The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We all know what happened on that terrible day in 2001.
However, there are somethings you may or may not know about, some strange things, some you could say are just coincedences, or maybe not.
I'll start with the least freaky, you know how the Americans say everything different to us, we say fizzy drinks, they say soda, trainers-sneakers. You get the idea. In good old England we would say 11th of the 9th 11/9, however in the USA they say 9/11, in other words 911 the American emergency services. Is it just coincedence that it happend on this day or was it a type or clue from Bin Laden.
Now although most of the news focused on the Twin towers, many of us reminded people that a plane also crashed into the pentagon, well actually no, or so the American goverment say. They passed it off as a gas explosion, mere coincedence, after all no-one knows which flight was meant to have crashed there and no remains were ever found.
Now to what i think is the freakiest of the lot. Fact: 70% of the world trade centre offices were occupied by Jews. Fact: on that fateful day 0% of the Jews meant to be working there turned up not even one.
Hm, coincedence or is there something else to this.
If you know of any other mystical goin on's that day, please do tell.
However, there are somethings you may or may not know about, some strange things, some you could say are just coincedences, or maybe not.
I'll start with the least freaky, you know how the Americans say everything different to us, we say fizzy drinks, they say soda, trainers-sneakers. You get the idea. In good old England we would say 11th of the 9th 11/9, however in the USA they say 9/11, in other words 911 the American emergency services. Is it just coincedence that it happend on this day or was it a type or clue from Bin Laden.
Now although most of the news focused on the Twin towers, many of us reminded people that a plane also crashed into the pentagon, well actually no, or so the American goverment say. They passed it off as a gas explosion, mere coincedence, after all no-one knows which flight was meant to have crashed there and no remains were ever found.
Now to what i think is the freakiest of the lot. Fact: 70% of the world trade centre offices were occupied by Jews. Fact: on that fateful day 0% of the Jews meant to be working there turned up not even one.
Hm, coincedence or is there something else to this.
If you know of any other mystical goin on's that day, please do tell.
Page:
Skorp1on wrote:
> Go onto wingdings and type Q33(the flight number) NY(The destination)
> In the end it should look like this Q33NY and must be in caps.
I don't remember any of the flights being called Q33
> Go onto wingdings and type Q33(the flight number) NY(The destination)
> In the end it should look like this Q33NY and must be in caps.
I don't remember any of the flights being called Q33
Well, I've never posted here, but anyone who believe such clearly stupid rubbish, as Arsenal_mania does, is proof of just how gullible and downright stupid humans can be.
Why was there little visible plane wreckage ? Because aviation fuel tends to be rather good at burning everything. It's a stupid argument, people like Arsenal_mania , if they had been around then, would have gone out to the site of the Titanic sinking, declared there was no shipwreck they could see, and pronounced it all a conspiracy.
No one ever claimed the Pentagon explosion was anything other than the result of an airliner being smashed into the building - and anyone claiming otherwise needs to explain where else a whole plane full of people could go, how air traffic control with the plane was faked, and how CCTV footage captured the explosion along with eyewitnesses...
Idiots like Arsenal_mania really infuriate me, they do not know anything other than their own hateful lies and sad little stories they dream up to try and get attention.
Why was there little visible plane wreckage ? Because aviation fuel tends to be rather good at burning everything. It's a stupid argument, people like Arsenal_mania , if they had been around then, would have gone out to the site of the Titanic sinking, declared there was no shipwreck they could see, and pronounced it all a conspiracy.
No one ever claimed the Pentagon explosion was anything other than the result of an airliner being smashed into the building - and anyone claiming otherwise needs to explain where else a whole plane full of people could go, how air traffic control with the plane was faked, and how CCTV footage captured the explosion along with eyewitnesses...
Idiots like Arsenal_mania really infuriate me, they do not know anything other than their own hateful lies and sad little stories they dream up to try and get attention.
Keitaro wrote:
> Well, I've never posted here, but anyone who believe such clearly
> stupid rubbish, as Arsenal_mania does, is proof of just how gullible
> and downright stupid humans can be.
>
> Why was there little visible plane wreckage ? Because aviation fuel
> tends to be rather good at burning everything. It's a stupid
> argument, people like Arsenal_mania , if they had been around then,
> would have gone out to the site of the Titanic sinking, declared
> there was no shipwreck they could see, and pronounced it all a
> conspiracy.
>
> No one ever claimed the Pentagon explosion was anything other than
> the result of an airliner being smashed into the building - and
> anyone claiming otherwise needs to explain where else a whole plane
> full of people could go, how air traffic control with the plane was
> faked, and how CCTV footage captured the explosion along with
> eyewitnesses...
>
> Idiots like Arsenal_mania really infuriate me, they do not know
> anything other than their own hateful lies and sad little stories
> they dream up to try and get attention.
Lol hehe, thats all quite funny actually!
> Well, I've never posted here, but anyone who believe such clearly
> stupid rubbish, as Arsenal_mania does, is proof of just how gullible
> and downright stupid humans can be.
>
> Why was there little visible plane wreckage ? Because aviation fuel
> tends to be rather good at burning everything. It's a stupid
> argument, people like Arsenal_mania , if they had been around then,
> would have gone out to the site of the Titanic sinking, declared
> there was no shipwreck they could see, and pronounced it all a
> conspiracy.
>
> No one ever claimed the Pentagon explosion was anything other than
> the result of an airliner being smashed into the building - and
> anyone claiming otherwise needs to explain where else a whole plane
> full of people could go, how air traffic control with the plane was
> faked, and how CCTV footage captured the explosion along with
> eyewitnesses...
>
> Idiots like Arsenal_mania really infuriate me, they do not know
> anything other than their own hateful lies and sad little stories
> they dream up to try and get attention.
Lol hehe, thats all quite funny actually!
Keitaro wrote:
> No one ever claimed the Pentagon explosion was anything other than
> the result of an airliner being smashed into the building
Actually they did, and when I read them they had some very compelling arguments. Whether those arguments have been refuted in the year or so since I looked I don't know, but there were very obvious questions that were asked.
> No one ever claimed the Pentagon explosion was anything other than
> the result of an airliner being smashed into the building
Actually they did, and when I read them they had some very compelling arguments. Whether those arguments have been refuted in the year or so since I looked I don't know, but there were very obvious questions that were asked.
Rosalind wrote:
> I don't remember any of the flights being called Q33
There wasn't it was just an email spread fake thing.
> I don't remember any of the flights being called Q33
There wasn't it was just an email spread fake thing.
Miserableman wrote:
> Actually they did, and when I read them they had some very compelling
> arguments. Whether those arguments have been refuted in the year or
> so since I looked I don't know, but there were very obvious questions
> that were asked.
I seem to recall that the arguments kinda relied on ignoring the eyewitnesses who saw the plane smash into the Pentagon.
> Actually they did, and when I read them they had some very compelling
> arguments. Whether those arguments have been refuted in the year or
> so since I looked I don't know, but there were very obvious questions
> that were asked.
I seem to recall that the arguments kinda relied on ignoring the eyewitnesses who saw the plane smash into the Pentagon.
I did have a link to a website claiming a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, stating good evidence as proof but I summarily dismissed it out of hand. How could you fabricate something like that?
I've lost the link, now. If I find it, I'll post it on here.
I've lost the link, now. If I find it, I'll post it on here.
http://www.davidicke.com/ (space) icke/articles3/worldtradecenter.html
If you're going to believe in conspiracy theories, at least believe in a decent one I say. David Icke's have everything, aliens, shadowy organisations, mind control...
If you're going to believe in conspiracy theories, at least believe in a decent one I say. David Icke's have everything, aliens, shadowy organisations, mind control...
Oh my god! If you do the Q33NY thing in Webdings instead, it looks like there's gonna be a lot of love for a teepee!
CONSPIRACY I TELLS YA!
CONSPIRACY I TELLS YA!
Whatever happend to the anthrax thing, anyone remember that.
Mo arrests were ever made as far as i know and they never said if it wos terrorist or internal. Is there something deeper to this.
Mo arrests were ever made as far as i know and they never said if it wos terrorist or internal. Is there something deeper to this.
Page: