That must have been intentional.
26 February 1991 - US victory in the Gulf War
26 February 1993 - first WTC bombing
26 February ... - ?????
Is there more, may you ask? Yes, one more thing, a second funny 26 February coincidence. But first.....
Bring into mind the earlier monogrammatic coincidence of TGS the Younger and TGS the Elder:
TGS the Younger is banned freeper The Great Satan, who frequently called himself TGS. He posted mostly about his elaborate theory, namely: Iraq was responsible for 09-11, and also for the anthrax letters, which were intended to deter the US from retaliating for 09-11; and Steven Hatfill is a willing participant in an exquisite charade to keep the truth about this from ever seeing day-light.
TGS the Elder was a CIA covert ops specialist of the same initials, Theodore G. Shackley, who started a business called TGS International, and who we know was aware of his initials being the same as those of the Iranian epithet for the US, << The Great Satan >>. Before he died, he made some cryptic remarques on the anthrax letters in a book, as previously discussed in post 43.
I never had the pleasure of a discussion with TGS the Younger before he was banned. A look at back threads tells me that he found himself in trouble for using multiple screen names. People say that the most prominent screen name he used before TGS was << Clinton's a rapist >>. The FR Admin Moderator confirms that they used the same IP address: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/925051/posts/posts?page=121#121
BTW, I've pinged several freepers to this post who were on that strange thread.
..... Now we arrive at the second funny coincidence.
26 February 1999 - << Clinton's a rapist >> signed up at FR. http://web.archive.org/web/20030414083553/http://www.freerepublic.com/~clintonsarapist/.
This was in 1999, yrs before CAR/TGS went all out blaming Iraq for 09-11, the anthrax, et cetera.
What could this mean, I wonder?
I try to give every possibility due consideration, and so I did ponder whether (for example) TGS himself might be from a three-letter agency, but it was fundamentally an arbitrary conjecture, that could be made of any participant in these discussions. Since he was banned and moved out into the world of blogs, I've had some lengthy discussions with him, and have no reason to think him anything more than a guy with a theory. In fact, the real question is whether he's on a snark hunt with his Hatfill theory; whether the harassment he gets just comes from people he's pissed off, or from somewhere deeper; etc. I agree with him on certain basics (position 2 in my earlier list of possibilities), but we certainly have our differences.