Witness says 9/11 planned in 1976 by Pentagon. Does it matter ?

From Common Ground Common Sense:

Our own U.S. Army devised a plan commissioned by Congress to bring down the WTC using commercial airliners and box cutters as weapons

Timothy McNiven, who first went public in an affidavit included in a 9/11-related federal conspiracy (RICO) lawsuit filed against Bush and others in 2004, claims his unit was ordered to create the "perfect terrorist plan" using commercial airliners as weapons and the Twin Towers as their target (1)

RICO lawsuit
9-11 Victim Wife Ellen Mariani Files RICO Suit Against Bush & Co in 2003 (2)

But do people want to know this ?
The heart of the 9/11 truth dilemma.. is not the absence of evidence but the public's fear to know (Truthout.com Editor). For many Americans, there is a deep psychological desire for the 9/11 tragedy to be over (Peter Phillips, Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University & director of Project Censored) (3)

The lawsuit
Plaintiff, Ellen Mariani started a civil action on September 12, 2003: : United States District Court Eastern District Of Pennsylvania -  - Case No. 03-5273 (2)

Ellen Mariani, whose husband Louis Neil Mariani died when .. flight 175 was flown into the [WTC] has filed a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)lawsuit against President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members.

According to her attorney Philip J. Berg, the complaint states that Bush et al had knowledge and warnings of the 9-11 Incident, yet failed to warn or take steps to prevent it. It also charges that they have been covering up the truth of 9-11 and have therefore violated the laws of the United States and are being sued under the Civil RICO Act.

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..  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... 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..

McNiven's testimony

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... Here is a list of names (not all) of other participants from my unit: Col. Robert (Bad bob) Morrison, Maj. Joe Dipiero.. 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..

Is he for real ?
I did some digging on McNiven. In his own site he shows he has been telling the same story since 2001. But he also calls e-mails with virus detected "harassment mails"..

People just don't want to know

For many Americans, there is a deep psychological desire for the 9/11 tragedy to be over. The shock of the day is well remembered and terrorist alerts from Homeland Security serve to maintain lasting tensions and fears. The 9/11 Commission report gave many a sense of partial healing and completion - especially given the corporate media's high praise of the report. There is a natural resistance to naysayers who continue to question the US government's version of what happened on September 11, 2001. This resistance is rooted in our tendency towards the inability to conceive of people we know as evil; instead evil ones must be others, very unlike ourselves...
A .. concept facing Americans [willful denial] is the possibility that the 9/11 Commission Report was on many levels a cover-up for the failure of the US government to prevent the tragedy... [Some concepts are] so frightening that it brings up a state of mind akin to complete unbelievability..

Overall concerns with the official version of 9/11 have been published and discussed by scholars and writers around the world including: Jim Mars, Nafeez Ahmed, Michael Ruppert, Cynthia McKinney, Barrie Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Michel Chossudovsky and many others. The response to most has been to label these discussions as conspiracy theories unworthy of media coverage or further review. Pursuit of a critical analysis of these questions is undermined by the psychological barrier about 9/11 issues as threshold concepts - too awful to even consider. (3)

9/11 Report - A cover up ?

Philosophy/Religion professor David Ray Griffin has recently published his findings on the omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission report. Griffin's book brings into question the completeness and authenticity of the 9/11 Commission's work. Griffin questions why extensive advanced warnings from several countries were not acted upon by the administration, how a major institutional investor knew to buy put-options on American and United Airlines before the attack, and why photos of the Pentagon immediately after the attack show damage inconsistent with a crash of a 757 airliner.

Additionally, Griffin notes questions remain on why the 9/11 Commission failed to address the reports that $100,000 was wired to Mohamed Atta from Saeed Sheikh, an agent for Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), under the direction of the head of ISI General Mahmud Ahmed. General Ahmed resigned his position less than one month later. The Times of India reported that Indian intelligence had given US officials evidence of the money transfer ordered by Ahmad and he was dismissed after the "US authorities sought his removal."

Also, the 9/11 Commission report failed to address the reasons for the collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) building 7 more than six hours after the attack. WTC-7 was a 47-story steel frame building that had only small fires on a few floors. WTC buildings 5 & 6 had much larger fires and did not collapse. This has led a number of critics to speculate that WTC 7 was a planned demolition (3)

Links

• 1 - The Perfect Terrorist Plan to Level The Twin Towers Created In 1976
  
• 2 - Conspiracy Planet - 9-11: Crime - 9-11 Victim Wife Files RICO Suit Against Bush & Co
  
• 3 - The Perfect Terrorist Plan to Level The Twin Towers Created In 1976
  
• Scoop: UQ Wire: Mariani Vs Bush (Full Amended Complaint)
  
• NYC IMC: newswire/28370
  
• Codename Grillfire (McNiven's site)
  
• http://www.911forthetruth.com/
  
• Common Ground Common Sense

==========================
This concludes the serious part of the diary, only plain speculation below
==========================

Disclaimer: I love a good conspiracy theory as an exercise of what could be and what evidence supports it. But only looking for supporting evidence is NOT scientific or objective at all.

Why did papa Bush ignore McNiven's study ?
Mariani's suit poses a very good question: The first WTC attack happened only 6 weeks after GHB left office and was botched by the terrorists own gross mistakes. The surviving terrorist was so dumb that he returned to the van rental office to try to get some money back. Do those bozos sound like the masterful infiltrators of 9/11, who hid in plain sight for 2-3 years and learned to fly planes right under the FBI and CIA's nose ?

If as neocons allege, WTC 1 was a dry run for the second attack, for whom this dry run was made ? And what was learned from such a dumb dry run ? Could it be the fact that the 2 towers could be evacuated quickly and casualties would likely be very low ? Don't forget that no one thought the towers would collapse, and certainly not in such a short time. The first WTC attack, while  "showy" and traumatic, had less than a dozen casualties.

So if you need a "nation shocking event" to get your radical right wing agenda pushed and you believe that you can get a hit on one of the nations's top icons, while keeping casualties low, a hit to the WTC towers would qualify. And all you had to do was get your daddy's cliff notes on how to hijack planes and crash them against the WTC... (Remember, this is plain speculation  )

SIDE NOTE
Why no one foresaw the towers could fall after a plane hit them ?
Structural Engineering was my worst subject at EE school, but I'll try to explain it for the non-engineers. If any engineer reads it and wants to explain it better, be my guest - law

Civil engineering calculations had made sure that both towers were built to withstand the IMPACT of a jet plane, but no one had counted on the jet fuel's fire reaching a temperature high enough to compromise the steel frame. It turns out that the 9/11 hit was a "double whammy" to the towers:

- The temperature necessary to get the towers to collapse wasn't very high. Contrary to common assumptions, it wasn't necessary for the fire to get as hot as the melting point of steel to get the building's steel frame weak enough to crumble.
The steel frame would lose it's structural strength long before that, as steel gets "bendable" long before it melts and even tiny ammounts of "bending" make a huge difference in such a tightly woven structure.

- The towers had a vulnerable structural design. A new theory of structural strength was used in the towers, to reduce the amount and weight of the steel used in the frame: A solid block of cement was used instead of the traditional amount of steel bars calculated, due to a theoretical belief that it would be structurally equivalent to  heavier, costlier steel. It wasn't - any strong impact would have to only break the cement column and the towers would fall due to their own weight, as the remaining steel structure was too weak to support it all.

So what do you think of it all ?
Take the poll

Jo no creo en bruxas, pero que las hay, las hay - Latin America folclore

•  finally, I don't feel bad about posting...

  ...this rant on a kos diary.  Usually 9/11 is only tangentially related to whatever diary I'm posting this on:  
  As hard as it is to believe, 911 was darker than we are told.  Based on all the independent research that's taken place, especially in the last two years since the 9/11 commission released its finding, it appears that 9/11 was allowed to happen. People interested in seeing an end, to not just the Bush regime but the much larger Military/Industrial Complex backing it, should really be jumping all over this story.  It's the biggest one of our time and their biggest vulnerability.  

  The Left needs to take a good LONG look at all the evidence related to 911, not just the officially recognized (or remembered) evidence.  There is plenty of dirt that points toward unbelievable incompetence and even complicity on the part of the Bush Admin and its allies in the National Security Establishment (the NeoCons embedded in the govenrment).  Seriously, we've been sold some MAJOR, easily debunked lies about the events of that day.

  I think the multiple 911 wargames that are NEVER talked about in the US MSM are the biggest red flag that we are being lied to about that day.  Especially the CIA-run wargame involving a plane crashing into a building.  At the very least it demonstrates a capacity for our media to tell Big Lies across the board and censor dangerous (to whom?) information.  

  Here's the AP report on the plane crash simulation wargame.  What's that, the nightly news and NY Times didn't cover this?  Wow, what a surprise.  You'd be amazed how often unwanted stories just sort of fade away.  Our capacity to forget, or never learn in the first place, is probably the public's greatest vulnerability to chronic abuse of power.

  This is a really in-depth timeline of the events of that day based on all the material released.  It's a long read but worth it.  Don't be surprised if a lot of the links are dead (many are old, and link to MSM online articles that you can imagine have been purged by now.  It took me forever to find that wargame link above).

  This is a copy of an article about Senator Dayton's declaration that NORAD and the FAA lied egregiously about the events of that day.  I remember reading this one in the NY Times.  It was during the Democratic National Convention last year, so the fact that he made this statement then shows how seriously he took it.  He probably meant to make big waves but it was never picked up by the media.  There was just that one article on it and that's pretty much it.

  Here's a Washington Post article about the destruction of the FAA tapes.  This story was talked about for maybe a day and then faded away, if I remember right.

  As unbelievable as it may be that our government could be hiding evidence of high level complicity, don't forget that 9/11 was the Neocons wet dream when it came to their Project for a New American Century.  There's lot's of research that's taken place (these links are just a taste of all the research going on), and lots of disinfo too, and some real sources of hope(watch the video of McKinney grilling Rumsfeld at the bottom of that page), so don't get too frustrated.  Anyone interested in learning more about what happened that day and how it's shaping our country's present and future course in the world, now's the time to do it!  There are some BIG fish to fry, and we're going to need all the help we can get!

  The truth is out there....and it's scary as shit!  

  by glooperoo on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:52:29 PM PDT

•  I am glad that this issue

   is still being looked at.  But what the hell I own the largest tin foil sombrero w/ titanium antenna in the city of Atlanta. Two of the things that keep me coming back to this is the WTC 7 Video and the Fact that NORAD had more than 67 incursions of suspected hijackings in the year 2001 all were responded to with an f-16 flyby in less than 20 minutes, but on Sept 11,2001 we had four. One of which it took an hour to repond.
  I saw in your diary you mentioned Michael Ruppert but did not list his site
  This link is NOT the home , but to the NORAD and 9-11 page and discusses in detail about NORAD policies and 9-11 hearings.

  by lazbumm on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:06:29 PM PDT

  •  IGNORAD ?

    IGNORAD
    The Military Screw-up Nobody Talks About
    by Scott Shugar
    http://AttackOnAmerica.net/IGNORAD.htm

    Also on Mariani's lawsuit:
    http://www.standdown.net/ the "heir" to IGNORAD author Scott Shuger. Scott was known as the first Internet reporter. He was also the only mainstream or alternative media writer.. who had the courage to write about the elementary mathematical facts (that the two United States Air Force (USAF) F-15 fighters ordered to intercept United Airlines Flight 175 and the two or three USAF F-16 fighters ordered to intercept American Airlines Flight 77 were flying at only 25.8% and 27.4% of their top speed) of the NORAD Press Release of September 18, 2001. Scott's article is called IGNORAD The Military Screw-up Nobody Talks About. Scott Shuger died in a scuba diving accident June 15, 2002.

    by lawnorder on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:51:57 PM PDT

    •  Was an investigation done

      into Shugar's death? I've googled, but not finding anything other than mentions like "Scott Shuger astonishingly died in a scuba diving accident..."

      Just wondering if you or anyone else knows more about this. While it's completely possible, of course, to die while scuba diving, it's not exactly common. And, tin foil hat on, I can imagine a myriad of ways that a scuba diver - even an experienced one who takes safety very seriously, as all divers should - could die if someone wanted him too.

      His death may have been nothing more than an unfortunate accident - it's just piqued my interest, and I'd like to know more.

      by think2004 on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 04:12:53 AM PDT

•  Interesting...

      ... that an SP4 (corporal) field arty crewman is "in-on" a serious study about how to conduct a terrorist attack.
      I wear a tin foil hat on occasion myself... ok honestly I REVEL in good quality tin foil hattery.   McNiven, if he's not just doing a goofy send up for laughs, is wearing his hat a bit too tightly.
      His DD 214 shows he was on active duty for less then two years.  (It also shows his SS number and date of birth.  Wonder if the mysterious credit card bills have started arriving yet?)
      The depth and breadth of the the polygraph test is not exactly compelling.  It's not so hard to beat a polygraph, and they don't say if you're telling the truth or not... only if are responding as if you are trying to decieve.
      McNivens' writing is ummmm....disorganized... as is his web site.  (Yes... I know MY writing sucks too :)

      I'd be shocked to learn that someone he mentioned by name confirms his recolections of events.

  by Paulie200 on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 12:44:13 AM PDT

  •  He did sound nutty on his web site

    I spent a good deal of time trying to dig more on him - polygraph tests are a SCAM FLAG alert for me - mostly the liars seem to like them.

    But all I found was his site, the Mariani lawsuit, some forum posts and a signature on a petiton for an  antiwar cause where he described himself as "priest" for the Washington Church of Rock & Roll...

    by lawnorder on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 02:45:48 AM PDT

    •  Thanks...

      Thanks for the reply.  I read this diary through a couple of times, wondering how much cred you gave to McNiven.  I've seen you do some good work and would hate to think you've joined up with the butterfly net crowd ;)

      Cheers,
      Paulie

      by Paulie200 on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 10:02:45 AM PDT

      •  I love conspiracy theories

        like some people love Friday the 13th movies....

        No one likes it because they believe Jason exist, they like it because of the thrill of imagining "what if", the gory details, the cheesy story telling...

        by lawnorder on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 10:35:47 AM PDT