The Big Match

[Kevin Fenton]

“The US National Security Agency, which deals with space and electronic intelligence, had been also warned of coming terrorist attacks. On September 10, Agency officials intercepted two messages for al-Qaeda agents located in the USA. The first message said, “The match begins tomorrow.” And the second was, “Tomorrow is zero hour.”
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/06/20/30799.html

“Match” is a mistranslation perpetrated by the automatic translation software used by the NSA.

The software must have confused it with a synonym, but which synonym?
“4 a : a marriage union”
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/match

Why would an Al Qaeda operative refer to the planes operation as a “marriage union”?
“Summer 2001
According to John Cooley , author of the book, Unholy Wars: America, Afghanistan, and International Terrorism, Jordan’s GID intercepted key intelligence indicating that a terrorist operation, code-named ‘Al Ourush al Kabir’ or ‘The Big Wedding,’ was being planned for within the U.S. and would involve aircraft. Cooley confirmed the validity of this warning. ”
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:8KCJ4vE2ikoJ:www.cooperativeresearch.net/wot/sept11/explicitwarnings.html+ourush+match&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Is there an Arabic word that can be translated both as “match” and “wedding”?
زواج
Definition: “WEDDING, MARRIAGE, MATRIMONY, WEDLOCK, GETTING MARRIED, SPLICE, ESPOUSAL, UNION, MATCH”
http://www-old.ectaco.com/online/diction.php3?lang=3&q=2&refid=316&rfr_id=3196415&rqt_id=16036577&pagelang=23&word=%D2%E6%C7%CC&direction=2&x=40&y=14

Given that the 9/11 plot was called the “planes operation” by Al Qaeda’s inner circle, why are they calling it the “big wedding”? Do the words “big wedding” have any significance for Al Qaeda?
“Jordanian officials successfully uncover an al-Qaeda plot to blow up the Radisson Hotel in Amman, Jordan, and other sites on January 1, 2000. A call between al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida and a suspected Jordanian terrorist exposes the plot. In the call, Zubaida states, “The grooms are ready for the big wedding.” This call reflects an extremely poor code system, because the FBI had already determined in the wake of the 1998 US embassy bombings that “wedding” was the al-Qaeda code word for bomb. Furthermore, it appears al-Qaeda fails to later change the system, because the code-name for the 9/11 attack is also “The Big Wedding.” ”

Given that the warning used the codeword for bomb, anybody in the US “intelligence community” receiving the information from Jordan in the summer of 2001 would have thought the forthcoming attack would be a bombing (and the failure of the Millennium Plot to bomb LAX and, perhaps, also Boston Logan a few months previously would be quite high in their mind), as would anybody who had seen the NSA communications intercept (assuming it was translated in time, assuming they figured out it was mistranslated).

So, if you know your communications system has been compromised, use it to put out false information. It must be around page 10 of “Covert Operations for Novices”, but you have to admit they did it well.

[spooked911]

1. Maybe it was the "big wedding" because they were joining forces

with US forces-- certainly they timed the attacks to coincide for the wargames run that day. That would make sense with the wedding reference.

[MercutioATC]

2. Or maybe "big wedding" was code for "big bomb" (or explosion).

Geez, we've established what "wedding" meant. Why the need to completely disregard that information and make "wedding" mean something completely different?

[spooked911]

3. so you're saying they used bombs?

:)

[MercutioATC]

6. Am I typing in Sanskrit again? Sorry...I sometimes forget to use English

See the last two words in that title - "(or explosion)"?

Nice try, though :)

[Kevin Fenton]

4. This is really weird

You got that from Barbara Honegger, didn't you?
I doubt it.

What I don't get is this:
"September 10, 2001
Mohamed Atta calls Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Afghanistan. Mohammed gives final approval to Atta to launch the attacks. This call is monitored and translated by the US, although it is not known how quickly the call is translated, and the specifics of the conversation haven't been released. "

This is crazy. AFAIK it was only reported in one paper, so perhaps it's not true. If it is true, it's a horrible breach of operational security. Generally, when Atta talked to Banalshibh they were really careful, using codes in internet chatrooms. So why call Afghanistan a day before the attacks? Makes no sense to me. There's something strange going on here, something I can't quite put my finger on.

[petgoat]

5. something strange going on

Osama's call to his step-mom telling her something big was going to
happen was also strange.

[Beam Me Up]

7. The "Mohammede Atta/bin Laden" axis is a cover story.

Their only real function (so far as 9/11 is concerned) is to make the official 'story' look credible.

They don't even serve that purpose very well, but nevertheless, there they are.

Note, when I say "credible" I do not mean to you and I. I mean to other monitoring organizations and subgroups within those organizations who did not have the need to know what the real operation was and who was behind it (ergo Able Danger, et al). It serves the same purpose as having "war games involving hijacked airplanes" on the day of 9/11. FAA controllers could not be certain whether what they were monitoring was a real hijacking or a simulation. This made the situation all the more confusing and the deception more complete. Same thing with Atta's group. They were on a mission, they had handlers. What was their mission (very likely not what we've been led to believe). Who was handling their handlers?