12 replies to this topic

[Jackofalltrades]

Quote

"Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated in 1962 within the United States government, and which the Kennedy administration rejected. ^[2] The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.^[3] One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

Quoted from here  http://en.wikipedia....tion_Northwoods

Operation Northwoods is (supposedly) a Conspiracy Theory turned into Conspiracy fact

Due to not knowing of this until today and knowing very little about it I was wondering if anyone else has heard of it or knows more about it

If it is a Fact and not a Theory, then what is there to stop the government from doing the same thing again, that is if they have not already done so ?

[Babe Ruth]

Northwoods never actually happened.

However it was planned for.  The planning was discovered by accident in some trivial error by the government, kinda like US v Reynolds.

The plans included tricked out airplanes, and all sorts of other deceptive moves.  Deception is a valid concept in military planning.

[booNyzarC]

Jackofalltrades, on 02 September 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Quoted from here  http://en.wikipedia....tion_Northwoods

Operation Northwoods is (supposedly) a Conspiracy Theory turned into Conspiracy fact

Due to not knowing of this until today and knowing very little about it I was wondering if anyone else has heard of it or knows more about it

If it is a Fact and not a Theory, then what is there to stop the government from doing the same thing again, that is if they have not already done so ?

A conspiracy theory turned into conspiracy fact?

That implies that someone theorized about its existence before the document in question was released to verify said theory...

Would you be so kind as to point us to when it was a conspiracy theory and who specifically theorized about it prior to the release of the document?


There is no question at this point that it was a plan and that it was proposed as a possible false flag operation, but that doesn't mean it was a conspiracy theory.

Do you understand the distinction?

[Jackofalltrades]

booNyzarC, on 02 September 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

A conspiracy theory turned into conspiracy fact?

That implies that someone theorized about its existence before the document in question was released to verify said theory...

Would you be so kind as to point us to when it was a conspiracy theory and who specifically theorized about it prior to the release of the document?


There is no question at this point that it was a plan and that it was proposed as a possible false flag operation, but that doesn't mean it was a conspiracy theory.

Do you understand the distinction?

That was the whole point of my OP was to find more information about it, as I said in my OP it was the first time I have heard of it

The sites that I seen it on it was classed as a CT turned CF, due to not hearing of it before that is the reason I put supposedly in brackets in my OP as I myself was unsure if it was true or not

Yes I do understand the distinction, I am NOT stupid

[booNyzarC]

Jackofalltrades, on 02 September 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

That was the whole point of my OP was to find more information about it, as I said in my OP it was the first time I have heard of it

The sites that I seen it on it was classed as a CT turned CF, due to not hearing of it before that is the reason I put supposedly in brackets in my OP as I myself was unsure if it was true or not

Yes I do understand the distinction, I am NOT stupid

Easy there Jack, I'm not calling you stupid.

Thank you for clarifying your inclusion of the parenthetical supposedly, I appreciate it.

The reason that I raised the question in the first place is to make a very specific point.  What point is that?  Thanks for asking.

Conspiracy theorists often like to try to validate their theorizing ways by pointing at things which were supposedly 'proven' conspiracy theories.  This Operation Northwoods is one of those things that some of them point to.  In reality, Operation Northwoods was an actual conspiracy, but was never (to my current knowledge) a conspiracy theory.  As such, it doesn't legitimize conspiracy theories, but it does indeed confirm that conspiracies have taken place.

But of course conspiracies have taken place.  I'm sure it happens all the time, and has happened throughout history.  That doesn't mean that any given conspiracy theory is valid though.  And this is a very important thing to keep in mind when you are traversing the overabundance of theories that are out there.

Thanks Jack, and Cheers.  

[Jackofalltrades]

booNyzarC, on 02 September 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

Easy there Jack, I'm not calling you stupid.

Thank you for clarifying your inclusion of the parenthetical supposedly, I appreciate it.

The reason that I raised the question in the first place is to make a very specific point.  What point is that?  Thanks for asking.

Conspiracy theorists often like to try to validate their theorizing ways by pointing at things which were supposedly 'proven' conspiracy theories.  This Operation Northwoods is one of those things that some of them point to.  In reality, Operation Northwoods was an actual conspiracy, but was never (to my current knowledge) a conspiracy theory.  As such, it doesn't legitimize conspiracy theories, but it does indeed confirm that conspiracies have taken place.

But of course conspiracies have taken place.  I'm sure it happens all the time, and has happened throughout history.  That doesn't mean that any given conspiracy theory is valid though.  And this is a very important thing to keep in mind when you are traversing the overabundance of theories that are out there.

Thanks Jack, and Cheers.  

Sorry I apologise, I probably got the wrong end of the stick or read it wrong or both LOL, been a bad day

[booNyzarC]

Jackofalltrades, on 03 September 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

Sorry I apologise, I probably got the wrong end of the stick or read it wrong or both LOL, been a bad day

No worries Jack, I hope your day turns around.

[Q24]

Jackofalltrades, on 02 September 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Quoted from here  http://en.wikipedia....tion_Northwoods

Operation Northwoods is (supposedly) a Conspiracy Theory turned into Conspiracy fact

Due to not knowing of this until today and knowing very little about it I was wondering if anyone else has heard of it or knows more about it

If it is a Fact and not a Theory, then what is there to stop the government from doing the same thing again, that is if they have not already done so ?

Aha Northwoods, one of my favourite nuggets of curiosity - see my avatar and signature block.  

First I'm glad that you came across the document - a very revealing record of what military minds in positions of power are capable of. If you want to see another example of such false flag planning (and which actually went ahead) then take a look at Operation Himmler which worked to the same basis as Northwoods of self-inflicted attacks and kicked-off WW2. Or even Operation Ajax, which whilst of a different nature, is still a U.S. government sponsored covert operation that is root cause of the present day conflict with Iran. There are a few other covert operations which are interesting to note, a number of which remained off the record for decades.

Yes Northwoods could only have developed into a conspiracy theory had the operation been implemented and left behind evidence or information black holes in the official story that could be later questioned... such as motive and benefit of the countries involved... the lack of aircraft identification that would have existed... the possible detainment of U.S. friendly operatives in connection to the attacks... etc...

It would have been a reflection of the 9/11 situation that we currently have.

But of course that did not develop, because after the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the plan, Kennedy rejected the proposal - I do wonder if the much debated assassination that followed had any link to this type of decision. I also wonder how later administrations might have reacted in Kennedy's place... it took me all of 3 seconds musing to conclude that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al would have bitten Lemnitzer's hand off... whoopee an excuse for a war!

The only way to ensure such false flag or questionable covert operations cannot be implemented, is for the people to keep a watch on their government and vote with care. The safe option this time around for the U.S. was the non-interventionist Ron Paul... but the media, voting system and public altogether really screwed up on that one. I'd suggest another term with Obama is now mildly safer than to allow any of the hawkish Bush administration legacy to get their hands on power.

Anyway, what do you think of it all, Jack?

[Babe Ruth]

Excellent analysis Q, as usual.

Jack, one could not pick a better source of knowledge regarding Northwoods than Q24.  He is most informed.

Boo

As prosecutors say, there were no overt acts regarding the conspiracy, but the conspiracy itself did exist.  I can't remember if the overt act is required for prosecution?

Northwood 'ligitimized' the theory some held that the federal government was not above using deception to manipulate the public perception.  So too Reynolds v. U.S. if you're interested.

Theories of any sort are just that, but behavioral history is another matter.  Proven behavior v. theory?

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 03 September 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Yes Northwoods could only have developed into a conspiracy theory had the operation been implemented and left behind evidence or information black holes in the official story that could be later questioned... such as motive and benefit of the countries involved... the lack of aircraft identification that would have existed...

Evidence on aircraft identification was located at the Pentagon on aircraft wreckage, and if investigators wanted further confirmation, all they had to do was to ask American Airlines. After all, American Airlines did confirm the loss of American 77.

We can also look at the fleet history of American Airlines to determine what happened to the airframe of American 77.

You will notice from this link regarding the fleet of American Airlines, it has written-off two B-767s and two B-757s.

http://www.planespot...erican-Airlines

Now, we can go here to identifiy the B-757s that were written-off, and you will notice that one of the registration numbers belonged to the airframe of American 77.

American Airlines, B-757, N644AA

http://www.planespot...2&fleetStatus=8

This link will tell you why that aircraft was written-off.

http://www.planespot...an-Airlines.php


Next, we can go here to identify the two B-767s that were written-off from the fleet of American Airlines and you will notice that one of the registration numbers belonged to the airframe of American 11, the aircraft that struck WTC1.

American Airlines, B-767, N334AA

http://www.planespot...2&fleetStatus=8

This link will tell you why that aircraft was written-off.

http://www.planespot...an-Airlines.php


Further confirmation on the loss of American 11 and American 77 can be found at these two links and you will notice that in each case, the aircraft were listed as "destroyed."


Federal Aviation Adminstration (FAA)

http://registry.faa....Numbertxt=644AA

http://registry.faa....Numbertxt=334AA

Quote

the possible detainment of U.S. friendly operatives in connection to the attacks... etc...

You threw in 5 Israelis, who were later found innocent in regards to the 9/11 attacks and later, there were released from custody, but you were also unaware that Israel was one of a number of countries around the world that warned the United States of an imminent attack by Muslim terrorist.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 September 2012 - 08:04 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Northwoods is very simply government deception.  Planned, but never executed, government deception of the public so that an agenda might be reached.

It is simply one element of a very long string of acts establishing a pattern of behavior by the government, and that pattern of behavior is deception and fraud.

From AT&Treason to Union Carbide to virtually all of the oil companies, corporations ALSO deceive and make false statements. Whether corporations deceive more commonly than the government does is another matter, but Sky's assertion that just because Corp A says thus and so, does not make it so.  It took United 4 years to deregister the airplane that was supposedly Flight 93.

Government deceives as it pleases, and the record is clear on that.  Northwoods is simply one more piece of circumstantial evidence on the very large pile of examples of government deception.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 04 September 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

From AT&Treason to Union Carbide to virtually all of the oil companies, corporations ALSO deceive and make false statements. Whether corporations deceive more commonly than the government does is another matter, but Sky's assertion that just because Corp A says thus and so, does not make it so.  It took United 4 years to deregister the airplane that was supposedly Flight 93.

For the record, are you claiming that American Airlines, and the families of the crew and passengers of American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175, were in on a government 9/11 conspiracy?

As far as deregistering an aircraft, what is the problem??? In some cases, it took the FAA years to deregister an aircraft as was the case with the airframe of Continental Airlines, Flight 1713, which crashed in a snowstorm in November 1987 and yet, its registration number remained active up to September 2007.

The FAA is not known for getting things done in a speedy manner, but it seems that you are unaware of the way things are done in the world of aviation.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 September 2012 - 02:17 PM.

[Jackofalltrades]

Q24, on 03 September 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Anyway, what do you think of it all, Jack?

The more I seem to dig deeper the more it seems that certain little bit's of information seem to start to intertwine/connect (similiar to a jigsaw puzzle) into a bigger picture

I think that the government probably could easily do what was stated in the northwoods document if they have not done so far

From what I read on Northwood's it did remind me of 9/11 in a lot of ways, I am not stating that 9/11 was a false flag, but that it is a possibility

While I was on the site where I heard of Northwoods, there was other articles that I have not heard of either, but for some reason this one stood out like a sore thumb

As I stated in my original post, there is not a lot that I know of Operation Northwoods, but I will be reading up more on it, starting with Your signature block

as I am really interested in getting to the truth or at least trying to

I do know that governments do not always have the people's interests at heart, they may say they do but I doubt it TBH