www.teamliberty.net/id289.html

Ahh, yes. Whatever happened to that proposed "National Debate" *cough*?

What makes you think that it is accurate to say that Greening was "willing to defend the official story" and not merely willing to defend his own views and his own work?


At one point he was willing to debate truthers and defend the official story. He then backed off and later became a 9/11 "agnostic."


Are you suggesting that if the same "debate" were to take place today that he would not be part of it or that he would take a different position than he would have in 2006 or something else?

Plus you could always PM him and ask. :cool:

Yes, or I could knock on his door and ask him in person since I know where he lives and since I've met him in person in the past. But I'm asking you because it is your post and your assertions that I am responding to.

[Stellafane]

Citing Northwoods as proof (or even indication) of anything is flat out idiotic. By the same logic, when I was a kid I used to dream of building a rocket ship. Therefore this proves I have walked on the moon.

[LashL]

[removed bolding and large font] Gravy,

Your social amenities of greetings are sounding less genuine. I lost the blue color because you found that hard on the eyes, but chastising me for the use of bold font is just too persnickety. Both of these are used de rigueur on other forums and nobody complains.


Cicero:

First, welcome to the sub-forum.

Second, the use of oversized, coloured and bolded text may be de rigueur on other forums, but they are not here. They are used here for highlighting a name, a word, a phrase, or a sentence, for instance, but the constant use of them for entire posts is quite annoying.

This is not at all intended as a slight, nor to be rude. You can see, if you look at the threads, that the norm here is to use the various colours and sizes and bolding sparingly, not incessantly.

[Sporanox]

So basically kameelyun is saying that Northwoods doesn't prove (or apparently disprove) anything in the troof movement, so he has no proof to bring to the table. Smooth...

[kameelyun]

Ahh, yes. Whatever happened to that proposed "National Debate" *cough*?

What makes you think that it is accurate to say that Greening was "willing to defend the official story" and not merely willing to defend his own views and his own work?

Because his own views would have reflected the idea that no explosives were used.

Are you suggesting that if the same "debate" were to take place today that he would not be part of it or that he would take a different position than he would have in 2006 or something else?

Considering that he describes himself as an "agnostic," and considering he never did debate in 2006, my logical conclusion is that he's not going to be willing to debate now in December 2007. Maybe he'll feel like it in 2009.

[Cicero]

Cicero:

First, welcome to the sub-forum.

Second, the use of oversized, coloured and bolded text may be de rigueur on other forums, but they are not here. They are used here for highlighting a name, or a phrase, or a sentence, for instance, but the constant use of them for entire posts is quite annoying.

This is not at all intended as a slight, nor to be rude. You can see, if you look at the threads, that the norm here is to use the various colours and sizes and bolding sparingly, not incessantly.

Lash,

Far be it for me to deviate from the norm. I'm surprised the JREF forum allowed newbies the use of the font options before 15 posts as they have that numerical mark set for the use of urls.

[kameelyun]

But Popular Mechanics isn't on the streets handing out free DVD's about 911 like you are. Wouldn't that account for the huge edge in the difference n the two books positon? Wow!

Because the mainstream media has been spreading the official story message since day one.

That would be amusing: Mark Roberts walking up and down Manhattan handing out DVDs purporting to prove that Osama was behind it. I wonder what kind of weird looks people would give him. :D

To tell you the truth, Cicero, I don't know much about Operation Mongoose, and after I'm done typing this post I'll do a search to learn more about it. However, let this be said: I do not absolve or give ANYONE a free pass when it comes to corruption, not JFK, not Bush, not Clinton. Your tactic here is analogous to the conservative backlash to Fahrenheit 9/11. Since Moore's movie dealt such a devastating blow to Bush's administration, the Michael Moore "debunkers," with their rebuttal "FahrenHYPE 9/11" DVD, had to resort to "B... b... but... Clinton's government was also guilty of immense corruption!" Two wrongs do not make a right.

However, my guess is that Mongoose didn't discuss taking a military plane, painting it to look like a commercial plane, and flying it by remote control.

I think if Northwoods does prove anything, it proves that remote-controlled drones existed back at the time of the first Bond movie.

[LashL]

Because his own views would have reflected the idea that no explosives were used.

And from that, you conclude that he was "willing to defend the official story" and not merely willing to defend his own views and his own work?

Considering that he describes himself as an "agnostic," and considering he never did debate in 2006,

What happened to that "national debate" in 2006? You didn't answer that part of my question.

And what makes you think Greening was ever anything but agnostic on the conspiracist view of the events of 9/11? My take on Greening is that he would like nothing more than to find evidence of governmental conspiracy, but he hasn't been able to find any.

my logical conclusion is that he's not going to be willing to debate now in December 2007. Maybe he'll feel like it in 2009.

Are you aware of him receiving any invitations to debate that he has turned down? If so, please, do tell.

[LashL]

Lash,

Far be it for me to deviate from the norm. I'm surprised the JREF forum allowed newbies the use of the font options before 15 posts as they have that numerical mark set for the use of urls.

No biggie, Cicero. Just letting you in on the standard posting protocol here as it relates to the appearance of posts. Every forum is different, of course, but the standard that is generally adhered to here is to use the colours and bolding and oversized fonts sparingly in the interests of consistency and readability.

The minor restriction for 15 posts before you gain the ability to post urls is an anti-spamming measure to prevent people from signing up for the sole purpose of spamming links.

Anyway, welcome again. Enjoy.

[Cicero]

Because the mainstream media has been spreading the official story message since day one.

That would be amusing: Mark Roberts walking up and down Manhattan handing out DVDs purporting to prove that Osama was behind it. I wonder what kind of weird looks people would give him. :D

To tell you the truth, Cicero, I don't know much about Operation Mongoose, and after I'm done typing this post I'll do a search to learn more about it. However, let this be said: I do not absolve or give ANYONE a free pass when it comes to corruption, not JFK, not Bush, not Clinton. Your tactic here is analogous to the conservative backlash to Fahrenheit 9/11. Since Moore's movie dealt such a devastating blow to Bush's administration, the Michael Moore "debunkers," with their rebuttal "FahrenHYPE 9/11" DVD, had to resort to "B... b... but... Clinton's government was also guilty of immense corruption!" Two wrongs do not make a right.

However, my guess is that Mongoose didn't discuss taking a military plane, painting it to look like a commercial plane, and flying it by remote control.

I think if Northwoods does prove anything, it proves that remote-controlled drones existed back at the time of the first Bond movie.


Kameelyun,

The fact that you have not heard about Operation Mongoose, which has been in the public lexicon since 1975, shows a rather dormant curiosity about JFK's geopolitics. I know that this deflates the image of JFK as Camelot hero since his assassination, but there it is.


Remote controlled drones existed back in WWII. In fact, Joe Kennedy Jr. was killed when he was about to parachute out of a remote controlled B-24 drone when it blew up. The Liberator needed to be piloted through a take-off before being able to be flown by remote control.

But there were no other crew or passengers on the plane when it blew up, unlike the four commercial airliners that crashed on 911.

But the reference to the hijacked plane carrying college kids on "holiday" in the "Northwoods" document screams that it was written by either a citizen of the U.K. or one Hell of a anglophile.

[kameelyun]

What happened to that "national debate" in 2006? You didn't answer that part of my question.

Well, a national debate would involve more than Greening. It would have been wonderful if the NIST scientists would agree to debate.

Ed Haas of the Muckrake.r Report corresponded with Michael Newman, a PR man for NIST. Haas, after pointing out that many Americans suspected that NIST's report was untruthful, said that "A possible method to reconcile the division in the US between its people and the government" might be to have a series of televised debates between the scientists who worked on the NIST report and scientists who question its plausibility. Before Haas could fully get his suggestion out, he was interrupted and told that "None of the NIST scientists would participate in any public debate."

Haas later tried again some time later. Eventually Newman wrote Haas a letter saying "The project leaders of the NIST WTC investigation respectfully have respectfully declined your invitation to participate in the national 9/11 debate on September 16, 2006." Newman asked whether a change in date or venue would make them accept. Newman wrote back, saying "A change in date or venue will not affect their decision." (http://forums.randi.org/teamliberty.net/id273.html)

Whether this decision on NIST's part represents a disdain for debate, or a fear of debate, it certainly indicates a refusal to debate.

[JimBenArm]

nvm

[Gravy]

Ed Haas of the Muckrake.r Report corresponded with Michael Newman, a PR man for NIST. Haas, after pointing out that many Americans suspected that NIST's report was untruthful, said that "A possible method to reconcile the division in the US between its people and the government" might be to have a series of televised debates between the scientists who worked on the NIST report and scientists who question its plausibility.
[...]
Whether this decision on NIST's part represents a disdain for debate, or a fear of debate, it certainly indicates a refusal to debate.

The proper way to dispute an engineering and fire protection study is with expert research, the results of which are written up in non-moonbat form and published, preferably in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Still waiting for that to happen. It's nearly 2008, kameelyun. What in the world are you people waiting for? Don't you care at all about uncovering this huge U.S. conspiracy to murder Americans?

You think scientific facts are established by brief televised debates? You think NIST scientists should spend their time debating a panel of incompetents and crackpots, half of whom are no-planers and/or Star Wars weapons proponents?

If you believe that, then you really need to get a grip on yourself.

[Pope130]

Remote controlled drones existed back in WWII. In fact, Joe Kennedy Jr. was killed when he was about to parachute out of a remote controlled B-24 drone when it blew up. The Liberator needed to be piloted through a take-off before being able to be flown by remote control.

But there were no other crew or passengers on the plane when it blew up, unlike the four commercial airliners that crashed on 911.



Actually it was a PB4Y-1 Liberator, not a B-24. And there was another crew member, Navy Lt. Bud Willy, who was also killed.

Robert Klaus

[LashL]

Well, a national debate...



So, was that a long-winded way of saying that this "National Debate" did not take place because the twoofers could not get it off the ground? I think it was.

(Go back and note the "*cough*" in my first query to you about this alleged "national debate" and you'll see that I already knew the answer. I just wanted to see whether you would give an honest answer or whether you would avoid the question. You avoided it. My second query was to see if you would waffle on an answer if pressed. You waffled.)

[kameelyun]

I fail to see now the NISTian refusal to debate equals a failure of "twoofers."

[StoneWT]

Carol Valentine is the most prominent nutcase pushing the idea of Operation Northwoods being a fake document.

Operation Northwoods: The Counterfeit (http://www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html)

[kameelyun]

You think scientific facts are established by brief televised debates? You think NIST scientists should spend their time debating a panel of incompetents and crackpots, half of whom are no-planers and/or Star Wars weapons proponents?


Ah yes, the "they shoudn't debate us because they shouldn't lend credence to our views" way out.

I'm not a DEW or no plane advocate, neither are many of the scientists who contest the official report. If those scientists are truly so crackpot, why won't NIST debate us and put an end to the nonsense?

And certainly you find debates valuable when they support your position, such as a typical Hardfire debate, which features, of course, an un-neutral host.

[Gravy]

I fail to see now the NISTian refusal to debate equals a failure of "twoofers."The twoofers have presented no case that professionals need to rebut. They are incompetents and crackpots. Let us know when your "Scholars" and "Architects and Engineers" publish those papers in respected venues, won't you?

:dl:

Second time: You think NIST scientists should spend their time debating a panel of incompetents and crackpots, half of whom are no-planers and/or Star Wars weapons proponents?

[Gravy]

Ah yes, the "they shoudn't debate us because they shouldn't lend credence to our views" way out.The only thing that would lend credence to your arguments are facts that support them. Unfortunately for you, you have none.

I'm not a DEW or no plane advocate, neither are many of the scientists who contest the official report. If those scientists are truly so crackpot, why won't NIST debate us and put an end to the nonsense?You don't understand: the only thing that will end the nonsense is if people who spew it, stop. They could decide to get serious and conduct their own research and publish in peer-reviewed journals, but they don't.

Why do you think that is, kameelyun? Why don't they care enough to do that?

And certainly you find debates valuable when they support your position, such as a typical Hardfire debate, which features, of course, an un-neutral host.1) People on your side who have agreed to be on Hardfire, then backed out:
Jim Hoffman
Korey Rowe
William Rodriguez
David Ray Griffin

2) Rob Balsamo, head of Pilots for 9/11 truth, repeatedly agreed to debate me in another venue, then backed out.

3) Scholar for Truth "peer reviewer" and A&E member Tony Szamboti declined my challenge to defend his paper in a written debate with me.

4) March, 2007: Kevin Ryan flees from my debate challenge, although I offer to let him chose the time, the place, the topics, and the moderators. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81207

April, 2007: Kevin Ryan declines an invitation to debate me on the TV show "Hardfire" http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2547606&postcount=12

July, 2007: Kevin Ryan says no one will debate him on Thom Hartmann's radio show – then flees and has me banned from 9/11blogger.com when I tell him that Hartmann's producer asked me if I'd do it and I immediately accepted http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88469

5) I had agreed to do the "National Debate," but its organizers couldn't come up with a format, moderators, or the media panel they promised. There was talk (originated by Jim Fetzer, I believe) of moving it to my alma mater in New Hampshire, which I was all for, but which obviously didn't happen. Is that my fault, kameelyun?

Your very best are utterly incompetent and can easily be destroyed by a tour guide. That's a fact you simply can't get around.

[T.A.M.]

Ah yes, the "they shoudn't debate us because they shouldn't lend credence to our views" way out.

I'm not a DEW or no plane advocate, neither are many of the scientists who contest the official report. If those scientists are truly so crackpot, why won't NIST debate us and put an end to the nonsense?

And certainly you find debates valuable when they support your position, such as a typical Hardfire debate, which features, of course, an un-neutral host.

If you (and the others you mention) were REAL SCIENTISTS, than you would know, as others here have pointed out, that the standard, logical, accepted, professional form of debate is to produce a scientific or engineering paper, that adheres to the standards acceptable by the scientific and/or engineering community, to then submit said paper(s) to a number of (or at least one) REPUTABLE, and hopefully PEER REVIEWED Scientific and/or Engineering Journal, and allow others to read, and comment and/or present rebuttal.

Funny how that doesn't seem to enter into your arguments here. I am sure as a REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS or ENGINEER, you must realize this, so why all the uproar about a lack of debate.

What you really want, come on admit it, is a chance to take a scientist who is more concerned about the real world, real world issues, and his current job or task, and get him in a forum where you and your other cronies can shift the topic repeatedly away from his area of expertise, and then when he throws his hands up in the air out of frustration, you can declare victory...right??

TAM:)

[CptColumbo]

The impression I'm getting from the "twoof" movement, is that they are more interested in attention than actually getting to the bottom of what happened on 9/11/01. Rather than submit a paper for peer review that is critical on the NIST findings, they want to be on TV or streaming internet videos, where so far I've seen "twoofers" yelling and screaming, yet not really getting to any point.

It's very simple, find the error in their data then write about it. But remember, no matter who the engineer's parents are or who pays him/her 1+1=2.

[kameelyun]

The twoofers have presented no case that professionals need to rebut.

ae911truth and others have a convincing case for controlled demolition and it would be nice to see an open, honest debate between them and the NIST scientists. NOT foot soldiers for the debunker movement. I'm glad ae911truth has developed, because I wouldn't want to see a theologian debating a scientist. Likewise, I'm not too interested in seeing a tour guide debate a scientist.

I must say, Gravy, you're an experienced spinmeister. :D

[T.A.M.]

They (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2470688&postcount=10) are (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2470727&postcount=20) reinforced. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2483626&postcount=237)

In case you haven't been in the loop, Apollo20 is Dr. Frank Greening, who wrote one of the original papers in favor of global progressive collapse. This paper was widely touted by debunkers. At one point he was willing to debate truthers and defend the official story. He then backed off and later became a 9/11 "agnostic."

In a JREF private message to myself, Dr. Greening agreed with me that much of what the JREFers say is patent nonsense.. including a lot of BS about WTC 7, eyewitness accounts, the loss of thermal insulation, the temperature of the rubble pile... the list goes on and on. He also said the JREFers were resorting more and more to personal attacks to get him to stop posting here, because he was causing them too much embarrassment.

I first posted on here my own answer to Popular Mechanics to see how the JREFers would rebut me. I burst out laughing when UK Dave said "I think you should pause and consider that building are not designed to sustain structural damage." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2297503&postcount=7)

Such an extraordinary statement is, of course, completely at odds with what the WTC construction manager said. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM)

Neither myself nor anyone else in the 9/11 research community see the Northwoods Documents as "proof" that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11, and you are engaging in the whole straw man thing when you word it as such. But the NDs do show something: High level military generals do get tempted to orchestrate events to rile up the public to support a military venture. All those senior joint chiefs signed off on the plan; we have to be thankful that Lemnitzer and Kennedy had a conscience... utterly unlike Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Well Dr. Greening, would you like to respond to this? Is this poster correct, did you say the things I have bolded above to him?

A little explanation around all of the points he makes on your behalf would be in order I would think, now that Kamee has made your private comments public.

From the above, if it is true, Dr. Greening has implied the following:

1. The witness accounts are nonsense.
2. The NIST issues around thermal insulating are nonsense,
3. The temperature of the rubble pile as described by us or NIST is nonsense.
4. Alot of what is said about WTC7 here is nonsense.

Are these accusations true? If so, care to be more specific with regard to what people here are getting wrong wrt WTC7, or anything else Frank?

As for us trying to get you to stop posting...that is the real nonsense. You can post here until the Woos come home for all I care, and I am sure most here feel the same way. What ever you say will prove where you stand...correct?

Or is Kameelyun making it all up???

TAM:)

[CptColumbo]

If an argument can't hold up to the scutiny of debunking "foot soldiers" and a tour guide what chance do you think it would have against the actual NIST scientists?

Some posters here are scientists, engineers and architects, and have yet to be convinced by ae911truth.

[Gravy]

I must say, Gravy, you're an experienced spinmeister. :DAnd yet not once have you ever pointed out anything I've gotten wrong.

Why is that, kameelyun? There's even a thread for it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100488). So if you have a problem with anything I've written, present your case, or stop whining.

Fair enough?

[kameelyun]

I can very confidently say that I'm not making this up.

I asked for his opinion on this Randi Rhodes thread. (http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=113577&hl=) I said to him that it takes to task the contention that WTC7 was "engulfed in flames," as many debunkers claim.

[T.A.M.]

I am referring to the now divulged contents of his PM at JREF to you.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

the entire building was not engulfed in flames, for sure, but a large portion of it was, multiple floors. there are photos that show this...and I know you have seen them.

Talk about strawmen.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

I can very confidently say that I'm not making this up.

I asked for his opinion on this Randi Rhodes thread. (http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=113577&hl=) I said to him that it takes to task the contention that WTC7 was "engulfed in flames," as many debunkers claim.

"Many debunkers claim," kameelyun? We rely on the reports of the professionals whose jobs and lives depend on their ability to assess the severity of the conditions:

FDNY Chief of Department Daniel Nigro Addresses WTC 7 Conspiracy Theories (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

First Responder accounts of WTC 7 fires (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)

First Responder (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires) accounts of WTC 7 damage (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage)

First Responder (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires) accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc)

On whose accounts do you rely, kameelyun?

[CptColumbo]

the entire building was not engulfed in flames, for sure, but a large portion of it was, multiple floors. there are photos that show this...and I know you have seen them.

Talk about strawmen.

TAM:)Some of the pictures are in that thread we keep mentioning.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3217486&postcount=27

[kameelyun]

the entire building was not engulfed in flames, for sure, but a large portion of it was, multiple floors. there are photos that show this...and I know you have seen them.

Talk about strawmen.

TAM:)


WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6 all had far greater fires than WTC7. Even if 7 was had an unorthodox design to straddle an electric substation, it doesn't make sense that it would collapse totally, straight down, just like a demolition.

I've PM'd Greening and alerted him to this thread. Now why would I do that if I were worried about being shown up as a liar? :)

[Gravy]

I think we should end this derail and ask that kameelyun either add his comments to existing relevant threads, or start a new one if he has new evidence to present.

Use the search function to find those threads, kameelyun.

[T.A.M.]

WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6 all had far greater fires than WTC7. Even if 7 was had an unorthodox design to straddle an electric substation, it doesn't make sense that it would collapse totally, straight down, just like a demolition.

I've PM'd Greening and alerted him to this thread. Now why would I do that if I were worried about being shown up as a liar? :)

I actually do not believe you are lying, but I would haev to hear it from the horse's mouth before I could just assume you were telling the truth.

I would simply like to hear from Greening on these issues that he really hasnt commented on in public, but felt the need to confide in you about. Since he refers to himself as agnostic, he shouldn't worry about hurting anyone's feelings, and should hopefully give a straight answer about all the points in his PM to you.

Thanks for alerting him to the thread btw.

TAM:)

[LashL]

I fail to see now the NISTian refusal to debate equals a failure of "twoofers."


The failure by twoofers to get their so-called "national debate" off the ground has nothing to do with so-called NISTians. It is purely and simply a failure by twoofers.

You claimed above that twoofers had at least Greening on board to "defend the official story" (although you have never responded adequately to my queries about whether that was really the case or whether he was willing only to defend his own work and his own theories) - but if twoofers had Greeening on board to "defend the official story", why wasn't that good enough for you?

[kameelyun]

I actually do not believe you are lying, but I would haev to hear it from the horse's mouth before I could just assume you were telling the truth.

I would simply like to hear from Greening on these issues that he really hasnt commented on in public, but felt the need to confide in you about. Since he refers to himself as agnostic, he shouldn't worry about hurting anyone's feelings, and should hopefully give a straight answer about all the points in his PM to you.

Thanks for alerting him to the thread btw.

TAM:)


There are other things that "Apollo20" has said to me in his private messages, and I am ITCHING to publicize them. However, I fear that I may have made him uncomfortable with what I have done so far, therefore, I bite my tongue with the rest.

However, when I told him I was a symphony violinist, he said " P.S. My wife is a classical musician too and music, sweet, sweet, music is very important in our house!"

[StickMan2008]

Whereas it's true that Northwoods was rejected, the relevence of referring to the document during these discussions is that such types of false flag events were in fact conceived of and considered.

I'm not quite sure why, but making this observation somehow makes me a small silvery fish from California. Though I have been known to spawn in the wet sand.

And it's pretty naive to think that Operation Northwoods was the first and last proposed false flag operation by our government.

It's just the first one that got declassified which would not have happened if JFK gave the go on it

Our government will never admit which events in history were a false flag operation because that would open up a huge can of worms.

It would destroy the whole incompetence/morality angle taken by OS pedalers

[Gazpacho]

Our government will never admit which events in history were a false flag operation because that would open up a huge can of worms.

The US government has admitted to a lot of past covert interventions, and will admit to more in the future.

And even when it's not admitting them, the people who were involved give interviews where they reveal this stuff.

[T.A.M.]

And it's pretty naive to think that Operation Northwoods was the first and last proposed false flag operation by our government.

It's just the first one that got declassified which would not have happened if JFK gave the go on it

Our government will never admit which events in history were a false flag operation because that would open up a huge can of worms.

It would destroy the whole incompetence/morality angle taken by OS pedalers

glad you included the word "proposed".

please tell me, is there anything that can remove the moronic/paranoid angle from truthers?

TAM:)

[AMTMAN]

Uh, hello? 99.999% of the U.S. public didn't know about Northwoods until it came to light in the year 2000 through a Freedom of Information Act request.
“Truth does not have to be suppressed, simply delayed until it doesn’t matter anymore.” - Napoleon

Bush has said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on.”

Could you please tell me what difference it would have made when this all came to light. Considering it was an operation that never took place and cost the Chairman of the JCS his job.

[BenBurch]

Kosher?

KOSHER!111!!!

PROOF OF A ZIONIST PLOT!!!!!1!

[funk de fino]

Bush has said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on.”


Bush actually JOKED “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on.” saying it was advice from a Democrat.

[Cicero]

Actually it was a PB4Y-1 Liberator, not a B-24. And there was another crew member, Navy Lt. Bud Willy, who was also killed.

Robert Klaus


Pope130,

Ah, a PB4Y-1 is a B-24 Liberator. It is just the Navy's designation for a B-24. This type of error usually occurs when one's knowledge base consists of a Wikipedia search.

Just as Officer Tippet's death is all but forgotten on 11/22/63, so to is Lt. Willy's on 8/4/44.

[Cicero]

And it's pretty naive to think that Operation Northwoods was the first and last proposed false flag operation by our government.

It's just the first one that got declassified which would not have happened if JFK gave the go on it

Our government will never admit which events in history were a false flag operation because that would open up a huge can of worms.

It would destroy the whole incompetence/morality angle taken by OS pedalers

StickMan2008,

Are you saying that only no-go top secret operations from the JFK administration are declassified? First off, Operation Mongoose, which was put into effect, was made public back in 1975 in the Church Committee's published record of their JFK assassination investigation.

Secondly, the fact that "Northwoods" was not mentioned by the Church Committee in 1975, when they had access to all government documents, including all the components of Operation Mongoose, which the document "Northwoods" itself says it was a part of, only further raises the suspicions as to when this "Northwoods" document was created and by whom.

[MarkyX]

ae911truth and others have a convincing case for controlled demolition and it would be nice to see an open, honest debate between them and the NIST scientists.


Really? Because every time I watch Richard Gage, he always uses the same arguments as 9/11 Mysteries, which happens to source a holocaust denier and the creator believes using baby talk ( cluckity cluck ) is science. The video also been debunked.

Richard Gage has already been on a debate and made several key amateurish mistakes, such as Pyroclastic Flows, "loud explosions caused by silent thermite", and other repeatitive debunked arguments. On his resume, Gage does not have any experience with skyscrapers, explosive devices, or investigating collapses.

Finally, Gage has an edited video on his site that cuts off the audio of a controlled demolition.

The fact that you are willing to defend such a fraud speaks volumes.

[Cicero]

Carol Valentine is the most prominent nutcase pushing the idea of Operation Northwoods being a fake document.


While Valentine's analysis of the colloquialisms that only appear in "Norhtwoods" is undermined by her conclusion that the Document was planted by Mossad, her observations are indeed valid. Her appraisal of Author James Bamford's dubious scholarly investigative skills is also right on point. Sometimes even a blind "truth" grunion can root up an acorn, or two.

[Pope130]

Pope130,

Ah, a PB4Y-1 is a B-24 Liberator. It is just the Navy's designation for a B-24. This type of error usually occurs when one's knowledge base consists of a Wikipedia search.

Just as Officer Tippet's death is all but forgotten on 11/22/63, so to is Lt. Willy's on 8/4/44.

PB4Y-1 is the Navy version of he Consolidated Model 30. The B-24 is the Army version of the Model 30. Similar, not the same.

As to experience, twenty-four years USAF, ten of it working with the Air Force Museum, and I have worked on four B-24's, a C-87, an LB-30, a PB4Y-2 and a PB4Y-1. I know the difference.

Robert Klaus

[Cicero]

PB4Y-1 is the Navy version of he Consolidated Model 30. The B-24 is the Army version of the Model 30. Similar, not the same.

As to experience, twenty-four years USAF, ten of it working with the Air Force Museum, and I have worked on four B-24's, a C-87, an LB-30, a PB4Y-2 and a PB4Y-1. I know the difference.

Robert Klaus

Right. All this experience and you quibble over the fact that both aircraft are B-24 Liberators?


Specifications: (B-24H/J):

Engines: Four 1,200-hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-65 Twin Wasp turbocharged radial piston engines.
Weight: Empty 36,500 lbs., Max Overload Takeoff 71,200 lbs.
Wing Span: 110ft. 0in.
Length: 67ft. 2in.
Height: 18ft. 0in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 25,000 ft: 290 mph
Cruising Speed: 215 mph
Ceiling: 28,000 ft.
Range: 2,100 miles
Armament:
10 12.7-mm (0.5-inch) machine guns in nose, upper/ventral ball turrets and tail turret, and lateral fuselage positions.
12,800 lb. maximum bomb load.


Specifications: Consolidated LB-30 (B-24A) Liberator:

Four Pratt & Whitney R-1830-33 Engines
Twin-row 14 cylinder Air-cooled Radials
1,200 hp @ 2,700 rpm

Six .50 caliber Machine Guns
Two .30 caliber Machine Guns
Up to 4,000 lbs of Bombs
(up to 8,800 lbs in later models)

Max. Speed 292 mph @ 15,000 feet
Cruise Speed 228 mph
Climb to 10,000 ft in 5.6 minutes
Service Ceiling 30,500 ft
Length 63' 9"
Height 18' 8"
Wing Span 110'

Max. Weight 53,600 lbs
Empty Weight 30,000 lbs

Maximum Range 2,200 miles

[Vincent Vega]

Hmm how many ways can you interpret this, Sabrina?


Itclearly refers to Northwoods written by the military.
It is not interpretation, dear, but reading comprehension.
The U.S. Government includes the military. Therefore, Northwoods was a document produced by the U.S. government.
But Gravy states it wasn't the U.S. Government's idea. Gravy is wrong. It is ok, I've pointed out his errors numerous times in the past. He is human and he is allowed to error, despite his position in the 'debunking' community.

Now here is my interpretation of the statement:
Gravy has no clue about the structure of the U.S. government. Many people don't realize that the U.S. Army is a part of the U.S. government, yourself included, apparently. But that is ok because Government class in high school was a many years ago and I'm not sure if being a member of the New York Tour Guide community has refresher courses on the structure of the U.S. government.

This argument is idiotic! If the director of the US Postal Service send up a memo to the President recomending that all Postal carriers be armed with assault rifles would it be condidered (by rational people) as a plan of action proposed by the US Government?

[Pope130]

Right. All this experience and you quibble over the fact that both aircraft are B-24 Liberators?


No I quibble over the fact that both the B-24 and the PB4Y-1 are Model 30s. The aircraft Lt. Kennedy was flying was a PB4Y-1.

I am offended that Lt. Bud Willy was ignored in your earlier post.

Robert Klaus

[Vincent Vega]

WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6 all had far greater fires than WTC7. Even if 7 was had an unorthodox design to straddle an electric substation, it doesn't make sense that it would collapse totally, straight down, just like a demolition.

I've PM'd Greening and alerted him to this thread. Now why would I do that if I were worried about being shown up as a liar? :)

Actually it does if you under stand the transfer truss system on floors 5-7. And the fires didn't need to be widespread. Only enough to compromise a part of the structure to initiate a partial failure that led to the complete failure of the transfer truss that THEN led to global colapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[Vincent Vega]

And it's pretty naive to think that Operation Northwoods was the first and last proposed false flag operation by our government.

It's just the first one that got declassified which would not have happened if JFK gave the go on it

Our government will never admit which events in history were a false flag operation because that would open up a huge can of worms.

It would destroy the whole incompetence/morality angle taken by OS pedalers

Was NEVER an OPERATION. Stop refering to it as such.

[SpitfireIX]

Back to the original topic of this thread. Valentine's "analysis (http://www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html)" is hopelessly flawed.

Her main contention is that the word "holiday," as a synonym for the typical American usage "vacation," indicates that the document was written in British English, merely because her 1970s-era dictionary indicates that that usage is "chiefly British." :rolleyes:

I found the following by searching the online edition of the papers (http://www.marshallfoundation.org/Database.htm) of George C. Marshall. For those unfamiliar, Marshall was US Army Chief of Staff during World War II, and later US Secretary of State. There is nothing in his background that suggests to me any particular British influence on his language usage patterns. Emphasis has been added.

To General John J. Pershing, 1920:

I have been having a fine holiday, riding three or four hours daily through beautiful country


To Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., 1939:

I hope your holiday will be successful, and that we will not have to call on you again to carry a cane, a stiff leg and a full pack.


Memorandum, 1939:

During such [reserve officer training] periods we would have to arrange our Regular Army training for Saturdays and Sundays and leave the holiday period to Tuesdays and Wednesdays, or some such arrangement.


To Mrs. Reynolds Brown, 1940:

I flew up to Fire Island Friday night and flew back early Monday morning. Katherine and Molly have been there for about ten days. This is my first “lengthy” holiday since three days over the fourth of July in 1939.


To Major General Campbell King, 1942:

As a matter of fact I think I have had about sixteen days' holiday in that period and have flown about 150,000 miles.


To Joan Bright, 1945:

I hope you enjoyed your holiday and I am sorry that you expect, when you return to Whitehall, to be putting your files in final order.


Note: As might be inferred from the text, this was written to a British person, so could possibly be discounted, except for the numerous other examples.

From a taped interview, 1956:

There was quite a bit of pressure and we were having a meeting of the U.S. chiefs of staff, Potsdam, I think, and Leahy came by to make his departure for a holiday they had there.


There are other examples where Marshall uses "holiday" in the current American sense (e. g. "holiday greetings" in a Christmas note). Further, there are a few instances, starting about 1940, where he uses the word "vacation." Clearly, this is simply an example of language drift. Most of the rest of Valentine's "analysis" is pure FUD.

[SDC]

There are other things that "Apollo20" has said to me in his private messages, and I am ITCHING to publicize them. However, I fear that I may have made him uncomfortable with what I have done so far, therefore, I bite my tongue with the rest.

However, when I told him I was a symphony violinist, he said " P.S. My wife is a classical musician too and music, sweet, sweet, music is very important in our house!"

I'm sure you understand that without confirmation from him, your comments are mere hearsay, worth only as much as your personal credibility 'round here. So if he's "uncomfortable" your comments are nothing but gossip.

Edit: and my wife as well is a classically-trained musician. So what? It looks as though you are trying to provide context/ color in lieu of being able actually to prove that your quotes from Apollo are valid.

[Stankeye]

I think if Northwoods does prove anything, it proves that remote-controlled drones existed back at the time of the first Bond movie.

Who's ever said that they didn't exist?

[SDC]

Well, a national debate would involve more than Greening. It would have been wonderful if the NIST scientists would agree to debate.

Ed Haas of the Muckrake.r Report corresponded with Michael Newman, a PR man for NIST. Haas, after pointing out that many Americans suspected that NIST's report was untruthful, said that "A possible method to reconcile the division in the US between its people and the government" might be to have a series of televised debates between the scientists who worked on the NIST report and scientists who question its plausibility. Before Haas could fully get his suggestion out, he was interrupted and told that "None of the NIST scientists would participate in any public debate."

Haas later tried again some time later. Eventually Newman wrote Haas a letter saying "The project leaders of the NIST WTC investigation respectfully have respectfully declined your invitation to participate in the national 9/11 debate on September 16, 2006." Newman asked whether a change in date or venue would make them accept. Newman wrote back, saying "A change in date or venue will not affect their decision." (http://forums.randi.org/teamliberty.net/id273.html)

Whether this decision on NIST's part represents a disdain for debate, or a fear of debate, it certainly indicates a refusal to debate.

K, your link is dead, departed, or otherwise non-functional. I apologize for checking in so late, but... Could you please source these quotes? Without at least an indication of your sources, this is nothing but gossip. Thanks.

[stilicho]

There is a major problem with that statement. Just as I have not cited Northwoods as "proof" of anything, the fact that Northwoods did not contemplate friendly casualties does not "disprove" anything. No one has ever said that Northwoods is identical to the 9/11 plot. But that does not mean Northwoods is not relevant to the discussion of 9/11. "No friendly casualties" is the real straw man.
Regardless of whether it did or could involve "friendly casualties", the distinction of Northwoods is that it was not executed.

Northwoods is constantly brought up by conspiracists to indicate that some people at some levels of government are capable of coming up with unusual ideas for pursuing American political aims. This should be a surprise? Heck, some individuals that worked for the US Government think that space lasers were used to demolish the WTC towers.

I would recommend conspiracists quietly put this one aside because it erodes the very argument they are trying to make.

[AMTMAN]

I wonder what the CT's have to say about War Plan Red?

[Cicero]

Back to the original topic of this thread. Valentine's "analysis (http://www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html)" is hopelessly flawed.

Her main contention is that the word "holiday," as a synonym for the typical American usage "vacation," indicates that the document was written in British English, merely because her 1970s-era dictionary indicates that that usage is "chiefly British." :rolleyes:

I found the following by searching the online edition of the papers (http://www.marshallfoundation.org/Database.htm) of George C. Marshall. For those unfamiliar, Marshall was US Army Chief of Staff during World War II, and later US Secretary of State. There is nothing in his background that suggests to me any particular British influence on his language usage patterns. Emphasis has been added.

To

There are other examples where Marshall uses "holiday" in the current American sense (e. g. "holiday greetings" in a Christmas note). Further, there are a few instances, starting about 1940, where he uses the word "vacation." Clearly, this is simply an example of language drift. Most of the rest of Valentine's "analysis" is pure FUD.


Spitfire,

This might actually be relevant if Marshall wrote "Northwoods." Unless, of course, it is your contention that he did indeed do so..... But nowhere in your quotes does he ever say "ON HOLIDAY." We are also speaking about the time period of the 1960'S, not the 20's, 30's, 40's or even 50's. The 1963 film "Palm Springs Weekend," a good pop culture example to the contemporary usage of vacation, never mentions the word "holiday" in reference to Spring break.

[SDC]

Spitfire,

This might actually be relevant if Marshall wrote "Northwoods." Unless, of course, it is your contention that he did indeed do so..... But nowhere in your quotes does he ever say "ON HOLIDAY." We are also speaking about the time period of the 1960'S, not the 20's, 30's, 40's or even 50's. The 1963 film "Palm Springs Weekend," a good pop culture example to the contemporary usage of vacation, never mentions the word "holiday" in reference to Spring break.

This is the great dispute over the use of the word "holiday." Well, I was there in the 1960s, an adolescent at the time of that movie which is probably pretty bad. Anyhow, I remember "holiday" used both as "vacation," as in multiple days off, and as one-day event like Thanksgiving. "Holiday" had a somewhat "classier" feel to it than vacation, perhaps. And my version of English = educated mid-Atlantic state. Use of "Holiday" vs "Vacation" just isn't enough to prove anything.

[Cicero]

No I quibble over the fact that both the B-24 and the PB4Y-1 are Model 30s. The aircraft Lt. Kennedy was flying was a PB4Y-1.

I am offended that Lt. Bud Willy was ignored in your earlier post.

Robert Klaus

Your objection is a distinction without a difference. PB4Y-2 "Privateer" is still a Consolidated B-24 Liberator. The "model 30" designation does not supersede the B-24 designation. In fact, you are the only person who refuses to acknowledge that any variation of the B-24 is still designated a B-24. If you look under aircraft classifications, you will see the model 30 is under the B-24, the B-24 is not under the model 30.

If you were so offended by my omission of Lt. Willy's presence in the bomber, why was it not mentioned first in your post?

[Cicero]

This is the great dispute over the use of the word "holiday." Well, I was there in the 1960s, an adolescent at the time of that movie which is probably pretty bad. Anyhow, I remember "holiday" used both as "vacation," as in multiple days off, and as one-day event like Thanksgiving. "Holiday" had a somewhat "classier" feel to it than vacation, perhaps. And my version of English = educated mid-Atlantic state. Use of "Holiday" vs "Vacation" just isn't enough to prove anything.

SDC,

Nobody disputes that Americans refer to last November 29 as the "Thanksgiving holiday." But ask any public school kid and they will say, "we got two days vacation that week." But did you, or do you, ever say "ON HOLIDAY" or "ON VACATION?"

[Brainster]

Back to the original topic of this thread. Valentine's "analysis (http://www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html)" is hopelessly flawed.

Her main contention is that the word "holiday," as a synonym for the typical American usage "vacation," indicates that the document was written in British English, merely because her 1970s-era dictionary indicates that that usage is "chiefly British."

Let me add here that the difference between the British and American uses consists more in syntax; in the US we might say "I was off on a holiday vacation", where a Brit would say "I was off on holiday vacation", leaving out the article, "a". And the use in Operation Northwoods is plainly American:

The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

No Brit would say "off on a holiday".

[Vincent Vega]

I wonder what the CT's have to say about War Plan Red?

or PLAN R.


http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/09/07/strangelove_wideweb__430x284.jpg

[SDC]

SDC,

Nobody disputes that Americans refer to last November 29 as the "Thanksgiving holiday." But ask any public school kid and they will say, "we got two days vacation that week." But did you, or do you, ever say "ON HOLIDAY" or "ON VACATION?"

Actually, it was Nov 22d, but never mind.

Yeah, sure I did -- use or hear both. I'm older -- remember, I described myself as an adolescent in 1963. And maybe it is relevant that I came from an academic family with pretensions, and went to a college prep school.

I'm saying that I remember the terms overlapping, and that an older person -- my age or older, and this Northwoods doc or whatever it was written by someone a generation older than me (or even two generations) -- could have used either. "Going on holiday," sure; to me it has something of a pretentious feel, but no biggie. And language use changes constantly; I recognize many turns of phrase that turned up in my adulthood, which I never heard as a kid. So what?

My point remains: saying "holiday" vs "vacation" is not significant enough to determine anyone's national or dialect origin.

[Cicero]

Let me add here that the difference between the British and American uses consists more in syntax; in the US we might say "I was off on a holiday vacation", where a Brit would say "I was off on holiday vacation", leaving out the article, "a". And the use in Operation Northwoods is plainly American:



No Brit would say "off on a holiday".

Brainster,

Excellent! The operative component is the "a." The additions of "off," and especially the "a," does diminish the authenticity of the British colloquialism. Now all we need know is why this "Northwoods" document is still oddly different it its construction, if not verbiage, from the other Operation Mongoose documents.

[Cicero]

Actually, it was Nov 22d, but never mind.


SDC,

Hey, originally it was the fourth Thursday in November, but FDR changed Lincoln's date to the third Thursday back in 1939.

[SpitfireIX]

Spitfire,

This might actually be relevant if Marshall wrote "Northwoods." Unless, of course, it is your contention that he did indeed do so..... But nowhere in your quotes does he ever say "ON HOLIDAY." We are also speaking about the time period of the 1960'S, not the 20's, 30's, 40's or even 50's. The 1963 film "Palm Springs Weekend," a good pop culture example to the contemporary usage of vacation, never mentions the word "holiday" in reference to Spring break.


First, you've misquoted the passage completely, making it sound more British than it is. The quotation is "on a holiday" (see here (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/northwoods13.gif)). That aside, your objection to the time frame of Marshall's writings is frankly inane; the point is that the usage was once common in America. That puts the burden of proof on Ms. Valentine, and on you, to demonstrate that that usage was virtually unheard-of in American English by the early 1960s. Your single example doesn't even begin to approach proof.

However, there's no point in your even trying, because I can conclusively demonstrate that the expression "on a holiday" (in the sense of "on vacation" was still in at least occasional use at that time. From The New York Times archive (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22on+a+holiday%22&srchst=p&d=&o=&v=&c=&sort=closest&n=10&dp=0&daterange=period&year1=1960&mon1=01&day1=01&year2=1965&mon2=12&day2=31&frow=0), with emphasis added:

HAVANA, April 3 [1960] -- It was a hot, quiet Sunday in Havana. Even the revolution seemed to be on a holiday.


[Feb. 7, 1961] The storm that filled the city with snow last week filled it again yesterday -- with more than a million and a quarter school children on a holiday.


[Aug. 26, 1963] THINGS happen when a guy turns his back to go off on a holiday. While he was away, Dave Condon, the eminent Chicago historian, offered an idea that was perfectly peachy. Howard Cosell, the electronic oracle, offered one that was simply horrifying. Both involve Charles Dillon Stengel, a man who needs no introduction.


RABAT, Morocco, Dec. 31 [1963] -- On his departure from Morocco today Premier Chou was bid farewell by royal ministers. The official farewell with King Hassan II was on Sunday and the King was out of town today on a holiday.


BRADENTON, Fla., April 7 [1964] -- Eight busloads of Golden Age Club citizens on a holiday rolled up to the Colonial Inn at St. Petersburg Beach today just as the hotel's most distinguished golden age citizen, Casey Stengel, walked through the front door on his way to work, his brow furrowed with problems.


SANT CRUZ DE TENERIFE, Canary Islands, Dec. 7 [1965] (AP) -- A Spanish DC3 charter plane carrying Scandinavian tourists on a holiday side-trip plunged into a house and burned minutes after takeoff in a windy rainstorm late today.

[SpitfireIX]

Brainster,

Excellent! The operative component is the "a." The additions of "off," and especially the "a," does diminish the authenticity of the British colloquialism. Now all we need know is why this "Northwoods" document is still oddly different it its construction, if not verbiage, from the other Operation Mongoose documents.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604758829ab616f.jpg

[Mr. Skinny]

Once I became a government shill, I had to learn the terminology "On Leave". This was used in place of "On Vacation" or "Taking a Sick Day". Now I have to use "On Sick Leave" or "On Annual Leave".

When I retire in a few years and use any remaining "sick leave" or "annual leave" in the last days before retirement, I'll be on "Terminal Leave".

This proves, well...something....

[SDC]

SDC,

Hey, originally it was the fourth Thursday in November, but FDR changed Lincoln's date to the third Thursday back in 1939.

I can't even figure which nits you are trying to pick.

You said, first, Nov 29, which this year was the 5th Thursday.

I replied no, it was the 22d, which this year was the 4th Thursday.

Now evidently you state that thanks to FDR it was the 3d Thursday, which would have made it Nov 15 this year. That's simply incorrect. I suppose you are trying to make a joke but I just don't get it. Must be a conspiracy theory.

[Sabrina]

Once I became a government shill, I had to learn the terminology "On Leave". This was used in place of "On Vacation" or "Taking a Sick Day". Now I have to use "On Sick Leave" or "On Annual Leave".

When I retire in a few years and use any remaining "sick leave" or "annual leave" in the last days before retirement, I'll be on "Terminal Leave".

This proves, well...something....

I think they're calling it Transitional Leave now.

At least, they were when I left active duty.

[Cicero]

I can't even figure which nits you are trying to pick.

You said, first, Nov 29, which this year was the 5th Thursday.

I replied no, it was the 22d, which this year was the 4th Thursday.

Now evidently you state that thanks to FDR it was the 3d Thursday, which would have made it Nov 15 this year. That's simply incorrect. I suppose you are trying to make a joke but I just don't get it. Must be a conspiracy theory.

I should have said Lincoln reserved Thanksgiving for the final Thursday in November, and in 1939, FDR pulled it back to the fourth Thursday. Of course one could make a conspiracy theory out of this in that FDR was pressured by retailers to back up the holiday by a week so as not to crowd Christmas.

[Pope130]

If you were so offended by my omission of Lt. Willy's presence in the bomber, why was it not mentioned first in your post?

I'm a guy, in a list the important thing is always mentioned last.

Robert Klaus

[Pope130]

Darn-it! The problems of working from memory. The Liberator was the Consolidated Model 32, not the Model 30.

The Model 32 family consisted of the B-24, C-87, PB4Y-1 and the British Contract Liberator. The later Model 100 was the PB4Y-2 Privateer.

Robert Klaus

[Cicero]

Darn-it! The problems of working from memory. The Liberator was the Consolidated Model 32, not the Model 30.

The Model 32 family consisted of the B-24, C-87, PB4Y-1 and the British Contract Liberator. The later Model 100 was the PB4Y-2 Privateer.

Robert Klaus

Jimmy Stewart, arguably the most famous B-24 pilot of WWII, always referred to all versions of the B-24 he flew as B-24 Liberators. Never did he ever refer to them as the "Model 32/100." Perhaps you sold refrigerators or Televisions at some point and got used to referring to commonly known objects by their SKU numbers?

[Vincent Vega]

Jimmy Stewart, arguably the most famous B-24 pilot of WWII, always referred to all versions of the B-24 he flew as B-24 Liberators. Never did he ever refer to them as the "Model 32/100." Perhaps you sold refrigerators or Televisions at some point and got used to referring to commonly known objects by their SKU numbers?

Should we start a B-24 thread people?

[Mr. Skinny]

I think they're calling it Transitional Leave now.

At least, they were when I left active duty.

Wasn't aware of that, but I hope that's true for all the services.

Terminal Leave always did make me think they were gonna take me out and shoot me when I got close to retirement. :eek:

[Corsair 115]

Jimmy Stewart, arguably the most famous B-24 pilot of WWII, always referred to all versions of the B-24 he flew as B-24 Liberators. Never did he ever refer to them as the "Model 32/100." That merely indicates the difference between common usage and technical designation.

I'd wager most guys who flew the Avenger torpedo bomber during WWII would just call it the Avenger and not bother much about the technical designations of whether it was a TBF or TBM they were flying.

[SDC]

Kameelyun made comments, earlier, about Dr Greening's/ Apollo20's true views. Until and unless Apollo20 steps up and confirms them, Kameelyun's statements have no significance. Perhaps one of them could do this.

It has to be public. PM'ing anyone isn't enough. Public. Or it's the equivalent of me saying that, well, any of the silly things I seem to say. (Just so no one gets insulted here, I prefer to insult myself. At least I know and trust the source.)

[Cicero]

Just curious. Has Kameelyun ever accused any JREFer of being a "paid dis info shill" or "provocateur?" Anyone on the amazon threads that is not a DRG "truth" grunion is labeled as such by their second post.

[Hyperviolet]

Let me add here that the difference between the British and American uses consists more in syntax; in the US we might say "I was off on a holiday vacation", where a Brit would say "I was off on holiday vacation", leaving out the article, "a". And the use in Operation Northwoods is plainly American:




No Brit would say "off on a holiday".


Brainster, i can't speak for all Brits; but i've never heard anyone use the word 'vacation' in reference to a holiday/break.

[Dave Rogers]

Brainster, i can't speak for all Brits; but i've never heard anyone use the word 'vacation' in reference to a holiday/break.

Same here. I'd say it's one of the few clear distinctions remaining between British and American English - we know what the word means, but we don't use it at all, ever, unless we're pretending to be American. In the 1960's the use of the word in Britain would be even more jarring.

But I agree, we wouldn't say "Off on a holiday", it's normally "Off on holiday".

Dave

[T.A.M.]

here where I live we say:

"Off on holidays" "Off on a break" "off on break" "gone on break" "gone on holidays" "gone on vacation".

TAM:)

[CptColumbo]

I think the same applies to when an American says they're "going to the hospital" or "going to a hospital."

[Sabrina]

[slight derail]Don't British people say "going to hospital"? Or that they're "in hospital" versus "in THE hospital"?

That's always confused me; why would you refer to an inanimate object as though it were a sentient thing? That's how it comes across to me anyways; maybe that's just me.[/slight derail]

[Hyperviolet]

[slight derail]Don't British people say "going to hospital"? Or that they're "in hospital" versus "in THE hospital"?

That's always confused me; why would you refer to an inanimate object as though it were a sentient thing? That's how it comes across to me anyways; maybe that's just me.[/slight derail]

Brits, or at least Scots, use both, actually.

I suppose it's just local jargon.

One that baffles many is the How/Why substitution.
Whereby, it's common tongue for Scots to colliquially say "how" when they mean "why."

- "I just don't want to go out tonight."
- "How come?"

I've no idea how these little vicissitudes develop.

[jhunter1163]

[slight derail]Don't British people say "going to hospital"? Or that they're "in hospital" versus "in THE hospital"?

That's always confused me; why would you refer to an inanimate object as though it were a sentient thing? That's how it comes across to me anyways; maybe that's just me.[/slight derail]

It's always annoyed me that we say "going to the hospital" as if there was only one hospital in the world. The British usage is better in this particular case.

[Cicero]

As Geroge Bernard Shaw said, "Two peoples separated by a common language."

IF there were a dictabelt recording of those proposing "Northwoods," and someone said Leftenant, instead of Lieutenant, the game would be over.

[JimBenArm]

As Geroge Bernard Shaw said, "Two peoples separated by a common language."

IF there were a dictabelt recording of those proposing "Northwoods," and someone said Leftenant, instead of Lieutenant, the game would be over.
As in "Leftenant Behind"?

[SpitfireIX]

It's always annoyed me that we say "going to the hospital" as if there was only one hospital in the world. The British usage is better in this particular case.


That reminds me of a funny story. Last summer I went to GenCon, and I stayed with a friend who's a doctor. On the second day, on our way to the convention center, he had to stop at a large hospital and see patients because he'd managed to go from having none in the hospital a few days earlier to having seven. :( After entering the hospital grounds, he pulled up to a lowered gate with a sign that read "DOCTOR'S [sic] PARKING" across it. I asked, "There's only one doctor? Boy are you going to be busy today."

My friend replied, "No, there's more than one doctor. There just aren't any grammarians." :D

[LastChild]

The only difference between these days and the days of Northwoods is the existence of rational minds in the administration to dismiss a nutjob operation like Northwoods.

[JimBenArm]

The only difference between these days and the days of Northwoods is the existence of rational minds in the administration to dismiss a nutjob operation like Northwoods.
Funny, somehow I don't think you're the best judge of rational. Or of much else, from your performance here.

Dirty Harry said it best. "A man's got to know his limitations." Too bad you don't.

[LastChild]

Well at least now I know why you never post any facts on anything.

Hurray for you and your keen awareness of your limitations.

[JimBenArm]

Well at least now I know why you never post any facts on anything.

Hurray for you and your keen awareness of your limitations.
Puts me one-up on you, however!

Yay, me!

[LastChild]

Puts me one-up on you, however!

Yay, me!

Now don't go congratulating yourself too fast there Skippy. You still need to add witty comebacks to your list of limitations.

[Sporanox]

Now don't go congratulating yourself too fast there Skippy. You still need to add witty comebacks to your list of limitations.

You still need to add evidence to your whole worldview.

[JimBenArm]

Now don't go congratulating yourself too fast there Skippy. You still need to add witty comebacks to your list of limitations.
That's one of my endearing qualities, along with youthful good looks and an ability to spot morons at 300 yards.
Oh, look, there's another one!
Yay, me!

[chillzero]

I think we are straying from the topic here, more than a little bit.

;)

[SDC]

I hope this is back on topic. One of the most distinctive grammatical UK vs US points is the "collective singular" in the US. I don't think that is the real term, though. I first encountered it when England won the 1966 world cup in soccer. There were all these people hollering "England have won!" Whereas in the US that's simply an error; we say, "England has won!" This would get you marked down in grammar class. (If there were any grammar classes anymore.) Am I remembering this correctly?

[SpitfireIX]

I hope this is back on topic. One of the most distinctive grammatical UK vs US points is the "collective singular" in the US. I don't think that is the real term, though. I first encountered it when England won the 1966 world cup in soccer. There were all these people hollering "England have won!" Whereas in the US that's simply an error; we say, "England has won!" This would get you marked down in grammar class. (If there were any grammar classes anymore.) Am I remembering this correctly?


From a Wikpedia article on American and British English differences:


Formal and notional agreement

In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members; compare a committee was appointed ... with the committee were unable to agree... Compare also the following lines of Elvis Costello's song "Oliver's Army": Oliver's Army are on their way / Oliver's Army is here to stay. Some of these nouns, for example staff, actually combine with plural verbs most of the time.

In AmE, collective nouns are usually singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree ... AmE however may use plural pronouns in agreement with collective nouns: the team takes their seats, rather than the team takes its seats. The rule of thumb is that a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of "individuals acting separately" is considered plural. However, such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats. Despite exceptions such as usage in the New York Times, the names of sports teams are usually treated as plurals even if the form of the name is singular.

The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance,

BrE: The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well-known band.
BrE: Indianapolis are the champions; AmE: Indianapolis is the champion.

Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Colts are the champions. [citations omitted]


BTW, any insinuation that I edited the article to change the name of the sports team in the example is a dirty, vicious lie. I wish it weren't, but it is. :p

[Cicero]

Getting back to the "Northwoods" doc, ex-commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg, the favorite of the 911 "truth" grunions, had this to say about the same phantom puppeteers of historical events that were supposedly responsible for 911:

"The 'big boys' were up to the same dirty tricks they played in the Kennedy assassination and Pearl Harbor." RW

These same "big boy" must have crafted "Northwoods," considering all the complexities involved in this whopper. If only Mr. Wittenberg were a wee bit more explicit in his characterization of these perfidious perennial plotters.

Considering Mr. Wittenberg's record of 911 remarks, I doubt any elaboration will be forthcoming.

How about some more pearls of wisdom from Wittenburg:

....."Condaleeza Rice lied through her teeth when she testified and if I would have had her on the stand for 10 minutes, I would have had her in tears....."

Apparently, Wittenburg is not only a scholar, but a gentleman as well.

"...the whole 9/11 story made about as much sense as crossing the Atlantic in a row boat..."

Oops. 32 people, individually, have crossed the Atlantic in a row boat.

[SpitfireIX]

"...the whole 9/11 story made about as much sense as crossing the Atlantic in a row boat..."

Oops. 32 people, individually, have crossed the Atlantic in a row boat.


:footinmou :footinmou :footinmou

[Cicero]

Fans of Oliver Stone actually beleive his multiple arrests for driving while under the influence of alcohol/drugs in 1999 and 2005 is related to his 1992 movie JFK, that was instrumental in getting previously classified documents, such as Operation Northwoods, released to the public.


Posted by: Janette at May 29, 2005 11:24 AM
http://www.darleenclick.com/weblog/archives/2005/05/california_juri.html

Can someone forward this to Oliver Stone's personal address? 3 strikes and he's in prison gulag for 20 years as a habitual offender/career criminal, thanks to USA's current Police State Prohibition on alcohol. Cops routinely stalk people to get multiple arrests, especially gov't whistleblowers like Stone, who got 2-million pages of JFK Coup D'Etat files declassified, including Pentagon/CIA Operation NORTHWOODS, to hijack US airliners by remote control and crash them to blame foreign nations to "justify" war.

Operation NORTHWOODS (DECLASSIFIED 2000):
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

[SDC]

Fans of Oliver Stone actually beleive his multiple arrests for driving while under the influence of alcohol/drugs in 1999 and 2005 is related to his 1992 movie JFK, that was instrumental in getting previously classified documents, such as Operation Northwoods, released to the public.


Posted by: Janette at May 29, 2005 11:24 AM
http://www.darleenclick.com/weblog/archives/2005/05/california_juri.html

Can someone forward this to Oliver Stone's personal address? 3 strikes and he's in prison gulag for 20 years as a habitual offender/career criminal, thanks to USA's current Police State Prohibition on alcohol. Cops routinely stalk people to get multiple arrests, especially gov't whistleblowers like Stone, who got 2-million pages of JFK Coup D'Etat files declassified, including Pentagon/CIA Operation NORTHWOODS, to hijack US airliners by remote control and crash them to blame foreign nations to "justify" war.

Operation NORTHWOODS (DECLASSIFIED 2000):
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf)

And it's not just Stone! Can't people try to stop the Police State's campaign against Britney, Paris, and Lindsay?

[Cicero]

And it's not just Stone! Can't people try to stop the Police State's campaign against Britney, Paris, and Lindsay?

Not to mention Winona Ryder, Robert Downey Jr, Danny Bonaduce, etc...