[M3Bahn]

[lkw15]

Give me a break.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Although this comes from a different ideology, it's no different than all the right-wing conspiracy theorists who seem to be overrunning this forum. You know, 9/11 was perpetrated by the gov't, Obama's a Kenyan muslim marxist, the gov't is a big ponzi scheme, healthcare reform creates death-panels, gay marriage will corrupt American society etc. Just another type of nut.

[lkw15]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Although this comes from a different ideology, it's no different than all the right-wing conspiracy theorists who seem to be overrunning this forum. You know, 9/11 was perpetrated by the gov't, Obama's a Kenyan muslim marxist, the gov't is a big ponzi scheme, healthcare reform creates death-panels, gay marriage will corrupt American society etc. Just another type of nut.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Extreme anything isn't generally a good idea.

But some people have way too much time on their hands. To me, a birther and a 9/11 conspirator are one in the same. Crazy.

[infinitekid2002]

so many facts are just ignored..for example Asner acts like everyone said it was a planned demolition when they were just saying it looked like one (and such a collapse very well might have based on the perspective and the building and structural damage from WTC derbis and fire.)

Look if someone needed that building taken down why not just use a third plane? What they could get two planes into the WTC buildings but just couldn't spare a third?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Then again maybe all of the building owners and firefighters are part of the conspiracy lols.

[Rochdale Pioneers]

The problem with dismissing the AE911Truth guys as "nuts" is that they have evidence.

Its like this. The official explanation for tower 7 is impossible. Even the official report cannot explain why the tower fell, especially not in freefall as they admit. Logic dictates that once you eliminate one hypothesis you have to look at all the other remaining options.

What they don't have is a signed confession. But they have the laws of physics demonstrating the building was in free fall (uncontested by the US govt). They then look at the options how this could have happened. The fires couldn't burn hot and even enough to cause this, so thats eliminated. Controlled demolition could have done it, and oh yeah here's all the physical evidence to back that up. Just as physics has laws so does chemistry and noone can offer a non-demolition explanation as to how all that physical evidence for Thermite got there.

I understand the resistance to this kind of thing. You have to set aside the nutjobs who made the Loose Change film. You have to accept that there was a conspiracy. But physical evidence disproves the official story and all but proves the demolition hypothesis. Its not 100%, but on the balance of evidence its the most complete theory and as I say noone can offer anything more convincing without pretending that the evidence isn't there - which is the NIST line.

And here is the problem. Once you accept that tower 7 was demolished you have to ask what they did to towers 1 and 2. Then you see that the same physical evidence is on those towers as well, and the questions get bigger.

Saying "they're nut jobs" is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and shouting "la la la" in a loud voice. We know you don't want to believe it. But when better qualified people that you present the evidence and say you've been lied to, do you want to believe the lie or start to asking questions about the truth? I don't know what the full facts are, but i do know that the official "facts" are impossible.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by Rochdale Pioneers

The problem with dismissing the AE911Truth guys as "nuts" is that they have evidence.

Its like this. The official explanation for tower 7 is impossible. Even the official report cannot explain why the tower fell, especially not in freefall as they admit. Logic dictates that once you eliminate one hypothesis you have to look at all the other remaining options.

What they don't have is a signed confession. But they have the laws of physics demonstrating the building was in free fall (uncontested by the US govt).

Anyone can take one flawed point and expand it into an entire conspiracy theory. I guarantee you that if one of these guys went up against someone in the know, the "flaw" would be revealed, putting an end to the ridiculousness.

The twin towers were taken down by the heat of the burning jet fuel, from the planes that flew into them. Right? Right. Did you ever think about the magnitude of disturbance to the area, caused by the two 110 story concrete and steel buildings suddenly collapsing in seconds each? What is there to debate?

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Anyone can take one flawed point and expand it into an entire conspiracy theory. I guarantee you that if one of these guys went up against someone in the know, the "flaw" would be revealed, putting an end to the ridiculousness.

The twin towers were taken down by the heat of the burning jet fuel, from the planes that flew into them. Right? Right. Did you ever think about the magnitude of disturbance to the area, caused by the two 110 story concrete and steel buildings suddenly collapsing in seconds each? What is there to debate?

Everyone is a structural engineer when it comes to this. And there are NO stupid structural engineers out there either... even the ones with degrees can't be stupid.

So many people trying to make an educated conclusion with only 1/4 of the facts and usually no education.

[stylinexpat]

One thing to remember is that the US refused to allow international investigators to investigate on the grounds of 9/11. When incidents like this happen overseas the US always wants to send their team over to help with the investigation.

[BrokenVert]

Ok im just gonna debunk this theory here, because ive heard it a million times.

Heres the theory "the towers shouldnt have fallen because jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel"

Well heres some facts for you that I have received from my father, who was the man in charge of the renovations of the WTC complex through summer and into september 2001.

The main towers were constructed using an A frame truss system that had its support from the exoskeleton and the main elevator core. A frames are great for most applications, theyre light and strong.

One problem though, A frames are highly susceptible to fire. When heated they buckle and twist and it doesnt take a lot of heat to make them fail, onnly about 700-800 degress. Thats why you had the pancake effect for the main 2 towers.

OK thats over with.

Now, the third tower that fell. My personal theory is that the main CM changed a detail in the prints in order to pocket some extra cash.

It happens all of the time, look up the Citi Corp tower debacle in Manhattan which ohh yeah my father was the man charged with leading the repair of that tower so I know it in and out.

This on site change was perfectly safe if not for impact damage and concussive damage from the falling towers. It caused a huge pressure wave which fractured joints and other structural components in the building. A lot of the time these changes are kept secret from the building owner so that the construction firm can pocket the cash so the government wouldnt have knowledge of it when they investigated.


There, a totally sound and reasonable idea. Is it that hard?

[Rochdale Pioneers]

And the rebuttals are fine except where they disobey the laws of physics. "towers raken down by the heat of the jet fuel. Right?"

Well, no. Not when jet fuel burns at a significantly lower temperature than that required to melt steel. And no office fire gets anywhere near hot enough. And the idea that some of the joints could have failed is perfectly valid, but doesn't explain how 3 towers collapsed. Unless every joint collapsed simultaneously, which seems to be the non-explanation given by NIST as to how tower 7 achieves free fall.

I am absolutely sufre that there are valid scientific explanations that can be given for the various sections of physical evidence - I've seen some of it. But its more detailed than "jets hit the towers, right?". And none of it manages to explain away the chemical signatures of thermite that can't be there any other way, or the molten steel which NIST insists wasn't there and noone saw, or the various other smoking guns the official story spectacularly fails to explain. This is wht a proper investigation is needed, to ascertain the facts. We know that WTC 1,2 & 7 were the first steel skyscrapers ever to collapse due to fire. We just don't know why.

[BrokenVert]

Its not just fire. Its the impact combined with the fire.

The impact of the jets into Towers 1 and 2 blasted all of the fire insulation off of the A-frame trusses in the impacted floors. The way towers 1 and 2 were designed each floor is essentially one interconnected unit. So when 1 truss system on 1 floor finally gave it collapsed onto the floor below, which was already weakened due to heat and a runaway pancaking is started. This is why the upper floors stayed intact until they hit the ground. Its not the melting of steel and it isnt just fire alone.

The towers would not have collapsed if somebody just lit a few oil drums of aviation fuel into it. The key fact is that the fireproofing was blown off so the A-frames (the weak link in the design) were open in the heat and such heat deflection and finally buckling. And as ive stated before it doesnt take a whole lot of heat to cause this effect.

Im convinced as an engineer and with the inside information that I know that Tower 7 fell because of a combination of onsite design change and the air blast caused by the collapsing towers. But I have no way of proving it.

Originally Posted by Rochdale Pioneers

And the rebuttals are fine except where they disobey the laws of physics. "towers raken down by the heat of the jet fuel. Right?"

Well, no. Not when jet fuel burns at a significantly lower temperature than that required to melt steel. And no office fire gets anywhere near hot enough. And the idea that some of the joints could have failed is perfectly valid, but doesn't explain how 3 towers collapsed. Unless every joint collapsed simultaneously, which seems to be the non-explanation given by NIST as to how tower 7 achieves free fall.

I am absolutely sufre that there are valid scientific explanations that can be given for the various sections of physical evidence - I've seen some of it. But its more detailed than "jets hit the towers, right?". And none of it manages to explain away the chemical signatures of thermite that can't be there any other way, or the molten steel which NIST insists wasn't there and noone saw, or the various other smoking guns the official story spectacularly fails to explain. This is wht a proper investigation is needed, to ascertain the facts. We know that WTC 1,2 & 7 were the first steel skyscrapers ever to collapse due to fire. We just don't know why.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by Rochdale Pioneers

jet fuel burns at a significantly lower temperature than that required to melt steel.

It's this simplistic, know-nothing mentality that pervades in this country. You don't need to turn the steel into liquid! Just soften a steel support structure slightly, and the millions of tons of weight on it will result in collapse.

This is why they couldn't convict OJ - people are too stupid to separate logic from lunacy. And now we have about a half-dozen candidates running for president who don't believe in evolution. This is the real reason unemployment is not coming down; we're a country full of dopes who can't perform any useful functions.

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

It's this simplistic, know-nothing mentality that pervades in this country. You don't need to turn the steel into liquid! Just soften a steel support structure slightly, and the millions of tons of weight on it will result in collapse.

This is why they couldn't convict OJ - people are too stupid to separate logic from lunacy. And now we have about a half-dozen candidates running for president who don't believe in evolution. This is the real reason unemployment is not coming down; we're a country full of dopes who can't perform any useful functions.

Agreed 100%. Im in London right now and the average IQ here is easily 50 points higher than it is in NY, which is one of the more intelligent areas of the country...

And if you look at my posts that is exactly what im attempting to convey, its about design and conditions...not just temperature.


And I cant agree with you more. I wish I was 35. id run for president and probably win! haha. Also half of the candidates signed an antigay marriage ban.

Ummm so yeah where in the constitution does it say that we can be prejudice ion the government and get away with it?



I dont know if any of you guys watched the West Wing. But im referencing the episode "Let Bartlet Be Bartlet".

During the debates on dont ask dont tell. The Commissioner of the Joint Chiefs sums up my feelings about that and all antigay people exactly.


60 years ago the same arguments were made about giving black people and interracial couples rights. I think the current GOP stance on it is thinly veiled anti black racisim. For some reason old white catholics always need to be dicks to one group of people. Its happened throughout history and its just amazing to me.

[BrokenVert]

Dear Lord. I just watched the video and its so fully of rhetoric I wanted to shoot myself.

First off. Architects and AIA members opinions mean absolutely nothing in the context of WTC 7. The same goes with 3/4 of the interviewed engineers.

The only opinion that I will listen to is a structural engineer or a mech e depending on their focus.

They cited petroleum engineers, aeros, biological engineers and "scientists" Well what kind of scientist are you exactly? Also the Avatar music playing at the end. Damn.


Also, that big fused chunk they refered to. Yeah when a building comes down steel and concrete at the foundation can fuse because of point pressures and point heats generated by the weight of a 110 story building collapsing onto it.


The multiple "explosions" people cannot tell the difference between a loud bang and a gun being shot.

Multiple concussive sounds can easily be attributed to a pancaking of floors. Which is how the building came down. There may have been some additional foul play but as far the thermite theory goes Id like to see that actual report, not it being sensationalized by "scientists"

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

Its not just fire. Its the impact combined with the fire.

The impact of the jets into Towers 1 and 2 blasted all of the fire insulation off of the A-frame trusses in the impacted floors. The way towers 1 and 2 were designed each floor is essentially one interconnected unit. So when 1 truss system on 1 floor finally gave it collapsed onto the floor below, which was already weakened due to heat and a runaway pancaking is started. This is why the upper floors stayed intact until they hit the ground. Its not the melting of steel and it isnt just fire alone.

The towers would not have collapsed if somebody just lit a few oil drums of aviation fuel into it. The key fact is that the fireproofing was blown off so the A-frames (the weak link in the design) were open in the heat and such heat deflection and finally buckling. And as ive stated before it doesnt take a whole lot of heat to cause this effect.

Im convinced as an engineer and with the inside information that I know that Tower 7 fell because of a combination of onsite design change and the air blast caused by the collapsing towers. But I have no way of proving it.

This.

My dad works in Commercial Project Management and when I asked him about that stupid conspiracy theory going around a few years ago he said essentially the same thing. Fireproofing blows off, steel doesn't melt but heats up and loses strength, building collapses. Not rocket science and not a crazy gov't conspiracy. Give it a rest people.

[mact3333]

OMG you guys are funny...love it...1500 engineers vs retarded internet posters(I kid I kid...you guys are pretty sharp)...hmmm....

1. no building of that size has ever gone down in freefall or down at all due to fire...ever!...oh yeah the planes destabilized the integrity of the buildings...haha...so please explain blg 7 then ....at first NIST didnt even address blg 7!...but then they said it was due to fire...OMG that was funny....my fav part was when they found one of the terrorists passports laying on the sidewalk...he must have thrown it out window just before impact...lol)

2. there are many videos showing the sideways blasts along all 3 buildings before going down...care to explain....

3. please explain how military grade thermite was found everywhere?...Steven Jones from U of Utah explored this and promptly got fired from the University.

4. 100's of witnesses heard they were going to "pull" building 7 right before it came down...care to explain how everyone knew it was coming down to the second unless it was planned demolition?...Silverstein the owner said it...Giuliani was heard saying it.

5. BBC reporter was on air 30 minutes before building 7 came down saying building 7 came down...you can see building 7 in the background as she is talking...hmmm.

6. dozens of witnesses not only heard bombs going off on 1st and 2nd floor of all three building before it went down but actually SAW it(there goes most people wouldnt know bombs vs guns going off theory)!...they said the lobby was destroyed after the bombs went off...yeah the fires from many floors above destroyed the lobby area....


Now I am not saying I know exactly what happened...but I can guarantee you the ludicrous leftists here havent even looked into this seriously yet they are spouting off crap they know nothing about(hey kinda like the economy hehe) once again...just smart to be dangerous.

Just kidding ya leftists!......you guys make great points and I agree with ya completely....

[M3Bahn]

Originally Posted by stylinexpat

One thing to remember is that the US refused to allow international investigators to investigate on the grounds of 9/11. When incidents like this happen overseas the US always wants to send their team over to help with the investigation.

They didn't want any kind of investigation period.

[mact3333]

Originally Posted by M3Bahn

They didn't want any kind of investigation period.

In no other fire/collapse of a major building(but esp after a terrorist attack)has the evidence been carted away and destroyed within a few wks, without allowing any investigation...hmmmm.

Wonder why the molten liquid steel there 3 months after the buildings went down...from a fire huh?

Thermite...tastes great, less filling??...

I kid ya guys...those buildings went down due to the fires...I deplore conspiracy freaks.

[OldArmy]

Couple of questions and one suggestion:

Q: Why?

Q: With all the people that had to be involved why has not one "conspirator" come forward? You know there are no secrets these days.

Suggestion: There are several brands of very durable, high shine tin foil that can be fashioned into protective headgear.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by mact3333

OMG you guys are funny...love it...1500 engineers vs retarded internet posters(I kid I kid...you guys are pretty sharp)...hmmm....

1. no building of that size has ever gone down in freefall or down at all due to fire...ever!...oh yeah the planes destabilized the integrity of the buildings...haha...so please explain blg 7 then ....at first NIST didnt even address blg 7!...but then they said it was due to fire...OMG that was funny....my fav part was when they found one of the terrorists passports laying on the sidewalk...he must have thrown it out window just before impact...lol)

2. there are many videos showing the sideways blasts along all 3 buildings before going down...care to explain....

3. please explain how military grade thermite was found everywhere?...Steven Jones from U of Utah explored this and promptly got fired from the University.

4. 100's of witnesses heard they were going to "pull" building 7 right before it came down...care to explain how everyone knew it was coming down to the second unless it was planned demolition?...Silverstein the owner said it...Giuliani was heard saying it.

5. BBC reporter was on air 30 minutes before building 7 came down saying building 7 came down...you can see building 7 in the background as she is talking...hmmm.

6. dozens of witnesses not only heard bombs going off on 1st and 2nd floor of all three building before it went down but actually SAW it(there goes most people wouldnt know bombs vs guns going off theory)!...they said the lobby was destroyed after the bombs went off...yeah the fires from many floors above destroyed the lobby area....


Now I am not saying I know exactly what happened...but I can guarantee you the ludicrous leftists here havent even looked into this seriously yet they are spouting off crap they know nothing about(hey kinda like the economy hehe) once again...just smart to be dangerous.

Just kidding ya leftists!......you guys make great points and I agree with ya completely....

Wow, you're a Grade A nut! Maybe if you add a few more emoticons and facetious quips, you'll win us all over.

How can you question an event that millions of us witnessed with our own eyes? And none of your "points" have any merit. BTW, I'm an engineer, and you most certainly are not.

[M3Bahn]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Couple of questions and one suggestion:

Q: Why?

Q: With all the people that had to be involved why has not one "conspirator" come forward? You know there are no secrets these days.

Suggestion: There are several brands of very durable, high shine tin foil that can be fashioned into protective headgear.

Operation Northwoods

Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated within the United States government in 1962. 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.[2] 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."
Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
"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 international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."
Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.

In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations of the Cuba Project, Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the document listed methods, and outlined plans, that the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. These were to be staged attacks purported to be of Cuban origin.
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 provoke 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 response justifies.
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 chronological order):
Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).[13]
Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
Capture militia group which storms the base.
Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires—napthalene.
Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be in 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.
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 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 presence 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 up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.[14]
The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route 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.
A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein of the 14 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 incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with "Cuban" messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and "Cuban" shipments of arm which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach.
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 modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.[15]
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.
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route 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 substituted 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 begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
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 or 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 returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

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.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1