9/11 why it happened on that date

SV · 08-09-2009 03:29PM

scubakid wrote: »

1)
3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin
Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.

Now this is where things get totally eerie:

The most recognized symbol for the US, after the Stars & Stripes, is
the Eagle. The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic
holy book:

"For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle.
The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo,
while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for
the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was
peace."

That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.

Still uncovinced about all of this..?! Try this and see how you feel
afterwards, it made my hair stand on end:

Open Microsoft Word and do the following:

1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first
plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.

2. Highlight the Q33 NY.

3. Change the font size to 48.

4. Change the type of writin to wingdings

5.See what comes up its really freaky!!!!

I know this isn't the reason why it happened but I thought I'd share it with you all

All of the above is absolute bullshít. Seriously, research it.

The rest of it is just a play on numbers.

Ostrom · 08-09-2009 03:30PM

Jackeenboy wrote: »

Did or do u think the arabs planned it specifically for that date knowing its the emergency number for America???911
If they didnt its weird!

Definately, probably the primary motivation.

You should search for some carefully edited videos on youtube. Dont mind the scary piano music, that just sets the mood a little better for objective analysis. Dont forget to engage in the productive debates taking place within the 'user comments' section.

It is easy to remain cynical, I didnt quite believe it until I tried this arbitrarily defined manipulation of meaningless symbols:

scubakid wrote: »

Still uncovinced about all of this..?! Try this and see how you feel afterwards, it made my hair stand on end:

Open Microsoft Word and do the following:

1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first
plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.

2. Highlight the Q33 NY.

3. Change the font size to 48.

4. Change the type of writin to wingdings

5.See what comes up its really freaky!!!!

I know this isn't the reason why it happened but I thought I'd share it with you all

Salvelinus · 08-09-2009 03:30PM

efla wrote: »

Definately, probably the primary motivation.

You should search for some carefully edited videos on youtube. Dont mind the scary piano music, that just sets the mood a little better for objective analysis. Dont forget to engage in the productive debates taking place within the 'user comments' section.

Yes, beacuse if you dialed 911 on 9/11 the world would end, like typing google in to google.

Overheal · 08-09-2009 03:47PM

rawr how come we get to make fun of 9/11 rabble rabble jade goody.

faceman · 08-09-2009 04:15PM

scubakid wrote: »

Still uncovinced about all of this..?! Try this and see how you feel
afterwards, it made my hair stand on end:

Open Microsoft Word and do the following:

1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first
plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.

2. Highlight the Q33 NY.

3. Change the font size to 48.

4. Change the type of writin to wingdings

5.See what comes up its really freaky!!!!

I know this isn't the reason why it happened but I thought I'd share it with you all

jaysus, are people really that stupid?

The first plane hijacked was an American Airlines flight, Boeing 767-223ER aircraft, tail number N334AA.

None of the planes involved had the reference of Q33 NY.

Salvelinus · 08-09-2009 04:17PM

faceman wrote: »

jaysus, are people really that stupid?

The first plane hijacked was an American Airlines flight, Boeing 767-223ER aircraft, tail number N334AA.

None of the planes involved had the reference of Q33 NY.

I take it you haven't been to the conspiracy theory board?

NedTermo · 08-09-2009 04:17PM

In All Fairness wrote: »

I'd have to say that I always thought that the fact that 9/11 would be naturally symbolic as an attack on the emergency services would have been a reason for choosing a different day. It would have been quite possible that there would be upgraded security in the background like there is for Christmas Day, 4th of July, etc. I'm surprised they didn't delay it to a different day. No point taking any unnecessary risks with an operation like that.

Btw, off thread, can anyone confirm/refute whether the D-Day landings were specifically planned for Rommel's wife's birthday in the hope (justified) that he would be in Germany rather than in France?

I'm still trying to figure out if this guy was serious?
Increased security everywhere because the date is the same as the emergency services telephone number?

rainbowtrout · 08-09-2009 04:33PM

Osama and Co. were doing the world a favour and preventing this tripe from getting media coverage... a bit extreme but it did the job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitter_(soundtrack)

Glitter is a soundtrack album to the film of the same name by American R&B singer Mariah Carey. It was released by Virgin Records on September 11, 2001. The poor sales of the album, which was Carey's only release on Virgin, led to her departure from the label in early 2002

peasant · 08-09-2009 04:38PM

joewicklow wrote: »

Did something happen on the 9th of November?

different country, different villains ...but yeah ...that date is kinda taken:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9th_in_German_history

1923: The Beer Hall Putsch (November 8th and 9th) marks the emergence of the Nazi Party as an important player on Germany's political landscape.

1938: In the Kristallnacht, synagogues and Jewish property are burned and destroyed on a large scale. More than 1,300 Jews are killed. For many observers, it is the first hint of Nazi Germany's radical antisemitic policies.

CianRyan · 08-09-2009 07:03PM

m@cc@ wrote: »

Yawn! Do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds to hear that a former president was responsibile for the massacre of hundreds for the sake of money? Don't believe everything Michael Moore tells you.

I don't listen to anything Michael more says.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds that a group of people would blow up themselves and hundreds of people for no reason, knowing that America were sure to kick up and invade where they supposedly came from?

There's also a reason the American soldiers haven't found and weapons of mass destruction...

They don't, and never have existed.

asdasd · 08-09-2009 07:12PM

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds that a group of people would blow up themselves and hundreds of people for no reason, knowing that America were sure to kick up and invade where they supposedly came from?

It sounds a bit mad alright until you realise that they want to go to heaven. And killing infidels is the way forward in that respect.

There's also a reason the American soldiers haven't found and wea
pons of mass destruction...

They don't, and never have existed.

Nobody doubts that there was a conspiracy to invade iraq. it was pretty open, and holds up to scrutiny, unlike the troofer nonsense.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is this: if you guys start spouting conspiracy at everything it gives cover to real conspiracies. You cry wolf too often.

hmmmmm....

I wonder......

Maybe the troofers are a conspiracy!!!

Salvelinus · 08-09-2009 07:15PM

CianRyan wrote: »

I don't listen to anything Michael more says.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds that a group of people would blow up themselves and hundreds of people for no reason, knowing that America were sure to kick up and invade where they supposedly came from?

There's also a reason the American soldiers haven't found and weapons of mass destruction...

They don't, and never have existed.

Like Bush you failed to link that to 911. In case you're one of the conpsiracy freak shows, you're a brain dead moron.

Four-Percent · 08-09-2009 07:54PM

Jackeenboy wrote: »

Not funny + disrespectful.

Jackeenboy wrote: »

Thats disgusting.. Your brother must look like one of those bogger inbreds:pac:

:pac: A lovely respectful fellow you are

dr.bollocko · 08-09-2009 08:34PM

Salvelinus wrote: »

Like Bush you failed to link that to 911. In case you're one of the conpsiracy freak shows, you're a brain dead moron.

Banned.

AnotherYou · 08-09-2009 08:46PM

Salvelinus wrote: »

Like Bush you failed to link that to 911. In case you're one of the conpsiracy freak shows, you're a brain dead moron.

That sounds like an Ad Hominem right there buddy. You must be out of ideas with regards to addressing the facts. Lets keep it objective.

Next of all there is TONS of evidence that Bush both explicitly and later implicitly linked 9/11 to Al Queda and Al Queda to Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

(address the facts in the both and qualify them from whatever sources suit you. Try not to do the "don't believe everything on Wiki" thing.)

Simply address the info and you'll see for the most part there are tons of implications and even falsified statements of fact in press releases and interviews to indicate the Bush administration wanted the nationalist ferver that came as a result of 9/11.

If you want to search for glimmerings of plausible deniability by all means you are encouraged to do so, I will happily look into your evidence with no bias whatsoever.

But do not attack the person, what he said was a valid point and what you said was entirely unproductive.

CianRyan · 08-09-2009 08:46PM

asdasd wrote: »

It sounds a bit mad alright until you realise that they want to go to heaven. And killing infidels is the way forward in that respect.

Nobody doubts that there was a conspiracy to invade iraq. it was pretty open, and holds up to scrutiny, unlike the troofer nonsense.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is this: if you guys start spouting conspiracy at everything it gives cover to real conspiracies. You cry wolf too often.

hmmmmm....

I wonder......

Maybe the troofers are a conspiracy!!!

I'm well aware of the whole killing infidels situation, I still don't some one doing this, even if they are in a religious extremest groupd.

I'm not the kind to go shouting my theories everywhere, a lot of the stuff you hear thrown around, I know, is absolute sh!te.

Look at some of the evidence pointing to it being an inside job, and some of the stuff that was planted at the scene after wards.
The jet Engine for example.
The planes, as far as I know, where boeing 767 series, if you look at the pictures of the size of the engine and then look at an engine from a 767, they clearly not the same thing.

I'm really not the one to be explaining this stuff to you, there are people far more knowledgeable than me about this topic.
Just look into it further before making up your mind.

And if you think there isn't people in this world that would be happy to get some money as a result of thousands of people dying, you are SERIOUSLY in the dark.
Look at war, enough said.

Salvelinus wrote: »

Like Bush you failed to link that to 911. In case you're one of the conpsiracy freak shows, you're a brain dead moron.

I didn't say they were connected, I was merely pointing out how corrupt bush was.

Personal insults, will win you no respect.

dr.bollocko · 08-09-2009 08:53PM

CianRyan wrote: »

Personal insults, will win you no respect.

Completely and totally true.
Except for my sig.

asdasd · 08-09-2009 08:58PM

Simply address the info and you'll see for the most part there are tons of implications and even falsified statements of fact in press releases and interviews to indicate the Bush administration wanted the nationalist ferver that came as a result of 9/11.

There is no getting through to people. I may try one last time. What happened with 9/11 and Iraq is this.

1) No conspiracy on the attacks.
2) A conspiracy to blame Iraq.

i think, with 2) that the neo cons just used whatever leverage was available at the time. I have no doubt that 19 arabs did this, they appear to be missing. The guys on the plane which was downed said there were arabs onboard. The movement of the perps is traceable. We see them on the security. The planes are now missing. Etc. Etc Etc.

Maybe crazy theories about 9/11 are a false flag?

prinz · 08-09-2009 09:07PM

CianRyan wrote: »

I'm well aware of the whole killing infidels situation, I still don't some one doing this, even if they are in a religious extremest groupd...

Suicide bombings? Kamikaze attacks etc...... People have been doing the likes for literally hundreds of years.

AnotherYou · 08-09-2009 09:11PM

I'd also like to say its great to see the linguistic programing doing its work. I've always watched these sorts of forums with a great interest. I love to watch the appearance of the term "conspiracy theorist" as a means of denouncing someone before listening to what they have to say.

All to often I watch this happen as the term appears in the conversations invariably. It aims to simply avoid the evidence and denounce the PERSON presenting the evidence as a tinfoil-hat-wearing lunatic who subscribes to any idea dubbed a "conspiracy theory"

The reality is we very rarely see the word "conspiracy" without almost impulsively thinking "theory".

It is quite impressive that society has become so self-regulatory, simply ostricising anyone who questions the status quo.

Perhaps it would be in out collective interest to stop this nonsense and discuss the information rather than the societal implications of interpreting said information a certain way?

As I said I'm very interested in these forums, as they appear more and more credible as time goes on. I remember back in even 2005 these ideas were even more heavily contested than would be concievable today.

However I will add that it is not my MO to engage in conversations like this anymore. I have decided this is not a great way to spend my time, I think this for a number of reasons, two of which I'll share with you.

1.) I feel that dealing with this subject matter, very few people enter these forums without having already decided what they think to a certain degree, and thus they tend to only accomodate information that supports that opinion of 9/11.

2.) Having discussed this with a number of people, including some people who were very high up in the "damage control" teams during Watergate. I do not believe that, even if Bush was to come forward with a written confession and a list of complicit parties, the system would be changed to make false-flag operations like these a thing of the past if 9/11 was proven to be an "inside job". As there are so many privatised organisations involved in US defense policy it would be remiss to assume there were not many privatised organisations involved in a 9/11 "inside job". Such a paper trail would not be a prosecutions ideal means of effectively "weeding" out the guilty parties and organisations responsible. I simply do not think it is the players that are the problem, I feel it is the game.

I do however like to see the awakening to governmental and societal criticism occuring on the scale it is at present. As the 9/11 was my "in" to the studies I'm involved in at the moment. Anybody who'd like to talk to me about this do not hesitate to Pm me and we can talk about what I think is genuinely the solution. Perhaps someone might even start a thread about these ideas soon.

I've discussed this with a lot of people, Including US congressmen, demolitions experts who worked in and around lower manhattan in the 90's, and many other people who were experts in incentiaries and explosives.

All of whom will remain nameless I'm afraid, as I have seen many of them lose their job as a result of having openly discussed their interpretation of the events of 9/11. This, I stress, is not a conspiracy theory implying the Us government are somehow causing the loss of jobs, it is actually a symptom of the above mentioned self-regulatory society in which these ideas are somehow socially offensive among some groups.

So, I'm posting this as a call to all of the genuine sceptics involved in this conversation and others like it. Question the 9/11 theory, but question BOTH 9/11 theories. Do not allow yourself to seek information contributory to your current world view, do not interpret that information in a manner that happens to be more comfortable socially while logically fallicious.

I won't offer any evidence in favour of either arguement. I will simply as both sides of this discussion to make it their responsibility to find and discuss as much information as possible, to avoid idiological rants and conformation biases and to progress as objective and rational human beings.

We are all here to find the answers, lets find them as one.

One love.

Another you.

asdasd · 08-09-2009 09:18PM

I won't offer any evidence in favour of either arguement.

Clearly then you have no argument. That entire piece was replete with non-sequitor, name dropping, and... well not much else.

I am prepared to believe in conspiracy theories when they are true. There was a conspiracy to blame WMD on Iraq ( and, initially, to associate 9/11 with Iraq). And that much is true.

Disappearing planes. Arabs who were really Mossad agents (?), planes not flying into the pentagon, pieces of the plane which were not really 767 but no explanation of where the original planes went, or where the fake ones came from. And on, and on, and on.

utter nonsense. We dont believe because we need proof.

AnotherYou · 08-09-2009 09:32PM

asdasd wrote: »

Clearly then you have no argument. That entire piece was replete with non-sequitor, name dropping, and... well not much else.

You're correct, I have no arguement. Whether I have not information however is another question. But you are very astute to have noticed I am not arguing with you. Well done.

And you will notice I have not disclosed my personal opinion as to whether 9/11 was or was not an inside job and yet you seem to be out of the blocks without as much as a request for clarification of a post you clearly say you did not understand.

"That entire piece was replete with non-sequitor."

Care to let me know what was unclear so I can try to rephrase? Thanks.

asdasd wrote: »

utter nonsense. We dont believe because we need proof.

I did say that, almost in as many words. I'm glad we agree.

wudangclan · 08-09-2009 10:30PM

asdasd wrote: »

I have no doubt that 19 arabs did this, they appear to be missing. The guys on the plane which was downed said there were arabs onboard. The movement of the perps is traceable. We see them on the security. The planes are now missing. Etc. Etc Etc.

i have to take issue with this.
what exactly is the proof that these guys were arabs?
the exact identities of the attackers is officially in doubt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
so the guys who stloe these identitites were arabs or is that just a theory?

.

prinz · 08-09-2009 10:57PM

wudangclan wrote: »

i have to take issue with this.
what exactly is the proof that these guys were arabs?
the exact identities of the attackers is officially in doubt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
so the guys who stloe these identitites were arabs or is that just a theory?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html

Officially in doubt........ no, they aren't officialy in doubt. They are very much confirmed.

wudangclan · 08-09-2009 11:00PM

prinz wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html

Officially in doubt........ no, they aren't officialy in doubt. They are very much confirmed.

fair enough regarding the bbc debunking their own story?
but where or what is the proof that these guys were arabs?
and yes i did read the fbi confirmed they were arabs but what is that proof?

prinz · 08-09-2009 11:26PM

wudangclan wrote: »

fair enough regarding the bbc debunking their own story?
but where or what is the proof that these guys were arabs?
and yes i did read the fbi confirmed they were arabs but what is that proof?

15 Saudi Arabians
2 United Arab Emirates
1 Egyptian
1 Lebanese.

Identities confirmed.

m@cc@ · 09-09-2009 12:08AM

AnotherYou wrote: »

Next of all there is TONS of evidence that Bush both explicitly and later implicitly linked 9/11 to Al Queda and Al Queda to Iraq.

If you'd actually read what he'd said, you'd clearly see he meant that Bush unsuccessfully tried to link 9/11 to Iraq.

j1smithy · 09-09-2009 12:09AM

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

Whatever about the date, we have certainly lost all out freedoms and rights since this event occured.

Like what exactly? The 1970 Offences Against the State act has had more impact here than 9-11. The Irish government haven't limited any freedoms since the attacks. True the US immigration may have got more anal about letting people into their country, however that's their prerogative.

AnotherYou · 09-09-2009 05:10AM

m@cc@ wrote: »

If you'd actually read what he'd said, you'd clearly see he meant that Bush unsuccessfully tried to link 9/11 to Iraq.

Let me define unsuccessful in this context though. It was a social appeasement issue. It was simply carried out vaguely with the intent to carry the illegal war through to fruition with very little social unrest.

Please don't presume I didn't "read" what he'd said with regards to one particular instance which you have not disclosed. I referred to the explicit linking of Al Queda to Hussein's administration generally without mention of a particular instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNrcv9Bf0uU

Capt'n Midnight · 09-09-2009 02:25PM

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

Whatever about the date, we have certainly lost all out freedoms and rights since this event occured.

The patriot act and other stuff certainly has affected US citizens.

Here it's a little different , yes there is more electronic tracking, but people here have rejected stuff like eVoting and are more aware of the issues than previously.

9/11 why it happened on that date

Comments