nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Was there a reason September 11th was chosen as the date of the attacks?

mr_fegelien

I've heard two reasons for the choosing of the date by the perpetrators (if you believe it was the shadow government or terrorists). The first is that it was chosen for it's significance to the Battle of Vienna that took place on September 11th 1863 which if had gone in the Muslims favor would have meant the conquest of Europe. I suppose the shadow government if they planned it would have wanted this as a scary reminder of the second time that invaders tried to destroy Western values and almost succeeded. A second Pearl Harbour. It can also be viewed in the terrorists favor, perhaps Bin Laden chose it precisely because he knew of it's significance as well.

But the problem I have with that is the fact that firstly, Bin Laden relied on Atta to decide the date on the attacks (according to the Nat Geo documentary I watched, 9/11, The War on America). He wanted it as soon as possible and feared the plot was discovered so was unlikely to be concerned with trying to live up to dates.

The second reason they may have chosen is for the simple fact that September 11th was a clear and cloudless day. As Ben Slimey put it, there was sun from Maine to Florida. I don't think that even Atta or Bin Laden would have risked chosing September 11th to commemorate the Battle of Vienna only to have it be a cloudy day where the pilot hijackers couldn't make out the skyline of New York and Washington while descending.

Just food for thought.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Rodney Bathgate

It was the only day that they could find that was after September 10th while at the same time being before September the 12th.

Cheerful Spring2

mr_fegelien wrote: »

I've heard two reasons for the choosing of the date by the perpetrators (if you believe it was the shadow government or terrorists). The first is that it was chosen for it's significance to the Battle of Vienna that took place on September 11th 1863 which if had gone in the Muslims favor would have meant the conquest of Europe. I suppose the shadow government if they planned it would have wanted this as a scary reminder of the second time that invaders tried to destroy Western values and almost succeeded. A second Pearl Harbour. It can also be viewed in the terrorists favor, perhaps Bin Laden chose it precisely because he knew of it's significance as well.

But the problem I have with that is the fact that firstly, Bin Laden relied on Atta to decide the date on the attacks (according to the Nat Geo documentary I watched, 9/11, The War on America). He wanted it as soon as possible and feared the plot was discovered so was unlikely to be concerned with trying to live up to dates.

The second reason they may have chosen is for the simple fact that September 11th was a clear and cloudless day. As Ben Slimey put it, there was sun from Maine to Florida. I don't think that even Atta or Bin Laden would have risked chosing September 11th to commemorate the Battle of Vienna only to have it be a cloudy day where the pilot hijackers couldn't make out the skyline of New York and Washington while descending.

Just food for thought.

May have picked out this day since it was a day when the US airforce was engaged in drills, and war games. Listen to the Norad tapes from 9/11 the base operators were confused when the FAA phoned them about hijacked planes in the air. They asked over the phone to people phoning the base, was this ‘real world or exercise? They had mock terrorist airplanes on the radar and had to sort out which plane was real and fake.
The whole issue is who precisely chose the day and send the order to begin? How much knowledge they had about the entire operation can’t be realized today. You can’t talk to death people.

Ian OB

I always assumed it was because in the States 911 was the number dialled for emergency services. Is that too simplistic?

Cheerful Spring2

Ian OB wrote: »

I always assumed it was because in the States 911 was the number dialled for emergency services. Is that too simplistic?

9 months of the year (September) and 11th is the date it took place. People just short it to 9/11

rodDaly69

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

9 months of the year (September) and 11th is the date it took place. People just short it to 9/11

Thanks for that extremely necessary explanation of the North American date writing system. I was totally perplexed before this.

Cheerful Spring2

rodDaly69 wrote: »

Thanks for that extremely necessary explanation of the North American date writing system. I was totally perplexed before this.

You’re welcome

Some people believe the date has symbolism, I don't see evidence for that.

This operation however ( fact )occurred early in the morning when the US airforce were doing war games and this slowed their response to the plane hijackings. Last thing the conspirators wanted is a fighter aircraft taking down the planes over a rural area before they hit the target. The first two planes were up in the air for over 40 minutes.

4068ac1elhodqr

A game of symbolic calling cards perhaps (9/11) (7/7) etc.

From the man in black that leaves the lady chocolates and his simple logo, to the Zodiac Killer types, many of sublte clever narcissistic types don't worry about ever getting caught out, so display a flagrant disregard while spraying their scent.

The Nal

More likely that the Battle of Vienna started on September 11th 1683. It was the opening battle in a jihad for the Islamic conquering of Europe and the defeat of Christianity.

Lots of remote controlled planes and controlled explosions going on.

Cheerful S

During that time, it was possible to carry out the hijacking successfully, so it was chosen for that date.

Florida is where anti Cuban operations, drug trafficking and gunrunning occur, basically any shady criminal activity has gone on there since the 50s. It was not a coincidence that a bunch of Arabs arrived at a school run by a Dutchman with criminal ties. Someone sent this up and ordered them to attend this Huffman aviation in Florida. In essence, the flight school is a hub for international crime with shady government connections.

Mohammed Atta's movements in Florida years before 9/11 were brilliantly investigated by Daniel Hopsicker. He discovered that Atta was recruited by a front company called Florida Sunset Aviation was owned by German named Pascal Schreier. He recruited students from Germany places like hamburg.to attend flight school training in America.. An initial look suggested it was a legitimate company, but in reality, it was a CIA front and a criminal operation ( something similar to Air America)

Rudi Dekkers also owned International Computer Products, which was involved in smuggling and lending. In the same vein as Barry Seal, Dekkers was tracked by the government authorities, but they seem to not have had the insider information that Dekkers was working for bigger fish. Dutch and DEA authorities watched all this carefully for different reasons. DEA was probably watching him over the drug shipments.

According to Hopsicker information, Dekkers was also smuggling large Boeing aircraft through the Arctic Circle under the protection of some people in the US government., Lot of info not touched on here,

We know hopsicker not full of **** Rudi ended up being caught again.

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/head-of-911-hijackers-flight-school-faces-drug-running-charges

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119813339#Comment_119813339

You seem to keep adding people to your conspiracy. Last check it was everyone from Nazi's to Mossad to Saudi to Bush to Biden to the FBI and CIA.

Maybe a more pertinent question is - who wasn't involved?

[Deleted User]

It’s the same date as that terrible air tragedy

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119814659#Comment_119814659

A Dutch drug smuggler's flight school is more important to understand why the 9/11 hijackers chose it. Daniel learned through sourcing and investigation that Rudi had investors, including Willy Hillard (a known CIA asset) and Rock Boehlke, a guy who is accused of stealing 340 million dollars from union pension funds. Apparently, there is also some link to Prince Turki's (the Saudi intelligence chief and head of this flight school) smuggling operation to bring in large amounts of heroin.

The mainstream media are useless, it took a real journalist to investigate the inner workings of this flight school

This company was basically a place where drugs were smuggled into America from foreign countries. It was run by a group of covert operatives who had gone private.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119814750#Comment_119814750

When the Boston bombing happened, tens of thousands of people on Reddit decided to play internet investigator and "solve" it. They didn't, they just found the wrong people, as always. Real investigators found the real culprits with real evidence.

It's the same with 9/11. You can read detailed accounts of what happened. Or you can go onto the internet and read conspiracy blogs where likeminded people make up their own stories.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119814923#Comment_119814923

There is no mystery here. The Boston bombers were spotted on camera at the site with backpacks and left without them. There is no evidence of a larger conspiracy.

Putting the two events side by side is a simplistic approach.

In my opinion, the evidence presented by AE911 truth is strong. Even Mick West admitted on video that this group discovered information in NIST reports that are untrue. Mick wasn't honest about the implications of that.

After finally admitting that shear studs, stiffeners, plates, and seat measurements provided by NIST are removed and are incorrect, he finally admitted that NIST trigger events aren't accurate. This incident occurred in the area of column 79 (A2001 girder), as NIST claims here. Because the construction was removed, none of what NIST claims is true whatsoever, and Mick admission confirms the caliber of AE911 truth put into this case.

Is it possible for the girder to expand off its seat if the shear studs, plates, and seat size are all correct? The fact that NIST removed them without a clear explanation indicates that computer animation was struggling to get the building to collapse as they intended.

Some other energy is used to remove steel instead we enter the world of controlled demolition, but NIST wants to avoid this at all costs.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119814970#Comment_119814970

Terrorists flew planes into buildings, they fell down, it isn't a mystery.

It's only a "mystery" to conspiracy theorists who project that in order to hint at their conspiracies. You, for example, have your very own custom theory that changes every other month. That shows you clearly believe world events and history revolve around you. Someone doesn't have to be a psychologist to see what's going on there.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815054#Comment_119815054

The fact that you still claim fire shows that you do not understand the false nature of these studies.

NIST now agrees that the building collapsed eight stories during freefall, which has startling implications. As to how eight stories of structure suddenly removed themselves to let the rest of the building fall down, NIST has no valid explanation. In the absence of equal amounts of damage occurring simultaneously, it is impossible to conduct any natural procedure from the bottom across the building. Only known method to remove 8 stories of structure in one go is by controlled demolition. Freefall in a building collapsing naturally is impossible, all failures are uneven and out of sync. As shown by the NIST models, the building would be crushed during a natural collapse, but none of this happened during the actual collapse. It is only necessary to look at the west wall to see that the steel frame was not decoupled from the wall.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815367#Comment_119815367

Only known method to remove 8 stories of structure in one go is by controlled demolition

OK, how did they get the explosives into the buildings?

Cheerful S

You going to claim that freefall natural collapsed 8 stories vertically and caused the same level of damage as controlled demolition, then you need to show it. It's a red flag that they haven't.

Anyhow, the NIST collapse doesn't make sense, since if one half of the building collapsed first (tilting over to one side as the Hulsey report shows) then the collapse moved horizontally across from top and progressed to the bottom, how would you get freefall at the bottom?

NIST has all these weird collapse stages broken up. The load up top had to come through its own structure.

Steel supports over eight stories can't block the load. Fact NIST has one side blocked, is further evidence that freefall was caused by controlled demolition.

Do not take my word for it. Their own model shows the impossibility of freefall occurring across eight levels of floors. Debris up top bypasses the steel in the black box, but how? Debunkers will never answer, but they claim to understand science.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815367#Comment_119815367

It was fire, no one has ever demonstrated otherwise.

According to you it was silent explosives, still waiting for details of that plot..

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815436#Comment_119815436

There was a lot of talk on 9/11 about controlled demolition bringing down the building. It was almost like deploying a cover story that if the demolition was delayed could still claim the explosives were placed in there later. There was more evidence that time was running out to bring down the building by announcing its collapse before it actually fell. Predicting the sequence of events that NIST outlined here is remarkable considering the deception of their work. As all of this is going on, it looks like the media networks are preparing for collapse

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815535#Comment_119815535

NIST certified that freefall was true in the final report. Do you have any studies which show how eight levels of floors collapsed instantly? Don't dismiss this as a big fraud or just a bunch of opinion cant?

What do learn in school about freefall? According to your views, freefall can still occur if one half of the building has steel support?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815559#Comment_119815559

I watched it live and pretty much didn't turn off the 24/7 news for weeks afterwards (like many people), I don't recall much, if any, talk of "controlled demolition".

You change your conspiracies often, you "see" things in photos that aren't there, you engage in lots of shenanigans to support your belief - that's all deceptive behavior. Note how you gaslight and project that behavior onto proper investigations.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815586#Comment_119815586

The skyscrapers all fell due to the effects of fire. Acting incredulous about it doesn't change the facts.

Again, you are free to present a coherent explanation of how they "really" fell, but you have never done that.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815596#Comment_119815596

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqdl5otsB_o&ab_channel=QuestionAuthority247

In his confession, John Kerry admitted that they brought down the building in a controlled manner because of the danger of structural problems. In the midst of 9/11, it's interesting how they do that? Who told him brought down in controlled manner?

A number of network anchors said it looked like a controlled demolition. All the media channels just watched as the building fell down. The building was cleared and people were told to move back. Due to NIST deception, it was not remotely possible that this would happen naturally. The media was used to influence people's opinion in a clear false flag. It was huge in scope and influenced people's opinions what came next war on terror.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815641#Comment_119815641

That's a conspiracy theorist ambushing John Kerry at a book tour:

Full quote below:

"“I don’t believe there’s been a formal investigation. I haven’t heard that, I don’t know that. I do know that, uh, that wall, I remember, was in danger, and I think that they made a decision based on the danger, that it had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion.

Uh, you know, he’s part of the construction, reconstruction effort, the memorial, the use of the land, etcetera. There’s been a long tug of war going on in New York, I am not following every aspect of it… but I’ll check what the story is. I’ll take a look at it, based on what you said. You are the first people, anywhere in the country, who have brought this to my attention.

The guy claims that the 9/11 Commission Report didn’t even address WTC 7, and Kerry says, “Let me find out about it, I don’t know enough about it, it’s not in our book, etcetera, and if you go to the back of the book, folks, you’ll find a whole listing of web sites…”

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/john-kerry-inadvertently-concedes-points-911-conspiracy-theorist-jim-geraghty/

You could ask any number of politicians questions about WTC 6 or even 7 and they may not know the details. It's how conspiracy theorists work, ambushing people and then taking what they say out of context.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815600#Comment_119815600

It is undisputed that a building of this design has never collapsed fully due to fire. If buildings like this had collapsed in similar ways in the past, it would not have been so difficult.

NIST lied about how the building collapsed for the first time in history, revealing the conspiracy. There is evidence that a large conspiracy exists to remove all evidence from this site as quickly as possible, as evidenced by the fact that the WTC7 steel was removed in large dump trunks with GPS devices and antennas. From a building 47 high, NIST couldn't find a single piece of confirmed WTC7 steel anywhere, which is startling. The evidence would be destroyed if another easily detectable method was used to bring down seven rather than the towers.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815691#Comment_119815691

It is undisputed that a building of this design has never collapsed due to secret silent controlled explosions.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815690#Comment_119815690

I remember, was in danger, and I think that they made a decision based on the danger, that it had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion.

In your neck of the woods, what does controlled fashion mean?

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815696#Comment_119815696

Nanothermite was found only in tower dust once again. This keeps getting confused by you all the time.

. There is no evidence of nanothermite in dust of building seven. Samples of that collapse do not exist. The steel from that site was removed in a rush and placed somewhere, never to be seen again. NIST never got hands on any building seven samples and their theory based on pictures and analyses of steel used in the building. This story is made even more amazing by the fact that a federal investigation failed to find one steel or girder from the collapse.

It is a big lie to claim there was no noise on the day of the collapse of seven, which has been proven numerous times with video.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815704#Comment_119815704

It's a politician talking about a building he doesn't know much about. A bit like when I've asked 9/11 truthers about WTC 6 and I know they have to go look it up.