It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

aLEX jONES LIES ABOUT Operation Northwoods.

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You should already know the answer to that question. The president can do whatever the other two branches of gov't will allow the president to do.


Our intelligence agencies and military don't really fall directly under ANY branch of government. I have seen the CIA alone defy both Congress and executives requesting certain information from them. Our military and intelligence agencies look out for themselves just as often as they listen to anyone else, and are pretty much in the same boat as the president: they can and will do whatever they can get away with.




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The author doesn't go into details how the operation would have been done so I can't say what they had in mind...


Then don't make claims like this, as though you're more in tune with it than anyone else...


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...but it was designed to NOT get any innocent people killed.


That's all I'm saying, Dave. If you don't know, then it's a hard claim to support, particularly given the 'real or simulated' quote from the text. You were making that statement to prove someone else's opinion of Northwoods wrong, but now you're saying that you don't know what they had in mind...


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Innuendo of illicit gov't dealings is still nothing but innuendo, and is not proof of anything other than of a predetermined desire to link A to B. I know I've told you that before.


You have, but I'm assuming that you agree that the $46 trillion in oil and 236 trillion cubic feet in natural gas WERE big enough carrots to make the notion of an event like 9/11 a 'goal-driven event'?

Also, have a quick read of this article. I know you think every time I bring up the heroin trade, it's nothing but innuendo, but regardless of its political slant, this is the closest thing to what I saw in Afghanistan during my two trips that I've seen reported.

Rew



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
It does talk about using remote controlled planes or "drones" as they are referred to, and staging it crashing full of college students and blaming cuba. This may be obvious and Im not trying to be rude but the best thing for you to do is read it yourself. Its full of all kinds of devious little schemes to give us an excuse to invade cuba. If anything its a very interesting read and then you'll know for yourself and not have to take our word for it. Just print it out, get a highlighter and start reading and highlight sections as you go. Then you'll have a copy ready to wake people up with and go straight to the good stuff!



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I wonder if any of the Joint Chiefs responsible for the Northwoods document were even reprimanded? Would be easy and quick to find out, wouldn't it?


I'm thinking, "being sacked" is a pretty good way to let someone know they're being repremanded.


I can think of multiple solutions to this problem, which is what someone responsible for doing this would no doubt do. One of the most obvious and elegant solutions to this problem is to get jihadist Muslims to do it, tell them exactly what they are doing, then kill them after they've done it. It's not as if there isn't a precedent for CIA and FBI working with terrorist cells. Look at what happened around the 1993 bombing for example.


You've got to be kidding me. Muslims don't walk around with JIHADIST on their foreheads. Jihadists are mostly scorned by the rank and file muslims becuase they're killers of innocent people, after all, so they try to stay anonymous. How the heck could anyone seek out and find a) genuine jihadists b) who wouldn't stand out like a sore thumb in the west c) who'd actually go along with the idea d) in the numbers they needed who were e) skilled in the science of controlled demolitions, f) without attracting a hell of a lot of attention? For every one they find, they'd have to go through a hundred who'd turn them down.

Besides, how many islamic jihadists are there who are skilled in the science of controlled demolitions, anyway? They're not going to allow any old sheep farmer carry around explosives, you know.


Your creativity and ability to work around obstacles only goes so far, apparently.


Nah, that's not it. I simply prefer to believe in what the facts actually can show and support, rather than make up fanciful scenarios based upon nothing but a vivid imagination and abject paranoia.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'm thinking, "being sacked" is a pretty good way to let someone know they're being repremanded.


He wasn't "sacked." He was moved (some months after this proposal) from Joint Chiefs to head of US forces in Europe and then head of NATO forces the next year. Hardly appropriate actions for someone trying to accomplish such a thing as Northwoods.


You've got to be kidding me. Muslims don't walk around with JIHADIST on their foreheads. Jihadists are mostly scorned by the rank and file muslims becuase they're killers of innocent people, after all, so they try to stay anonymous.


Yeah, right. You are so naive. I just told you that the FBI worked with extremist Muslim cells around the 1993 bombing. Go educate yourself about that. Or the Brits in Afghanistan being recently caught covertly building bases for Taliban in an effort to get them to 'switch sides', allegedly. Or even earlier testimony from years ago that 'al Qaeda', literally "the base," is really a database of Muslim extremists that the US and other allied intelligence keeps tabs on.


Besides, how many islamic jihadists are there who are skilled in the science of controlled demolitions, anyway?


Dave, you give them the bomb, and tell them to plant it. That's exactly what the FBI did at the 1993 WTC bombing. The FBI supposedly were trying to set up this extremist cell with a fake bomb and arrest them for terrorist activities.


In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. He secretly recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers.[23]


en.wikipedia.org...-22

www.nytimes.com...

They let this guy live and he ratted on the FBI in court. So next time? You just kill him and anyone else that would know anything about it afterward. Or find some other way to keep them quiet. This is a learning process for them, too.



They're not going to allow any old sheep farmer carry around explosives, you know.


I know. You're the one that seems to not be getting the picture here.

You know there WAS a Middle-Eastern man messing around in the basements of the WTC just days before 9/11, with a fake security pass, right? Tell me "no" so I can fill you in.


Nah, that's not it. I simply prefer to believe in what the facts actually can show and support, rather than make up fanciful scenarios based upon nothing but a vivid imagination and abject paranoia.


Too bad I didn't make any of this up, and it's already well-documented that various departments/agencies of the US have worked with Muslim extremists over the past few decades and continue to do so to this day.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by beard
From a truther perspective. If Alex has lied about this what else has he lied about?


your full of ____. im getting pretty sick of your threads. you have nothing yo add, and rather than pointing out what a sick "operation" it is your trying to beat down a man trying to show how messed up it is? maybe he stretched it a bit far but northwoods does mention destroying a plane.. hijacking and then destroying with mock passangers i believe.

as mentioned before, your full of _ _ _ _. your hear possibly being paid to spread your b/s. do some research , if you had you would see this thread was pointless



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by srslyguyz
 


Agreed, mis-interpreting the Northwoods documents is not nearly as bad as what is actually in the Northwoods documents.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by TrueTruth

Or, check out this interview with former senator Norman Dodd, who worked with the Reese committee, which was a senate investigation into the activities on not for profit foundation such as the Carnegie Foundation, which to repeat a theme, openly spoke of dissolving America's national sovereignty in the effort to form a global government...and their effort to use war as a catalyst for said change.



Good grief, you can't be serious. Of *course* Congress investigated non-profit institutions for un-American activities. During the Red scare *everyone* was being investigated for un-American activities at that time, specifically for activities that usurped national sovereignty in favor of socialism. The Reece Committee report was written in 1954, in the middle of the Red scare, and even two of the committees own members stated the commission showed a hatred of non-profit institutions that "bordered on the pathological". WHO was the lead investigator who was "so sure" that non-profit organizations were part of a Communist plot? Norman Dodd, the very guy you're quoting.

The Reece Committee


You know, I never realized it before, but the similarities between unrealistically paranoid people back in 1954 who are "so sure" there's evidence of international Communist plots out there somewhere, and unrealistically paranoid people who are "so sure" today there's evidence of a 9/11 inside job out there somewhere, are too obvious to ignore. I thank you for posting this, becuase all you wound up doing is proving my original statement that these damned fool conspiracy web sites are deliberately getting people all paranoid over shadows was correct after all.




Well, I can tell by your response you don't know or care about the findings of the investigation. If you had bothered to check, it's unambiguously written in the minutes of their opening meetings, wherein the goals were explicitly discussed. And you know what? Nothing happened - because technically, they weren't breaking any laws. But in no uncertain terms, the plan was to subvert US national sovereignty. You really ought to read the things you poo poo before you excrete on them.

Sure, it's easier to try to just attack the source, but that's just a lame cheap trick.

You also ignored the other sources I gave you.

You're not even attempting to be intellectually honest.

Get back to me when you've actually gone over the sources I served to you on a silver platter.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join