Doctored 9/11Pentagon pics!

[Steven]

Judging from this website, we're not only been lied about the wtc and the pentagon crash, but they also doctored the photo's in a HUGE WAY. This is getting more and more incredible by the day...

www.911studies.com

[paul wright]

[Annie]

Hi Steven

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for the site reference.

I found the following article there, and for ease of reference, post it below. Has anyone come across this guy before?

Regards

Annie

The Perfect Terrorist Plan To Level The Twin Towers Created In 1976

American Free Press

Comment: If confirmed 100% then this is THE smoking gun, over and above Northwoods, the NORAD stand down, the explosives in the buildings, any other piece of 9-11 evidence. It's going to be interesting to see how they pass this one off as a 'coincidence'. This is the straw that could break the camel's back.

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

The laundry list of terrorist warnings handed to the Bush administration prior to 9/11 makes the President and others look like "bumbling idiots or a bunch of conniving criminals" responsible for the mass murders at the Twin Towers and in Afghanistan and Iraq.

These are the harsh words of Timothy McNiven, an outspoken critic of the President's handling of 9-11 and a 29-year US Defense Department operative still under contract with the government.

He says not only did the Bush administration purposely ignore Al Q'aeda in the months preceding the WTC attacks, but the situation is even more disturbing, considering his military unit way back in 1976 devised a mock terrorist attack of the Twin Towers exactly like what occurred on 9-11.

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.

The publicized version of the study, commissioned by Congress, was to identify security lapses and submit corrective measures to lawmakers. However, McNiven claims the real purpose of the study was to brainstorm how to pull off the perfect terrorist attack using the exact same 9-11 scenario.

The study, commissioned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, US Army, stationed in Strasbourg, Germany in 1976, specifically devised the scenario of the Twin Towers being leveled by Middle Eastern terrorists using commercial airliners and even plastic box cutters to bypass security.

To silence critics, McNiven has successfully passed a credible lie detector test regarding his participation in the study as well as other specific orders given to him by his superiors in case of a real attack on the Twin Towers.

The head of the 1976 mock terrorist plan was Lt. Michael Teague of Long Island, who McNiven says was given specific orders by higher-ups in the military to use the Twin Towers as the terrorist target.

McNiven said he has been unable to contact Lt. Teague, but was interested in his opinion now that "the 9/11 attacks happened the way we planned them in 1976."

"I remember Lt. Teague changed the scenario of the supposed study from a 100 story building to the Twin Towers," recalled McNiven, emphasizing that Lt. Teague was acting on specific orders from unknown superiors.

"He then said he thought it was very strange to be asked to devise a plan to blow up your own home town. But as I watched the Twin Towers really collapse on the morning of September 11th, I realized I was watching the very same thing we devised in the 1976."

Since that ominous realization, McNiven has devoted his entire life to alerting the American public about the similarities between 9/11 and the 1976 study without much success, his story basically being ignored by politicians and the mainstream media.

"Why am I doing this? Why have I spent every waking hour trying to bring this story to the American people?" asked McNiven, claiming he still is following a strange direct military order given to him more than 25 years ago.

"During the course of the terrorist plan we were devising, I made the statement to Lt. Teague that if the WTC was ever attacked like we planned, I'd go public. I was then physically assaulted and told never to reveal anything we were doing regarding the Twin Towers."

However, about a week later a strange turn of events occurred. For no apparent reason, McNiven claims his superiors completely changed their minds.

"I was given the direct order that if the Twin Towers were ever attacked the way we discussed in the 1976 study, I was to do everything in my power to bring the similarities to the attention of the American people.

"I have no idea why they changed their minds, but I was then emphatically told that this order was never to be rescinded - never - because those who would rescind it, would be the very same people who turned against the American people."

Besides taking a lie detector to verify his story, McNiven has made public a detailed list of about 40 names of those individuals who took part in the mock terrorist plan, including Col. Robert Morrison, Maj. Joe Dipiero, Sgt. Middleton, Sgt. Arroyo and many others.

"There were also people from the Defense Department and the CIA who were monitoring the study, but I wasn't able to get their names," he added.

Some of McNiven's most recent assignments with the Defense Department include work on the Northwest Drug Task Force and various other drug smuggling and weapons trafficking cases.

©2005 propagandamatrix.com




---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

[Garrett Cooke]

Steven,

I have only just completed reviewing all of the photographs on this site. An impressive collection and a lot of work has been done by Jack White. I think my view of the Pentagon photographs has certainly changed.

I think readers should look especially at http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies43.htm if at no other photograph. Until reading this I did not know about these firemen that arrived 'univited' 10 minutes after the attack. If this is true then this must have caused considerable problems for the team managing the cover up.

One question I have though is that if the photoshopping was so extensive why did they not photoshop the lawn to look like an aircraft has caused some damage to it? Surely one of the first things people are asked to look at, as evidence that it was not a plane crash, is the perfect Pentagon lawn! Just a thought.

Garrett

[orestes]

[Garrett Cooke]

I am not sure what you are implying. Am I missing something obvious here? Is Jack White incorrect in his assertion that these firemen were 'unplanned'? If they were 'planned' then why did they take these photographs: http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies44.htm which appear to show better than any I have seen previously that there was no plane and indeed no inferno (the fire was put out in 7 minutes - says Jack). Or are these photos themselves faked? I am interested in your views on this and suitable links that you have found to corroborate or otherwise your assertions.

Garrett

[orestes]

I have seen the photos and I agree they are pretty damning of the flight 77 idea. I was merely saying, perhaps misleadingly, that I know that there were firemen close by and there were also fire drills for pentagon staff that day. The firemen nearby are reported by Tarpley in his book that I am currently reading. I can't remember the source for the exercise in the building. I should have made clear that although these people may have been unplanned there were others close by. However, I would like to know of Jack White's sources for those assertions about the firemen in question.

Having seen the site I thought they were good photos. I researched him and saw some work he did on the Apollo landings. I saw testimony he gave in court (some libel case about Apollo). He was ripped to shreds by the defense team on specifics of photography and his general credentials. I also saw sites claiming that his own moon photos were cut and past jobs. I have absolutely no expertise in this area, so I don't know what to think about the photos. But doubt has been placed in my mind. This may be unfair to him, but it is there nonetheless. If you wish to judge for yourslf I think a google search will throw up critical sites quickly. I have merely decided to put this to one side, I have no basis for judging him or his site. I just prefer to stick to what I am confident in about 9/11. I will look up those drills again though, maybe Tarpley mentions these firemen and I've forgotten?

[Garrett Cooke]

I have looked at the moon landing photos on Jack's site. As they stand they seem to make a good case and I have checked back to the official Apollo sites to see that he has used genuine undoctored photographs. Having been convinced before that the moon landings were genuine the jury is now out in my mind and I am looking for substatiating evidence.

Returning to the Pentagon pictures it is noticable that Jack, although referring to the story re: the uninvited firefighters, does not give a link to it; why? I think if 'they' wanted us really to believe that a large aircraft hit the Pentagon then with the power of so much photoshopping a better job could have done of trying to convince. Or is the plan to make us believe something else hit e.g. a missile? Then at the end of the day we are discredited because 'they' can present conclusive evidence that it was not. There definitely was no large plane but I am suggesting that the missile is possibly a hoax to distract from the more likely truth of a truck bomb and/or planted explosives. This would actually seem to accord with Jack's photo analysis although he does suggest (without conclusive evidence unless I missed it) that he does believe there was a missile. If it seems that I am going around in circles then this may well be the case!

Garrett.

[Pete J]

I came across Jack White a few years ago when I was looking at some of the Apolo Hoax theories. A lot of his stuff was posted on this site: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

One of the problems I had with his stuff was that he seemed to mix a lot of good examples with extremely ambiguous ones. For example, if you look at the picture of the lunar lander ´foot´ (http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_1.html) he makes the assertion that those ´appear to be 8 X 10´ photos, wheareas it´s not clear at all what they are. Also, if you look at the full image (http://www.spacearchive.net/imgme/AS15-87-11839.jpg) you can see that it´s just as likely (from a subjective point of view) that theyre strips of the foil wrap from instruments which those ´untidy astronoauts´have disguarded.

I had an email exchange with Jack about this and other ´dubious´assertions he makes and, rather than make a professional case as to why one should interprate these images one way as opposed to another, he just got quite defensive and we simply had to agree to differ, which was disappointing for me.

I concluded in the end that he was either a hoaxer himself of just unprofessional about how he went about selecting and presenting evidence.

[is]

ANNIE, do you have a link for that article?

If that comes out, wont that actually do it?