And not to forget. Real important text does blink in the complementary color of the background.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

How did this happen? Dubya wasn't inaugurated until January 20, 2001. Or was Clark's date supposed to be July 21, 2001?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Well, you see, Dubya was actually pulling the strings from behind the scenes all during the Clinton administration...

Actually, it was an unfortunate double confusion on my part--misreading the date, and then mistyping it, but the mistyping was actually the correct date which I had originally misread (or something like that--I think).

I'd better go back and edit that, in the finest tradition of Soviet-style revisionism. "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia..."

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I agree it's not relevant, which is what I'm attempting to demonstrate. Unfortunately, for some conspiracists the Northwoods memo is a sort of Holy Grail--purported evidence that the US military would actually stage a fake terrorist attack involving the deaths of Americans as a pretext for a war.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Aha, that makes conspiratorial sense!

Been there, mistyped that, got the t-shirt with the typo.

Sounds a lot like "Terror Alert Level-Yellow"

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

"..that only leaving the refugees aboard the boat would constitute a "real" sinking."...you left out the refugees....

One does not "sink" people--one "drowns" or "immerses" or "kills" or "wounds" people.

When they state....

We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).

...that means either "simulate" the incident, in whole or in part, or make it a "real" incident - and have it actually happen entirely as written. Any element that is simulated makes it a "simulated" incident. If not, you are proposing that every element of an incident must be "simulated" to make it a "simulation", and if there is any aspect of an incident which is "real", that makes the entire incident "real"

And, of course, you must continue ignoring the fact that the words "real" and "simulated" cannot modify the word "sink," and must modify either "boatload" or "Cubans." Yet another example of how you must twist the wording of the memo in order to make it appear to mean what you wish it to mean.

You aren't getting my point. That is still an incident which includes simulated elements. There would not be any concern over whether or not the boat was a "genuine" refugee boat! I mean, it's not very likely that witnesses will say "That was no genuine refugee boat." So it could certainly have a "real refugee boat" - but "simulated" refugees.

I do get your point, but your point is incorrect, and, as I have stated, requires twisting the wording of the memo. The words "simulated" and "real" can only reasonably be taken to modify "boatload" or "Cubans." So, a Coast Guard cutter's taking a group of "real" Cubans off of their "real" boat and then sinking the boat by gunfire would fit. You are attempting to claim that a "real" sinking would require that the Cubans still be aboard their boat, else the sinking would be simulated. I don't agree with this reasoning, but it's irrelevant anyway, as the word "real" cannot modify the word "sink."

In contrast, other scenarios would require careful preparation of "decoy" ships or aircraft. Like the passenger airplane scenario - a "simulated" plane would need to be created that would succeed in fooling any eyewitnesses. As well as the fake Mig scenarios.

Again, this is because the methods by which these incidents could be staged with no real casualties are not obvious. But they are obvious in the case of an anchored ship and a small boat sunk by a larger ship. Further, you simply assume, as usual because it suits your purpose, that each scenario is equally fleshed out, despite the clear statement that the suggestions are preliminary, and for planning purposes.

As I noted, is anyone really going to say that the refugee boat was a fake? Would they flip through "Jane's Refugee Ships" for identification? Unless "SS Minnow" is painted on a piece of the fake debris or something, it wouldn't be very difficult to "simulate" blowing up a non-descript refugee craft. Or not, because who would ever notice the difference?

A piece of debris that was clearly of US origin picked up by a boat chartered by a group of reporters might generate suspicion, though most debris would indeed likely be rather generic. In any case it's irrelevant, because "simulated" can modify either "boatload" or "Cubans."

No, I wasn't implying "deaths ordinarily expected" in my point. It was meant to explain the fallacy of your argument - that because they specifically mention injuries in one scenario, that the remaining scenarios are harmless because they would have mentioned it otherwise.

Whether intentional or not, that is the implication of your wording. And you are oversimplifying my argument in an attempt to make it appear less credible. To briefly recap: why are the only scenarios you claim intend US casualties sinking or sabotaging a ship in Guantanimo Bay, sinking a "real" boatload of Cuban refugees, or a fake terror campaign? I claim that this is because evacuating the crew/passengers [edit: or detonating a bomb so as to likely cause no casualties] would have been easy enough that they did not warrant discussion. My evidence for this is that the "shot down [edit: or harrassed] fighter/airliner" and "blown up ship at sea near Havana/Santiago" scenarios do not include options to "shoot down a real American airliner" or "blow up a non-drone ship near Havana/Santiago." You evidently feel that these omissions are merely coincidental; I feel that they are evidence of the implicit subtext of a lack of US casualties. The "even to the extent of wounding" phrase, again implying that the expected condition is no one hurt, is further evidence of this subtext.

So when they suggest We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington, they don't mention that injuries could occur because it is "assumed" there wouldn't be any? Is that really your contention? [emphasis original]

Yes it is, for the reasons stated above--in particular the phrase "even to the extent of wounding," which, as noted, clearly implies that no deaths or injuries would be the default expectation.

Naphthalene alone is not used as an incendiary - but it becomes an incendiary when it's mixed with palmitate, and becomes the well known, and brutally lethal incendiary, napalm. [emphasis original]

This still does not require that anyone be aboard the ship when the napalm is ignited.

<snip of totally irrelevant UN resolution passed 11 years after Northwoods memo was written>

The only way I have found that naphthalene becomes an incendiary is when it is used in combination with palmitate to create napalm. Do you know of any other way that naphthalene could be used as an incendiary?

I've never had organic chemistry, so I don't know. But it's not overly relevant to the discussion of the Northwoods memo, as it is possible that some other substance was intended.

[edit: clarity]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I've come across the following two recent excellent articles at aerospaceweb.org that conclusively debunk most conspiracist claims about the engine wreckage and the aircraft's flight profile:

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect

The authors are both experienced aerospace engineers, and the articles contain links to their CVs. Both articles are exceptionally thorough and authoritatative, and even the most die-hard conspiracists will have difficulty handwaving them away. Note that they also correct a couple of errors in catherder's ATS analysis.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

...even the most die-hard conspiracists will have difficulty handwaving them away

I fear that underestimates most die-hard conspiracists. Seriously. There is no amount of evidence contrary to their positions that cannot be handwaived away by some conspiracists.

I know--that's why I said "will have difficulty," rather than "will find it impossible."

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Bleah, you just falling for Government Disinformation, doctored pictures and planted parts. [/handwaving]

Now that wasn't all that difficult.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

If the object is placed above the line demarking the end of the field from the camera POV (as it is where we see it), it would be perfectly normal for that line to be visible.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I'm still waiting for Ian to state his evidence for the white object being AA-77. So far all I've seen from him are total rejection and disagreement to anything else that has been presented, claims that the plane shapped object is an artifact caused by a bow shockwave, suggestions that a whitening sky can make silver metal appear bright white and pointing repeatedly to the "Official" report like it's a magic mantra. Two of those are to me HUGE stretches to invalidate the opposing evidence, and the others are little more than handwaving.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

One does not "sink" people--one "drowns" or "immerses" or "kills" or "wounds" people.

I was pointing out that you forgot part of the plan. You turned "We could sink a (real) boatload of Cubans" into "We could sink a (real) boat". Period.

And, of course, you must continue ignoring the fact that the words "real" and "simulated" cannot modify the word "sink," and must modify either "boatload" or "Cubans." Yet another example of how you must twist the wording of the memo in order to make it appear to mean what you wish it to mean.

I don't ignore that at all. Let's look at the actual sentence, followed by the only two places we can insert the word "real" into it, allowing no other modifications...

Actual sentence...

We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).

Modified version 1:

"We could sink a real boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida"

Modified version 2:

"We could sink a boatload of real Cubans enroute to Florida"

I do get your point, but your point is incorrect, and, as I have stated, requires twisting the wording of the memo. The words "simulated" and "real" can only reasonably be taken to modify "boatload" or "Cubans." So, a Coast Guard cutter's taking a group of "real" Cubans off of their "real" boat and then sinking the boat by gunfire would fit. You are attempting to claim that a "real" sinking would require that the Cubans still be aboard their boat, else the sinking would be simulated. I don't agree with this reasoning, but it's irrelevant anyway, as the word "real" cannot modify the word "sink."

Then let's see you modify the actual sentence, exactly how I did, to fit your scenario. Then we'll talk about twisting the wording!

To briefly recap: why are the only scenarios you claim intend US casualties sinking or sabotaging a ship in Guantanimo Bay, sinking a "real" boatload of Cuban refugees, or a fake terror campaign? I claim that this is because evacuating the crew/passengers [edit: or detonating a bomb so as to likely cause no casualties] would have been easy enough that they did not warrant discussion. My evidence for this is that the "shot down [edit: or harrassed] fighter/airliner" and "blown up ship at sea near Havana/Santiago" scenarios do not include options to "shoot down a real American airliner" or "blow up a non-drone ship near Havana/Santiago."

Two plans below which have real / simulated options....

2. (10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires - napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims
(may be in lieu of (10)).

3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in Cuban
waters...

Plan 2.(11) is the "mock-victims" alternative to 2.(10). Plan 3.(b) is the "unmanned" ship alternative to 3.(b). What do you think has been changed from each of the plans' original option? Maybe "mock-victims" and "unmanned" ship?

You can argue till the cows come home about whether Northwoods called for actual deaths or not, the wording was probably ambigous on purpose. The simple fact that northwoods shows that men at the very top of the US military would support such a duplicitous fake hoistered upon an unsuspecting public to provide cover for an unwarrented, illegal invasion of a soverign nation should remain an acute embarresment, and food for thought for those who blithly claim that no such conpiracies ever happen. Thank God Macnamara kept his copy..

__________________
"Ah go on Ted they have a spider baby"

"How do you know its a baby, does it gurgle or something"

"Er no, they keep it in a pram"

True, but in many ways using that document as some sort of proof that the US government was responsible for killing 3000 innocent people, simply to prop up a scientifically and logically untenable ideologically-driven theory could as well be considered an acute embarrassment.

I agree, there is no provable organic link between Northwoods, and 911. My only point being that conspiracies, or in this case, would be conspiracies do, in fact take place from time to time, and if "Mac" had not kept his copy this document would have been, at best, an unprovable C/T...

__________________
"Ah go on Ted they have a spider baby"

"How do you know its a baby, does it gurgle or something"

"Er no, they keep it in a pram"

I was pointing out that you forgot part of the plan. You turned "We could sink a (real) boatload of Cubans" into "We could sink a (real) boat". Period.

Straw man. You are merely proclaiming that to be what I meant in an attempt to make my argument appear weaker. What I meant is that removing the real refugees from a real refugee boat right before it is sunk does not instantly convert the boat into a simulated refugee boat; neither does it instantly convert the refugees into simulated Cubans.

I don't ignore that at all. Let's look at the actual sentence, followed by the only two places we can insert the word "real" into it, allowing no other modifications...

Actual sentence...

We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).

Modified version 1:

"We could sink a real boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida"

Modified version 2:

"We could sink a boatload of real Cubans enroute to Florida" [emphasis original]

See above.

Then let's see you modify the actual sentence, exactly how I did, to fit your scenario. Then we'll talk about twisting the wording!

I claim that my Coast Guard cutter scenario fits either of your modified versions.

What is changed in scenario 2 is going from "sabotage" to "sinking." Positioning a number of 55 gal. drums of napalm or gasoline on the fo'c's'le of a US Navy cargo vessel and igniting them would have created a spectacular fire. Done with the ship at maximum watertight integrity and the crew all safely aft with firefighting equipment at the ready, this would have posed a relatively small risk of serious damage or injury. The risk could have been reduced even more had one or two nearby destroyers with steam raised been "conveniently" available to assist the "stricken" ship. Again you just assume, because it suits your purpose, and with no evidence other than attempted hair-splitting, that real casualties are intended in the sabotage option.

What is changed in scenario 3 is blowing up the ship in Guantanimo Bay (crew easily evacuated ahead of time) to blowing up the ship in Cuban waters near a major city (requires that ship be a drone to avoid casualties). Again, you have utterly failed to explain why there is no option to blow up a "real" ship near a Cuban city, which would require a real rescue operation (presumably more desirable than a fake one) provide real casualties (which you claim are more desirable than fake ones) and would not require the delay and inconvenience incident to the preparation of a drone ship.

As usual, you didn't actually answer my question; you merely repeated your original claim, as if your doing so somehow strengthened it.

Finally, for the last time, please discuss your understanding of the burden of proof of extraordinary claims in general, and of conspiracy claims in particular. I decline to respond to any further posts of yours on the Northwoods memo until you have made a good-faith effort to do so.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

But its their job to come up with plans like that. If tyhey are doing their jobs right they will have plans for every situation

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Possibly, but in this case I fear they had a bit too much time on their hands

What a morally bankrupt reply. These people planned the illegal, and unwarrented invasion of a soverign country, by highly dubious, and dangerous methods. and were quite willing to hoodwink the American public to achieve their ends. and according to you this is just business as usual. Shame.

__________________
"Ah go on Ted they have a spider baby"

"How do you know its a baby, does it gurgle or something"

"Er no, they keep it in a pram"

Err... The problem with using Project Northwoods as proof that conspiracies do happen is that, well... it didn't happen (meaning: it wasn't carried out).

Watergate and the sinking of that Greenpeace ship (can't remember the name - something with "Rainbow" in it?) are far better examples of real conspiracies. Even then you have the problem that neither of them were justifications for invading another country and that they were found out rather quickly.

The Greenpeace Ship was named Rainbow Warrior (I).

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

And look at how fast the NZ police unravelled Operation Satanic. They had two of them in custody in NZ and the rest being held in Neuma. The only shame was that they couldn't legally hold the crew in Neuma long enough to get the final evidence needed for return to NZ and had to let them go.

Well that and then France threaten to force a European boycott of NZ products if they didn't release the ones they had. People think the US is bad, France is 10x worse.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I wouldn't go comparing countries like that, certainly not on this board. If only because it forces people to talk in huge generalisations.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Three points. First, the United States did not recognize the government of Fidel Castro as legitimate, as Castro had recently overthrown the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, who had been friendly to the United States. Second, Operation Northwoods was primarily designed to fool the international community in order to avoid giving the Soviet Union a pretext to intervene in a US invasion of Cuba. Third, you are grossly oversimplifying the issues involved. See my replies to turbonium for more on these points.
.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

What I meant is that removing the real refugees from a real refugee boat right before it is sunk does not instantly convert the boat into a simulated refugee boat; neither does it instantly convert the refugees into simulated Cubans.

It does indeed make the event a simulation. If an actual boatload of actual refugees is not sunk, then the event is not "real". They don't say "We could sink a boat after we remove the refugees".

I claim that my Coast Guard cutter scenario fits either of your modified versions.

Then back up your claim and put it into a sentence.

What is changed in scenario 2 is going from "sabotage" to "sinking."

And "mock-victims" have been added to the second option.

Positioning a number of 55 gal. drums of napalm or gasoline on the fo'c's'le of a US Navy cargo vessel and igniting them would have created a spectacular fire. Done with the ship at maximum watertight integrity and the crew all safely aft with firefighting equipment at the ready, this would have posed a relatively small risk of serious damage or injury. The risk could have been reduced even more had one or two nearby destroyers with steam raised been "conveniently" available to assist the "stricken" ship. Again you just assume, because it suits your purpose, and with no evidence other than attempted hair-splitting, that real casualties are intended in the sabotage option.

"Large fires" and napthalene are in the plan, and it's some sort of far-fetched notion that there would be, or quite likely to be, casualties - only imagined because it suits my purpose? So a headline in the NY Times reads: Ship Sabotaged in Harbor - Large Fires People thinking that there are injuries or casualties based on that headline are therefore jumping to absurd conclusions because it suits their purpose to do so.......

What is changed in scenario 3 is blowing up the ship in Guantanimo Bay (crew easily evacuated ahead of time) to blowing up the ship in Cuban waters near a major city (requires that ship be a drone to avoid casualties).

Blowing up a ship whose crew is evacuated beforehand is blowing up an unmanned ship!

Again, you have utterly failed to explain why there is no option to blow up a "real" ship near a Cuban city, which would require a real rescue operation (presumably more desirable than a fake one) provide real casualties (which you claim are more desirable than fake ones) and would not require the delay and inconvenience incident to the preparation of a drone ship.

Well, the option "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba" does meet those requirements.

As usual, you didn't actually answer my question; you merely repeated your original claim, as if your doing so somehow strengthened it.

I'm trying to get my points across, but it's only more

Finally, for the last time, please discuss your understanding of the burden of proof of extraordinary claims in general, and of conspiracy claims in particular. I decline to respond to any further posts of yours on the Northwoods memo until you have made a good-faith effort to do so.

I assume you mean the saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"? And that the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim? I certainly do understand these statements, and I concur that they are valid axioms.

As to "conspiracy" claims being the de facto extraordinary claims compared to the "official" claims, I beg to differ. 9/11, JFK and many other "official" versions of events contain many extraordinary claims that have not been supported with extraordinary proof. The burden of proof is on the Gov't to support their extraordinary claims of the 19 hijackers, the SBT, and so on. Not only do they lack extraordinary proof, they lack the most basic proof.

Err... The problem with using Project Northwoods as proof that conspiracies do happen is that, well... it didn't happen (meaning: it wasn't carried out).

Watergate and the sinking of that Greenpeace ship (can't remember the name - something with "Rainbow" in it?) are far better examples of real conspiracies. Even then you have the problem that neither of them were justifications for invading another country and that they were found out rather quickly.

We have the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a real conspiracy used to justify an attack on another country. We only found out about that one fairly recently, and still not in its entirety..

Define "fairly recently"--would you be surprised to know that I have a book that's roughly ten years old, which itself cites older works that document what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin?

Provide sources to show that we still haven't found out everything that happened there.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Planners pla. There apre prob plans somewhere to overthrow every govt on the planet if needed. If you are a pro military planner you spend all day planning. What elese are you going to do?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The Pentagon has plans for the invasion of Britain in it. Might sound strange, but would have been useful had Britain fallen in WW2.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran