It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


MIND-BLOWING: False-flag attack predicted to occur on 9/11/1999.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by Alxandro

Ok, so I understand... You just starred and flagged a prediction thread .... detailing a date and event that didn't even happen... detailing an event totally different from the event 3 years later - including 2 totally different targets /events... yet is somehow linked to 9/11 simply because the prediction has the 1st two weeks in Sept. correct?

wow.... all I can muster is

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:51 PM
Good find! I agree, this is a little to much of a coincidence.


Nicky Molloy
Sat, 16 Oct 1999 15:12:55 -0700


The source reports more information to us:

"To my knowledge it is still scheduled on 9/11/99. However, things
change. We made the move on the militia/patriot groups so public
that they 'rescheduled' that heinous event. Instead, they slowly
move a little closer each week by staging maneuvers. They could
be rushed in September, or in October. The militias in Michigan
think they will be outright attacked in October. That is what all
these rainstorms and landslides are about 'up here'. All man made,
and they are used as cover within which to move men, supplies, etc.
closer into position. And they practice containment exercises."

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:11 PM

Again, let me state: I just found this TODAY. I was pretty shocked and excited, so I also posted it on another forum. I remember it, but up until I saw that article that, yes, *I* had written, it had just never occurred to me. It was 12 years ago. It's amazing the thing is still on the internet.

Second, as far as I know, there are only three web sites that reference this, the Mail Archive, and two "dream" sites, both sourcing the same "dream" web page where the article is included. You can also find other peices of my web site, and it can be easily confirmed that I was posting similar things on the internet under the same name and web site(s) in 1998 and 1999.

Third, as I stated in the original post, the intelligence source listed both September 9-13th AND specifically September 11th, 1999. He makes note of Semptember 11th TWICE, if you read everything carefully. It's there, I promise.

Forth, as per the "edit" in 2005, I don't know what you are referring to. The Mail Archive looks like everything from 1999. If you compare it to what is included in the "dream" web site, it's definitely the same stuff. It should give you some indication this flurry of internet postings went on in 1999.

Fifth, yes, as you've pointed out, the source speaks of Neutron bombs, NOT planes or buildings, but he does so within the CONTEXT of this being a pre-planned attack, an attack being conducted by the 'powers that be'.

Sixth, you could argue his prediction DID come true on 9/11/2001, to an extent. The date is right, and many argue a false flag occurred that day, and if it wasn't Neutron bombs, it was something almost nearly as devastating. That should give you some pause.

Seventh, this is not a hoax. It's real. It happened. I knew this guy, I knew people who knew him, he was sketchy, but seemed to have interesting information. So his prediction turned out to be wrong, he GOT THE DATE RIGHT, and it's one of the most significant dates in human history. To pair it with a pre-planned 'attack' is beyond coincidence. I'd speculate he had a peice of the truth, but obviously not the whole truth.

Eighth, for what it's worth, John Quinn is mentioned in the Mail Archive article. I haven't talked to him since the early 2000s, but if he's still around on the internet, he'd verify this. Last I checked he lived in Denver. I've been to his house. He knew the source personally.

So there you go. Take it or leave it. I'm just putting it out there so there is awareness. All these little tid bits matter, the Lone Gunmen, Super Bowl Dave, William Cooper, all these little references add up.
edit on 4-2-2011 by CUBD1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by CUBD1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by CUBD1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by EvilBat
And your just telling the story now ...10 years later?

I'm looking this up "links, addresses mentioned" and its all the same story
How many sites did you post this to ?
GLP ( today) here

I noticed that any link I search goes right back to "great dreams"
yes theres a hidden mystery but again right back to greatdream

yes as you stated wayback machine doesn't have it listed I'm still searching.

Again, I had completely forgot about it, and stumbled upon these articles while searching for information about my site.

Second, as I've said all along, the original article I wrote ONLY existed at the Mail Archive (same as The Wayback Machine, but for mail groups once popular in the 90s), and on two "dream" sites both referencing the SAME article (that was obviously edited years after the fact).

At the time, I had posted it on MY WEB SITE, which no longer exists. None of the web sites I've ever had have been on the Wayback Machine (not sure why), but you can find plenty of references to them if you search Google. It was then copied and pasted and made it around forums and mailing lists.

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:03 AM
I can see what the OP is trying to say. But at the same time its like saying " A football team will win the Super Bowl in Febuary." Of course a football team will win in Febuary. But the question is which team and what year.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:15 AM
It's still incredible to this day.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:18 AM
The Mail Archive, which is the same as the Wayback Machine, PROVES this was written by me in 1999.

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 04:15 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on May, 19 2014 @ 04:56 PM
It does make more sense if the date was 9/11/1999. That's more symbolic. It probably was for '99, but Fate must have intervened to delay it. Just how Fate has delayed the nukings of many cities.

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:02 PM

originally posted by: iosolomon
It does make more sense if the date was 9/11/1999. That's more symbolic. It probably was for '99, but Fate must have intervened to delay it. Just how Fate has delayed the nukings of many cities.

You said it. AT least somebody gets it.

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:46 PM

originally posted by: CUBD1
You said it. AT least somebody gets it.

Yes, this was a very interesting thread (assuming you are telling the truth which I have no reason to doubt). Terrorists, believe it or not, are very intelligent individuals. Why would they wait until 2001 when time is literally against them? Actually, the fact that 9/11 even happens just proves to show how little the aristocrats care about We the People.

One logical reason for the delay in 9/11 would be because organizations and entities (like yourself) got wind of an impending attack. Hence, they postponed. But, really, something like 9/11 shouldn't have been possible in 2001 with the level of technology that the public had...but 1999 is a slightly different story.

I do love epistemological threads. What is the truth? Agent Muldar said it best when he said, "The truth is out there."

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 06:27 PM
Neutron Bombs are roughly only 1 kiloton. They have Trident 2 missiles with eight W88 (Mark 5) or eight W76 (Mark 4) with 475 and 100 kilotons respectively, and even they are small as far as nuclear bombs are concerned. The total number of warheads a Trident 2 missile can carry is 14, but apparently START and SORT limited them to only 4 or 5 each.

Bottom line is, if it was going to be a false flag attack, why use a Neutron Bomb to attack US cities, when they had plenty of bigger bombs that would have done much more devastation? The only advantage I can see is that there would be hardly any harmful radiation.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in