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.

 

9/11 Planned in 1976 by US Army

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
In 1976, US Government Federal Agent Timothy S. McNiven took part in a US Congressional Commissioned Military Study to devise the "Perfect Terrorist Attack". The plan they came up with was to take control of commercial airliners with box cutters and then fly them into the WTC.

McNiven has provided an affidavit for the Ellen Mariani's RICO Suit against Bush,

By Federal Agent Timothy S. McNiven
I am Timothy Stuart McNiven; my United States Defense Department codename is "Grillfire": hence, the name of my website; www.codenamegrillfire.com. I have 29 plus years in Service to the US Defense Department and am an active operative in accordance with the contract the US Government has with me.

Some of my current work includes working with the Northwest Drug Task Force in 1995-96 on the Rob Sayce, Anika Oyen, Barb Oyen Drug Smuggling, Teenage / Preteen Prostitution, Weapons Trafficking Case.

Providing information about the whereabouts of the Kehoe brothers less than 2 1/2 weeks before their surrender and locating Ira Einhorn in France.

In 1975-76 I was stationed on Strassberg Kaserne In Idar-Oberstein, W. Germany assigned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, US Army; here I took part in a US Congressional Commissioned Military Study to Improve US Air Travel Security. Why did I say it was Congressional Commissioned (?); I was told that the Military does not do anything on it's own, tht everything is done by the orders of the US Congress as the US Constitution calls for.

Here is a list of names (not all) of other participants from my unit: Col. Robert (Bad bob) Morrison, Maj. Joe Dipiero, Lt. Michael Teague, Sgt. Middleton, Sgt. Arroyo, Sgt. Maj. McKay, Sgt. Wolford, Sgt. Riggs, Sgt. Henderson, Sgt. Garza, Sgt. Broder, Sgt. Meralas, Sgt. Frank Murray, Sgt. Jackson, Sgt. Taraza, Sgt. Buck, Sgt. Brown, Sgt. Steadman, Sgt. Barber, 1st Sgt. Ray, Mr Sam Handy, Cpl. Pickett, Cpl. Wisner, Michael Hubbert, Richard Seanz, Dan Henderson, George Cinch, Berni Domoski, Robert Bruns, Thomas Gumbs, Jake Asuit, Bruce Levine, Martain Seals, Bill Gully, Dennis Montoya, Tom Kimber, Rick Lyons, Bob Bender, Terry Cook, Sam Icono, Taylor (Mr. T), (Phlash) Richardson, Harry Waldren, Olie Fine, the Drew Cousins, Johnson, Fetc, Macfarland.

There were also people from the Defense Department and the CIA (who had an office on Strassberg Kaserne) and others that I was not allowed to see; they were always behind me during the study but occasionally they would make a comment, which is Standard Military Operating Procedure.

Source



Here is the snip from the Lawsuit,


From lawsuit
Based upon review of Affiant McNiven's sworn
statement Plaintiff asserts Defendant USA, et al., charged with
defending America had prior knowledge before "911" that the events
of this infamous day in American history could take place and did.
Hence, Defendant USA's failure to implement the findings of the
study was grossly/criminally negligent and Defendant's "failing to
prevent" the attacks of "911" raises other serious national
security and public trust matters important for Plaintiff to
obtain justice in this case. Affiant McNiven's testimony and the
chilling similarities of the study's scenarios to the actual
events of "911," support a basis Defendants were
grossly/criminally negligent in failing to prevent "911." Affiant
McNiven's testimony also provides the "nexus" to include Defendant
George H. Bush, Sr., (hereinafter "Defendant GHB") as a critical
party to this litigation as Defendant GHB as CIA Director at the
time of the study and reasons for its not being implemented are
very relevant for Plaintiff to find the answers as to why her
husband was murdered on "911." Plaintiff believes, Defendants' GWB
and his father, GHB, hold the answers for the entire nation to be
informed of the truth as to "911" and why it occurred and was not
prevented.[25]

Source



He has also provided polygraph test results which he passed with flying colours, and they make very interesting reading. Click HERE for test results and transcripts.

This information further implicates the US administrations involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks, or negligence to the point of 25 years of non-action to rectify security inadequacies.




posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
It could be all true yes, but i personaly belive that those conspiracy theorie people have just too much time and too much imagination.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
considering the northwoods plan . and the scams that have been pulled off , like cia selling crack in south central L.A..

this doesn't surprise me at all . not a bit . [ care to re-vist ok-city ? ]

I had heard of grillfire , but I've been into so many interesting books etc...I never had the time to follow up on it.


p.s.....I wonder how many of those guys listed, had visits from cia to keep their mouths shut, since that was published ?



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Well Pretorian03, for somebody whose mood is "One unity composed of many parts. The motto of the United States of America", you have a very intersting comment. We are not dealing with imaginary theories, but with sworn testimony and researched data. Maybe you should take the time to read all the information presented before denouncing conspiracy theorists. After all, this is a conspiracy board!



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
pretorian,

or on the other hand...how many folks are un-informed and assume cuz some of it sounds so bad, that it must be fiction ? eh


Odd

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
if you managed to find this out, why couldn't the hijackers, or their sponsors, have done the same?

if i wanted to carry out a massive paramilitary attack on a nation whose government had produced a plan that would perfectly foil their own defenses, i would take advantage of the pre-existing plan... but probably not until about twenty-five years later, when the original plan had been more or less forgotten about.

of course, i'm not saying that's necessarily what happened... just making sure you don't jump to too many conclusions, as your sort are so often wont to do.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Man these one-line responses are such a waste of space. C'mon people! Put some thought into your responses.

This guy has an amazing story and it's new to me so I'm gonna review it. Here's more from his website, www.codenamegrillfire.com...


Why am I doing this? That is; why have I spent the last 20 months trying to bring the information from this Study to the American People? During the Study I made the statement that if the corrective actions were not taken and we were attacked because of it I would do what I could to get this information to the American People; immediately upon saying this Lt. Teague and Sgt Middleton both took one arm and physically carried me down the hall and told me that I was in the Military and you don't say, that if it fails that you are going to tell the American People; I responded that it wasn't the people from the Study I was talking about because we were trying to prevent it but those in the Government who would do nothing.

A week or so later I was given the Direct Order that if the World Trade Center Twin Towers was ever attacked the way that we discussed in the Study that I was to do everything I could to bring this information to the American People and that this Order was never to be rescinded because those who would rescind it would be the people who turned against the American People. So what I am doing is following a Lawful Order.

Lt. Michael Teague was from Long Island, NY and when those who were conducting the Study changed the scenario from any 100 story building to the WTC Twin Towers, he said he could do this because it was his duty but it was weird to be asked to plan to blow up your own hometown. This is the one person that I would like most to hear what his opinion is now, that the attacks happened the way we planned them to in 1976.

Sounds like grillfire is saying there were military officers who both advised him against and toward revelation of his story. He says he was given orders to reveal but he doesn't name the person who gave that order or their rank. Very interesting if he's telling the truth. I'd like to know more about this guy.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Psychoses
In 1976, US Government Federal Agent Timothy S. McNiven took part in a US Congressional Commissioned Military Study to devise the "Perfect Terrorist Attack". The plan they came up with was to take control of commercial airliners with box cutters and then fly them into the WTC.


So he's saying that BEFORE the WTC was actually bult...
www.infoplease.com...

...that they were planning on taking control of a type of commercial airplane that wouldn't be designed until 1981...
www.boeing.com...

...and that they KNEW (nearly 28 years before the incident) that weapons would no longer be permitted on airplane flights (a ban that took full effect in the 1990's)???

Really?

I think the guy's just plain stupid if he thinks anyone would swallow all that nonsense. We should hold him up as "lamest attempt at getting his five minutes of fame" to people.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Psychoses first of all your latin is bad im from Europe i should know "E Pluribus Unum" means "among many,one"or "one among many",secondly I like conspiracys but i eliminate most of them for the search of the real truth it is known that the goverments lie with truth and it is hard to find the truth.And yes Im soory i didnt read all of your post I just stated my opinion on the 9/11 conspiracy.And toasted yes i agree they use this information that sounds like sience fiction or X files(but it is in most cases true) and people dont belive it.Simple and effective



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

So he's saying that BEFORE the WTC was actually bult...
www.infoplease.com...

What? He said the study was in 1976.

This is from your link:


The north tower was opened in Dec. 1970 and the south tower in Jan. 1972; they were dedicated in April 1973. They were the world's tallest buildings for only a short time, since the Sears Tower in Chicago was completed in May 1973.

I don't understand your post. Also, where does he state the type of airliners they used in the study? He says it was just about airline safety.

He seems to put a lot of credence into his own polygraph results but those poly-guys can be decieved by skewing the baseline responses or by mental conditioning, or so I have heard.

[edit on 19-3-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

By Byrd

So he's saying that BEFORE the WTC was actually bult...
www.infoplease.com...



From your link,


From Byrds linked article
The north tower was opened in Dec. 1970 and the south tower in Jan. 1972; they were dedicated in April 1973. They were the world's tallest buildings for only a short time, since the Sears Tower in Chicago was completed in May 1973. However, the towers were ranked as the fifth and sixth tallest buildings in the world at the time of their destruction on Sept. 11, 2001.




by Pretorian03
Psychoses first of all your latin is bad im from Europe i should know "E Pluribus Unum" means "among many,one"or "one among many"


My latin is not bad, it's google:Define:E Pluribus Unum



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
E Pluribus Unum literally means "out of many, one". Where did this come into the conversation anyway?

I think the WTC theory is pure fantasy. The WTC was destroyed by Arab hijackers and there was no foreknowledge or planning of it by the U.S. government. I can't believe anyone could possibly think otherwise.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
djohnsto77,

considering your comment. I must ask , what do you think happened in ok-city ?



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
could this plan exist? yes it is possible.
the government likes to have plans for anything that could be needed. they probably have dozens of plans for the invasion of canada. i hate to think about all the cash they spend on these studies, not to mention all the storage space they take up. in this way they can respond to a situation within a very short time span. in all probability canada has plans for invasion of the states. this realy shouldn't shock anyone. just think how long it would have taken to attack iraq if they didn't already have a basic plan they could tailer to thier needs.

if it is true i guess the lady in the lawsuit will be rich soon with a major non-discloser clause. the government would not want something like this proven.kets put it this way if they were willing to pull something like this off this guy has a short lifespan.

is it true ? who knows ,and will we ever know for sure? there are just too many holes and coincidenses in 9-11. too much has been held secret and other things look plausable. for example what were the secondary explosions head after the crashes that caused the buildings to go down?
i have watched programs on chanels like tlc where they are showing how to use demolitions to take down buildings. do you know what they normaly say? the timeing of the explosions have to be timed exactly right or the building will not collapse on itself . these demo experts are always proud of their records of not causeing a building to fall wrong. so it is interesting that the word trade center buildings had an almost perfect demolition type of collapse.

there was a bomber that crashed into i believe it was the empire state building dureing ww2. that building did not fall down. in fact they were able to repair it afterwords. wouldn't a newer building be better built? especialy since an accident like that had already happened?



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
(deleted. wrong thread)



[edit on 19-3-2005 by cargo]



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
drogo:


there was a bomber that crashed into i believe it was the empire state building dureing ww2. that building did not fall down. in fact they were able to repair it afterwords. wouldn't a newer building be better built? especialy since an accident like that had already happened?


Seeing any difference between the WTC and the Empire State Building other than they are 'sky-scrappers'?
There are some significant differences, but lets simply cover that they were structurally built differently?



The World Trade Center was designed for an impact of Boeing 707-320 rather than Boeing767-320. But note that the maximum takeoff weight of that older, less efficient, aircraft is only 15%less than that of Boeing 767-200. Besides, the maximum fuel tank capacity of that aircraft is only4% less. These differences are well within the safety margins of design. So the observed responseof the towers proves the correctness of the original dynamic design. What was not considered indesign was the temperature that can develop in the ensuing fire. Here the lulling experience from1945 might have been deceptive; that year, a two-engine bomber (B-25), flying in low clouds toNewark at about 400 km/h, hit the Empire State Building (381 m tall, built in 1932) at the 79thfloor (278 m above ground)—the steel columns (much heavier than in modern buildings) suffered no significant damage, and the fire remained confined essentially to two floors only (Levy andSalvadori 1992).

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

And maybe this from the Journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation




seekerof



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Why would we attack ourselves with a plan we ourselves had drawn up and many people had knowledge of? I dont buy it. I do believe that the dude believes what hes saying. He probably read it in some super left mag. If theres anything to it at all it probably went like this.

Text

Bin Laden was heavily involved with the CIA for a long time fighting the Soviets. Its absolutely plausible that he learned of the program a long time ago and originally intended to use the plan against the Soviet Union. We may have given him the blueprints to use against the Soviets. When the Soviets withdrew he had no one else to wage jihad against. Being the bloodthirsty megalomaniac that he is it just made sense hed come after us eventually.

Text

We for some reason thought hed be our pal and "go to" guy in the middle east since wed given him tons of high tech weapons and his mujahaddein such advanced training. Weve got to stop thinking people like this wont turn on us. The real 9/11 coverup of course is how involved the Bushes and Bin Ladens were and still are financially. I still think 9/11 was the result of business deals gone bad between the two families. No we did not attack ourselves. The military would have turned on Bush immedietly.

Text

W is a terrible liar and shows body language quite a bit. He turnes red and shifts his eyes and nervously scratches himself just like Clinton did. He was just as shocked as the rest of us on 9/11. The footage from the Florida classroom says everything. When chief of staff Andy Card told him of the attacks it looked like the blood just drained out him and he clenched up pretty quick.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pretorian03
It could be all true yes, but i personaly belive that those conspiracy theorie people have just too much time and too much imagination.


No one can argue that, especially since George W. Bush's conspiracy theory about Saddam being behind 911 and planning to attack the western world with WMD turned out to be just that. A man with too much time [vacation?] oh his hand and too much imagination [Spain is a Republic].


Sincerely

Cade



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Lots of people predicted an airliner / tall building attack.
I'm sure US Govt has files on it as part of scenario planning. Frederick Forsyth claims to have written it into a draft of an unpublished book.
The existance of a scenario doesn't make it more / less likely there was some non-Arab security service involvement.

The facts of the attack on 11-9 and its subsequent usefulness in justifying an invasion for oil does create suspicion about the official explanation.

If it was a CIA / Mossad / Whoever plot it'll be well covered and is unlikely to leak out.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   
You people are missing the point.

Even if this event had no govt involvement
, it still is too suspicious to believe. They said there were NO indications of a plan to fly planes into buildings. Yet, some of you maintain that there WERE such plans, so who's lying?
I guess this story and that prophetic Lone Gunman episode are just coincidences...

Look, I heard this guy AND his lawyer talk about this story. Get this, he STILL works for the govt! Why would he lie if he's still with the govt? I also heard some representative grill Rumsfeld with some hard questions. Surprise surprise, he and his cronies neatly skirted the questions and babbled nonsense. I'm sorry, but anyone who still believes the official story is the real conspiracy theorist. Anyone with half a brain can see that it is bullsheet.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join