UT professors agree 9/11 Massacres were an Inside Job

Seminar on science of Trade Center disasters raises questions

by Perla Trevizo
Chattanooga Times Free Press
November 16th, 2011

CHATTANOOGA, TENN. -- Questions should be asked about the science behind the falling of the World Trade Center buildings 10 years ago, panelists agreed Tuesday night.

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga hosted the event, "The Science of 9/11," which began with a moment of silence for the families who lost loved ones.

The discussion "is an opportunity to illustrate the application of the scientific method to a real life event that most Americans remember exactly where they were," said UTC professor of anthropology Lyn Miles, one of the event's coordinators.


Thermite lava at WTC on 9/11 is a standard tool of arsonists

There are also more than 1,500 architects and engineers who have raised scientific questions over the collapse of the World Trade Center and are calling for a full investigation of 9/11, and it's worthwhile to discuss why, she added.

The school showed the documentary Architects & Engineers 9/11 Truth, also the name of the nonprofit that says the collapse of the buildings was not caused by the impact of the planes but by explosives or controlled demolition.



Close to 300 people attended the event, many university students, who often cheered the comments made from one of the panelists, David Johnson, a University of Tennessee at Knoxville urban planning professor emeritus and urban engineering expert, who also calls for a new investigation of what happened on that day when almost 3,000 people were killed.

"We need a citizens' initiative to ask for an investigation. We need other kinds of efforts to ask the academic and legislative world for hearings that are authentic and that we can respect and settle this and bring us to some closure," he said.

Jim Hall, former director of the National Transportation Safety Board and leading expert on transportation safety and security, agrees.

"As a nation, we have to be very careful not to overclassify information that we the taxpayers are paying for. We need to be sure as these investigations proceed, so the American people and those individuals who lost loved ones have confidence in the integrity of the investigation," he told the crowd to applause.


Weeks after 9/11 molten steel was still seen at World Trade Center

There were a few instances when self-described "truthers" rebutted comments from panelists, especially from Erwin Foster, UTC College of Engineering professor emeritus, civil engineer and forensic investigator, who provided a lot of the scientific explanation. But moderator Richard Winham was quick to emphasize the discussion was not about conspiracy theories but about science.

The documentary showed the testimony of experts ranging from chemical and structural engineers to physicists and architects talking about why the official findings are flawed.

The official finding was that the fires weakened the structures, leading to the collapses.


Melted steel column from WTC resolidified into a blob

One argument in the documentary was the speed at which tower seven, the 47-story high-rise across Vesey Street collapsed in less than seven seconds.

But Foster said there were a lot of "half truths."

"My philosophy is that everybody ought to ask questions and ought to keep asking questions," he said.

Foster added he was impressed by the number of half-truths about the temperature of steel and how it wouldn't melt and the lack of mention about the beams in the building being very flexible.

"There are a lot of mathematics and dynamics going on here that we don't have any experience on whatsoever," he added.

One of the earliest casualties of 9/11 was the truth, said Tom Junod, an Esquire magazine journalist who interviewed families and survivors to determine the identity of the famous falling man -- a man photographed falling from one of the buildings.

The picture of the falling man immediately was suppressed, he said. The official explanation was that nobody jumped from the buildings, but families were desperate to learn the truth.


Molten steel and Thermite lava falling from World Trade Center

Rorie Jones, 19, attended the panel discussion to get extra credit and write a paper about it for her sociology class.

When the freshman entered the auditorium at the University Center, she didn't have an opinion on the matter. When she left, she only had more questions.


Molten steel at WTC with diagonal cutter charges in bottom floors

"It brought up points I hadn't thought about before, like the physical aspects of how the buildings collapsed," she said.

"It makes you think," she added, "but in order to come up with any conclusions we have to remove our emotions."


HISTORY CHANNEL WRECKING BALL and PBS TV AMERICA REBUILDS Summer of 2001 - UT Knoxville's Loizeaux family at CONTROLLED DEMOLITION INC show how to bomb the World Trade Center using military RDX Royal Demolition Explosive shape CUTTER charges set at a diagonal angle. CDI was paid $3-billion government contract to "demolish" the World Trade Center "after" 9/11 along with Knoxville's BFI Browning Ferris Industries. Steel from WTC was melted down in Knoxvilel to destroy the evidence of Thermite and otehr explosives.

ABOUT AE: 911Truth

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the collapses of the three World Trade Center high-rises on Sept. 11, 2001.

The group believes there is sufficient evidence to conclude that three World Trade Center buildings No. 1 (North Tower), No. 2 (South Tower), and No. 7 (the 47-story high-rise across Vesey Street) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives.



Comments

I am very pleased the University (and the paper) are bringing up these questions. The physics of the destruction of those three sky-scrapers needs to be determined, as the official explanation, as we have seen, cannot be true. The facts alone should tell the story, with no need for political spin, or a refusal to face facts.

I was disappointed to see that a professor of such high standing as Erwin Foster, even after viewing the video and getting numerous questions from the audience, wouldn't budge on his stance that the actual planes brought down the towers! There were at least a couple of questions (one being: "Why there was molten iron still evident up to 3-months after the tragedy?") that Dr. Foster, himself, said he had no answer for these questions. Well, what makes him think that his hypothesis holds any validity if he cannot explain ALL the aspects and answer ALL the questions of the destruction of the towers?

"The FBI has issued a BOLO on suspected terrorists driving a white delivery van from New York City to the Mexican border. The suspects are using Israeli passports. They are armed and dangerous."
-Knox County TN Emergency 911 Dispatch, Sept 11, 2001, 11am EST

"The ruins of the Oklahoma City federal building, ripped open by a bomb and left tottering precariously until the dead were removed, are etched in the American mind. When the signal finally came to destroy the remains of the building, a UTK alumnus' company did the job. Controlled Demolition Inc. collapsed the Murrah Building with less than 100 pounds of dynamite placed strategically at 200 points in the superstructure. The job was typical of the delicate, dangerous work Mark Loizeaux (Knoxville '71), his brother Doug, and their father, John D., do. The federal building demolition was more dangerous than most of Controlled Demolition's jobs because the remains were so unstable. The company's workers partially rebuilt some areas of the building to help control the collapse. And unlike the April 19 bomb blast that shattered windows a mile away, the demolition operation barely vibrated nearby buildings. John D. founded CDI in the late 1940s. In 1960, at age 11, Mark began learning the business from his father and eight years later became the nation's youngest blaster. When John D. was injured in an accident, 18-year-old Mark interrupted his pursuit of an architecture degree at UTK and returned home to run the family business. After his father recovered, Mark re-enrolled, this time majoring in business. Soon after he graduated, he became president of CDI. Mark supervises the company's contracts, insurance, and engineering and takes charge of some field operations. His brother, Doug, is vice president responsible for field operations and personnel. He personally packed explosives in the Oklahoma City federal building. Stacey Loizeaux, Mark's daughter, is a licensed blaster and frequently a project manager. She was born in Knoxville while her dad attended UTK. CDI has brought down many well known structures including the Dunes Hotel in Las Vegas and the Andrew Jackson in Nashville. The Sheikh A. Akakl Center in Saudi Arabia, part of which collapsed during construction, was another of CDI's big blows. A company brochure says CDI brought down the remainder of the building without damaging facilities just two feet away on two sides."
—University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee Alumnus magazine, Good Out Of Evil -- Complete Collapse, Fall 1995

---

From JFK to Sept. 11, conspiracy theories thrive

By TAMARA LUSH
Cattanooga Times Free Press
August 12th, 2011

DALLAS, TEXAS — In Dealey Plaza, with the white “X” painted on the spot where President Kennedy was assassinated, ask anyone about the grassy knoll and the second gunman.

Conspiracy theories come with the territory here. And at Barbec’s Restaurant on the other side of this sprawling city, six men sit on a covered porch and convene a meeting of the North Texans for 9/11 Truth group and talk about the government’s lies about 9/11.

The group has 50 active members; 200 on the mailing list. And they number among many thousands who, after years of investigations, don’t believe the official version of how the World Trade Center collapsed, who was responsible or what the government knew and when.

Politics doesn’t have anything to do with it; two were once staunch, Bush-voting conservatives; two are progressives and two weren’t even interested in current events until after the 2001 attacks.

“Before 9/11, I was a working class person, going through life, pretty much accepting everything given and told to me,” said Bryan Black, a 50-year-old carpenter from Commerce, Texas, “I’m starting to see things. I’m more open to skeptical conversation.”

The skeptics — they prefer the term “9/11 truth activists” instead of “truthers” — have persisted, even thrived in the decade since 2001, with proponents from former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel to comedian Rosie O’Donnell. And unlike the years that Kennedy assassination conspiracies took to develop, they have mobilized with lightning-like speed on the Internet, with YouTube videos of the trade center collapsing again and again.

“There’s really a foundation of reality here,” said Ted Walter, who has worked unsuccessfully to prod New York City officials into reopening an investigation of how 7 World Trade Center collapsed on the afternoon of Sept 11. “We believe that if all of the American public saw footage of building 7 on the nightly news, it would lead to widespread skepticism of 9/11.”

For many, conspiracy theories aren’t terrifying; they’re more comforting than the idea that an event as terrifying as Sept. 11 could be so — random.


Click for larger image

Conspiracies can be a “security blanket” for explaining away the horrific, asserts Patrick Leman, a University of London professor who researches 9/11 theories. “It stops us from having to confront the unpredictability of life.”

Jonathan Kay, a columnist with the Canadian newspaper The National Post and the author of a book about conspiracy theories, said it’s normal for people to seek out complicated and detailed explanations of big events.

“There is something in the human mind that rebels against the idea of random forces or individuals being able to bring down powerful people or powerful icons,” said Kay.

There’s no real estimate of the numbers of people in the 9/11 “truth” movements — there’s no one leader of the skeptics. A group called Remember Building 7 presented New York’s City Council with a petition in 2009 signed by 80,000 people calling for an independent probe into the attacks. Other groups include Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and the 9/11 Commission Campaign, founded by Gravel.

The “truthers” generally have about a dozen beliefs surrounding what happened on that day, although there are some variations on who was responsible for the attacks and why:

— Explosives brought down the World Trade Center, not hijacked jetliners.

— There were warnings of the impending attacks from 11 different countries, and fighter jets could have intercepted at least one of the four planes that day.

— Criminal conspiracies within the government caused the attacks.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a probe that took six years to complete of the tower collapses; the last report found that fire caused the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, a skyscraper north of the twin towers. In the collapses of the twin towers, the agency found that extreme heat from the jetliner crashes caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures in the building until the entire structure succumbed.

The investigation “was the most comprehensive examination of a structural failure ever conducted,” said Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the collapse investigation and led to 40 building code changes to make safer, terror-proof skyscrapers. NIST maintains a website with its reports and computer-based animations that reconstruct its findings to reach out to the public.


Usama Bin Laden and his brothers and sister Bin Ladens terrorizing New York City. Usama Bin Laden was never indicted for 9/11 and was not on the FBI's Most Wanted list for 9/11. US Supreme Court ordered it was illegal to sue the Bin Ladens for 9/11. Usama Bin Ladens brothers were in business with the George Bush family in Arbusto Oil and Carlyle Group. The Bin Ladens were eating lunch at Carlyle Group with George Bush Sr in Washington DC on 9/11/2001.

Sunder acknowledges it hasn’t reached everyone.

“We really can’t explain why some people question our findings about the WTC collapses when we have done our best to present those findings and how they were derived as clearly as possible,” Sunder wrote in an e-mail.

It begs the question: why is there such a distrust of government when it comes to 9/11? Is it due to feeling alienated from our fractured political system, a bad economy, or something else?

For Bob McIlvaine’s son, it was the injuries found on his son Bobby’s head, arm and skin that made him think the hijacked jetliner and building collapse couldn’t have done it. He believes that explosives were detonated in the towers’ basement before the planes hit the towers.

McIlvaine has not been able to determine where his son was when he died, but from the injuries — which include skin that was burned post-mortem — he assumes that his son was in or near the tower’s lobby. McIlvaine questions the government’s explanation that a fireball came down through the elevator shafts and burned those in the lobby.

“I spend three hours a day, every day, doing research on 9/11,” said McIlvaine. “To me, this was a murder investigation. My son was murdered.”

Tom Theimer watched the World Trade Center crumble while drinking coffee and watching television in his suburban Dallas home. Shaken, he bought flags for his porch and bumper stickers for his car reading “We will never forget.”

A few years later, a friend of Theimer’s wife casually mentioned that 9/11 “was an inside job.” Theimer was livid and turned to the Internet, to prove the friend wrong.

The websites, the books and the documentaries he saw online persuaded him. He was wrong, and so was the system.

“I was duped,” Theimer said. “It really hurt. I cried. I couldn’t sleep for months.”

Theimer said that he and others in Dallas are planning to show a new 9/11 documentary on the 10th anniversary. Remember Building 7 is trying to raise $1 million by Sept. 11 to support a new investigation into the collapses.

A conference on alternate 9/11 theories is being held in Toronto on Sept. 11.

The conference is headed by the International Center for 9/11 Studies, which was founded by James Gourley, a 31-year-old Dallas-area attorney who began to question the events of Sept. 11 during law school, while watching an activist make his argument on C-Span.

Gourley is aware of the theories about how skeptics are simply trying to justify and explain a random, horrific event.

“It’s basically a backwards way of saying we’re psychologically deranged,” he said. “It’s questioning the psychology of the people instead of questioning the facts.”

Even in the heart of the conspiracy theory world, some find the alternate theories hard to believe.

At Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, Scott Dew hawked commemorative Kennedy assassination newspapers to tourists, standing under an oak tree, just steps from a white “X” painted on the asphalt that marks where President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

Dew’s newspapers — which cost $5 each and come encased in a plastic sleeve — devote several pages and diagrams to the varying theories of bullet projectiles and second shooters on the grassy knoll.

Kennedy’s assassination was “a conspiracy by the government,” Dew says. “Back then, in ’63, this was a money and power deal.”

But Sept. 11? A conspiracy? He shakes his head.

“I believe bin Laden was the attacker. I don’t believe the other theories that President Bush or the government had anything to do with it. That would just be a little too sinful,” he said.

Online:

911Truth.org

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

EDITOR’S NOTE — Tamara Lush is traveling the country writing about the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Follow her on Twitter at http://twitter.com/tamaralush.

Comments

The release of "9/11 The Simple Facts" by Arthur Naiman should provide impetus for anyone with a desire to get at the truth of the event. It's just a small paperback containing simple facts whereas the "studies" like those done by NIST and the 911 Commission are bloated mountains of gibberish designed to cover up the same facts - if they mention them at all. Get a copy. Read it. Find out why 1,500 architects and engineers have organized to bring those simple facts into the light of day. You don't need to be a professional architect, engineer or investigator to smell a stinking coverup - just a few simple facts, clearly presented as in Naiman's book, and the odor becomes unbearable.

"I don’t believe the other theories that President Bush or the government had anything to do with it. That would just be a little too sinful,” he said." This type of thinking is probably one reason there's been no further investigations,for a lot of people, anything other than the "official" version of events re. 911 are just too horrible to contemplate. Personally,I'd like to see the investigation re-opened and ALL the facts and evidence examined.

"My job in the US Air Force included sabotaging US military bases, sabotaging US government buildings, and sabotaging US military aircraft, using conventional C4 shaped-charges and detonation cord, in controlled demolitions. This is a common job for 1,000s of US soldiers every day. In Europe, US nuclear bombs were targeted at US military bases in West Germany, but not at Communist bases in Eastern Europe. Before and during the first Gulf War in Iraq, my wife and I filed felony criminal charges against her commanding officers, for looting NATO weapons stockpiles and giving them to Iraq and Iran, as part of Iran-Contra. Secretary of War Dick Cheney then fired the chief of staff of the Air Force, General Michael Dugan, while Dugan was leading Operation Desert Storm. Cheney then offered my wife a bribe, er, job offer, to work directly for him at the Pentagon. She turned down that bribe to retire. Now the Veterans Administration then stole her entire pension, as routinely perped against 95% of all disabled retired veterans. The Dream Team suing members of the Bush Gang's Carlyle Group for perping the terrorist massacres on 9/11 is extorting me to shut down this website and TV show. Probably because of my telephone conference call with the Jersey Girls, stars of the network movie 9/11 Press For Truth. They say I have the power to derail their trillion-dollar class action by reporting the fact that Bushes led the attack, instead of the Saudis. That would only be true if my facts were facts. The Bush/Obama White House and US Supreme Court blocked that 9/11 class action against the Bin Ladens and Saudis. Now the class action is suing the Iranians for 9/11, after getting their orders from Mossad during a trip to Israel. Anyone who thinks 'our' Government didn't do this crime needs to have his head removed."
—John Lee, host and executive producer of Pirate News Radio on WBCR and Pirate News TV on Charter Channel 6, Knology Channel 6, Comcast Channel 12 and ATT Uverse Channel 99 in Knox and Blount Counties, webmaster of PirateNews.org and September911Surprise.com, producer of the Hollywood award-winning TV miniseries September 911 Surprise as seen on History Channel's 9/11 Conspiracies Fact Or Fiction. Pirate News TV was the only broadcaster of all 24 hours of the 9/11 American Scholars Symposium by Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen shot live by Pirate News in Los Angeles

"And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. This is the great dragon of chapter 12, Satan or Azazel. He has a number of names, but in each case, he is the king of all the demons, Lucifer, who became Satan."
—Revelation 9:11, Christian Bible, KJV with Forerunner Commentary



Revelation 9:11

---

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

By David Ruppe
ABC News
May 1, 2001

N E W Y O R K -- In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.

"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."

'Over the Edge'

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.

---

OPERATION NORTHWOODS

T O P S E C R E T S P E C I A L H A N D L I N G N O F O R N

THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

WASHINGTON 25, D.C.

13 March 1962

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Subject: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)


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.

2. The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend that the
proposed memorandum be forwarded as a preliminary submission
suitable for planning purposes. It is assumed that there
will be similar submissions from other agencies and that
these inputs will be used as a basis for developing a
time-phased plan. Individual projects can then be
considered on a case-by-case basis.

3. Further, it is assumed that a single agency will be
given the primary responsibility for developing military
and para-military aspects of the basic plan. It is
recommended that this responsibility for both overt and
covert military operations be assigned the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.

For the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

SYSTEMATICALLY REVIEWED,
BY JCS ON 21 May 84
CLASSIFICATION CONTINUED

[signed] General L. L. Lemnitzer
Chairman
Joint Chiefs of Staff

1 Enclosure
Memo for Chief of Operations, Cuba Project

SYSTEMATICALLY REVIEWED
BY JCS ON 21 May 84
CLASSIFICATION CONTINUED

EXCLUDED FROM GDS

EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC
REGRADING; DOD DIR 5200.10
DOES NOT APPLY

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN


Page 2

UNCLASSIFIED

TOP SECRET
JCS 1969/321
12 March 1962
Page 2165

COPY NO. 1
SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION

NOTE BY THE SECRETARIES

to the

JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

on

NORTHWOODS (S)

A report* on the above subject is submitted for consideration by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

F. J. BLOUIN
M. J. INGELIDO
Joint Secretariat

____________________
* Not reproduced herewith; on file in Joint Secretariat

EXCLUDED FROM GDS

EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC
REGRADING; DOD DIRECTIVE
5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY

TOP SECRET
JCS 1969/321

2165

UNCLASSIFIED

TOP SECRET



Page 3


TOP SECRET

UNCLASSIFIED

TOP SECRET
JCS 1969/321
14 March 1962

COPY NO. 1
SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION

JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

DECISION ON JCS 1969/321

A Note by the Secretaries

on

NORTHWOODS (S)

Note by the Secretaries

1. At their meeting on 13 March 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the recommendations in paragraph 8 of JCS 1969/321.

2. In that the Commandant had expressed direct concern of the Marine Corps in this matter, the provisions of Title 10, US Code 141 (6), applied and were followed.

3. This decision now becomes a part of and shall be attached as the top sheet of JCS 1969/321.

F. J. BLOUIN
M. J. INGELIDO
Joint Secretariat

SYSTEMATICALLY REVIEWED
BY JCS ON 21 May 84
CLASSIFICATION CONTINUED

EXCLUDED FROM GDS

EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC
REGRADING; DOD DIRECTIVE
5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY

UNCLASSIFIED



Page 4


TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN

UNCLASSIFIED

9 March 1962

COPY ____ OF ____ COPIES
SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION

REPORT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF REPRESENTATIVE ON THE
CARIBBEAN SURVEY GROUP

to the

JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

on

CUBA PROJECT (TS)

The Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, has requested that he be furnished the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this matter by 13 March 1962.

EXCLUDED FROM GDS

UNCLASSIFIED

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN


Page 5


UNCLASSIFIED

JUSTIFICATION FOR US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA (TS)

THE PROBLEM

1. As requested* by Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are to indicate brief but precise description of pretexts which they consider would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.

FACTS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM

2. It is recognized that any action which becomes pretext for US military intervention in Cuba will lead to a political decision which then would lead to military action.

3. Cognizance has been taken of a suggested course of action proposed** by the US Navy relating to generated instances in the Guantanamo area.

4. For additional facts see Enclosure B.

DISCUSSION

5. The suggested courses of action appended to Enclosure A are based on the premise that US military intervention will result from a period of heightened US-Cuban tensions which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievances. World opinion, and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.

6. While the foregoing premise can be utilized at the present time it will continue to hold good only as long as there can be reasonable certainty that US military intervention in Cuba would not directly involve the Soviet Union. There is


* Memorandum for General Craig from Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, subject: "Operation MONGOOSE", dated 5 March 1962, on file in General Craig's office.
** Memorandum for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, from Chief of Naval Operations, subject: "Instances to Provoke Military Actions in Cuba (TS)", dated 8 March 1962, on file in General Craig's office.

2

UNCLASSIFIED

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN








Page 6

UNCLASSIFIED

as yet no bilateral mutual support agreement binding the USSR to the defense of Cuba, Cuba has not yet become a member of the Warsaw Pact, nor have the Soviets established Soviet bases in Cuba in the pattern of US bases in Western Europe. Therefore, since time appears to be an important factor in resolution of the Cuba problem, all projects are suggested within the time frame of the next few months.

CONCLUSION

The suggested courses of action appended to Enclosure A satisfactorily respond to the statement of the problem. However, these suggestions should be forwarded as a preliminary submission suitable for planning purposes, and together with similar inputs from other agencies, provide a basis for development of a single, integrated, time-phased plan to focus all efforts on the objective of justification for US military intervention in Cuba.




RECOMMENDATIONS

8. It is recommended that:

a. Enclosure A together with its attachments should be
forwarded to the Secretary of Defense for approval and
transmittal to the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project.

b. This paper NOT be forwarded to commanders of unified
or specified commands.

c. This paper NOT be forwarded to US officers assigned
to NATO activities.

d. This paper NOT be forwarded to the Chairman, US
Delegation, United Nations Military Staff Committee.


Page 7


UNCLASSIFIED

DRAFT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Subject: Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)

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.

2. The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend that the proposed memorandum be forwarded as a preliminary submission suitable for planning purposes. It is assumed that there will be similar submissions from other agencies and that these inputs will be used as a basis for developing a time-phased plan. Individual projects can then be considered on a case-by-ease basis.

3. Further, it is assumed that a single agency will be given the primary responsibility for developing military and para-military aspects of the basic plan. It is recommended that this responsibility for both overt and covert military operations be assigned the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

* Memorandum for Gen Craig from Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, subject: "Operation MONGOOSE", dated 5 March 1962, on file in Gen Craig's office.


Page 8

APPENDIX TO ENCLOSURE A

DRAFT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Subject: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)

1. Reference is made to memorandum from Chief of Operations,
Cuba project, for General Craig, subject: "Operation MONGOOSE",
dated 5 March 1962, which requested brief but precise
description of pretexts which the Joint Chiefs of Staff
consider would provide justifications for US military inter-
vention in Cuba.

2. The projects listed in the enclosure hereto are forwarded
as a prelimiary submission suitable for planning purposes.
It is assumed that there will be similar submissions from
other agencies and that these inputs will be used as a basis
for developing a time-phased plan. The individual projects
can then be considered on a case-by-case basis.

3. This plan, incorporating projects selected from the
attached suggestions, or from other sources, should be
developed to focus all efforts on a specific ultimate
objective which would provide adequate justification for
US military intervention. Such a plan would enable a logical
build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly
unrelated events to camoflage the ultimate objective and
create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and
irresponsibility on a large scale, directed at other
countries as well as the United States. The plan would also
properly integrate and time phase the courses of action to
be pursued. The desired resultant from the execution of
this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent
position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and
irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an inter-
national image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western
Hemisphere.

Appendix to
Enclosure A
5

Page 9

4. Time is an important factor in resolution of the Cuban
problem. Therefore, the plan should be so time-phased that
projects would be operable within the next few months.

5. Inasmuch as the ultimate objective is overt military
intervention, it is recommended that primary responsibility
for developing military and para-military aspects of the plan
for both overt and covert military operations be assigned the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.


Appendix to
Enclosure A
6

Page 10

ANNEX TO APPENDIX TO ENCLOSURE A

PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA

(Note: The courses of action which follow are a preliminary
submission suitable only for planning purposes. They are
arranged neither chronologically nor in ascending order.
Together with similar inputs from other agencies, they are
intended to provide a point of departure for the development
of a single, integrated, time-phased plan. Such a plan would
permit the evaluation of individual projects within the context
of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably
to the objective of adequate justification for US military
intervention in Cuba).

1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate
provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba
a cover and deception plan. to include requisite preliminary
actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c,
could be executed as an initial effort to provode Cuban
reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the
Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military
posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid
change from exercise to intervention if Cuban responses justifies.

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned
to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine
appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in
chronilogical order):

(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence"
to stage attack on the base.

(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) sabateurs inside the
base.

(4) Start riots near the entrance to the base (friendly
Cubans).

Appendix to
Enclosure A
7

Page 11

(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.

(6) Burn aircraft on airbase (sabatage).

(7) Lob morter shells from outside of base into base.
Some damage to installations.

(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea
of vicinity of Guantanamo City.

(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.

(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals
for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

b. United States would respond by executing offensive
operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying
artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

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 (unmannded) vessel anywhere
in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident
in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result
of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presense
of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of
the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship
was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago
would add credibility especially to those people that might
have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could
follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US
fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant
crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful
wave of national indignation.

4. We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in
the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington.

Appendix to
Enclosure A
8

Page 12

The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking
haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans
enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts
on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the
extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized.
Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the
arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents
substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in
projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

5. A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster could be
simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein
of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic). We
know that Castro is backing subversive efforts clandestinely
against Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua at
present and possible others. These efforts can be magnified and
additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage
can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican Air Force to
intrusions within their national air space. "Cuban" B-26 or
C-46 type aircraft could make cane-burning raids at night.
Soviet Bloc incidiaries could be found. This could be coupled
with "Cuban" messages to the Communist underground in the
Dominican Republic and "Cuban" shipments of arms which would
be found, or intercepted, on the beach.

6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide
additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on
surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft
by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions.
An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they
saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were
to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion
appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modify-
ing an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could
be purchased from US resources in about three months.

Appendix to
Enclosure A
9

Page 13

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft
should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the
government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban
civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate
convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down
a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to
Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would
be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba.
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.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and
numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission
will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio

Appendix to
Enclosure A
10

Page 14


stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what
has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to
"sell" the incident.

9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it
appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft
over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 of 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched
in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba.
Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir
aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida.
These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at
frequent intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at
least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be
required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile
actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.

b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly
tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft.
While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that
he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other
calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly
west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an
Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper
people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The
pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would
resume his proper identity and return to his normal place
of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have
disappeared.

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was
presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft
would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately
15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots
retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as
they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched
and parts of aircraft found.

Appendix to
Enclosure A
11

Page 15


ENCLOSURE B

FACTS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM

1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have previously stated*
that US unilateral military intervention in Cuba can be
undertaken in the event that the Cuban regime commits hostile
acts against US forces or property which would serve as an
incident upon which to base overt intervention.

2. The need for positive action in the event that current
covert efforts to foster an internal Cuban rebellion are
unsuccessful was indicated** by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
on 7 March 1962, as follows:

" - - - determination that a credible internal
revolt is impossible of attainment during the next
9-10 months will require a decision by the United States
to develop a Cuban "provocation" as justification for
positive US military action."

3. It is understood that the Department of State also is
preparing suggested courses of action to develop justification
for US military intervention in Cuba.


* (JCS 1969/303)
** (JCS 1969/313)

Appendix to
Enclosure B



Click for larger image