Humint Events Online: 9/11 ForeKnowledge

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

9/11 ForeKnowledge

I'm not really sure what the M.O. of "9/11 myths.com" is***, but I happened to land on their page on 9/11 foreknowledge--and it is VERY sorely deficient.

For extensive examples of foreknowledge, just look at Paul Thompson's book, "The Terror Timeline", or look at his 9/11 timeline website.

Or look at this site, for instance. It has a great summary of 9/11 foreknowledge, and the information is all backed up with very credible links.

This one little segment of the list basically blows away the idea that there was no foreknowledge:
2000 – 2001: The military conducts exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One imagined target is the World Trade Center. [USA Today, 4/19/04]


In case you missed that-- ONE YEAR PRIOR TO 9/11, THE MILITARY RAN DRILLS IN WHICH HIJACKED AIRPLANES WERE CRASHED INTO BUILDINGS, INCLUDING THE WORLD TRADE CENTER.

But WAIT! There's more! For instance:
January 2001 (A): An Arizona flight school alerts the FAA that hijacker Hani Hanjour lacks the English and flying skills necessary for the commercial pilot's license he has. The flight school manager: "I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." An FAA official actually sits next to Hanjour in class to observe his skills. This official offers a translator to help Hanjour pass, but the flight school points out "that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license." [AP, 5/10/02, New York Times, 6/19/02] FAA "records show [Hanjour] obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss." [Cape Cod Times, 10/21/01]


And more:
October 24-26, 2000: Pentagon officials carry out a "detailed" emergency drill based upon the crashing of a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon. [Military District of Washington News Service, 11/3/00, Mirror, 5/24/02] The Pentagon is such an obvious target that, "For years, staff at the Pentagon joked that they worked at ‘Ground Zero’, the spot at which an incoming nuclear missile aimed at America's defenses would explode. There is even a snack bar of that name in the central courtyard of the five-sided building, America's most obvious military bulls eye." [Telegraph, 9/16/01] After 9/11, a Pentagon spokesman will claim: "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here." [Newsday, 9/23/01]


And more:
April 2000: Spruce Whited, director of security for the Portland Public Library, later says Atta and possibly a second hijacker are regulars at the library and frequently use public Internet terminals at this time. He says four other employees recognize Atta as a library patron. "I remember seeing (Atta) in the spring of 2000,'' he says. Whited also says federal authorities have not inquired about the library sightings. [Boston Herald, 10/5/01, Portland Press Herald, 10/5/01] According to the official story, Atta doesn't arrive in the US until June 3, 2000. [Miami Herald, 9/22/01, Australian Broadcasting Corp. 11/12/01] Why does the FBI appear uninterested in these early sightings of Atta?


And more:
Late July 2001 (B): David Schippers, noted conservative Chicago lawyer and the House Judiciary Committee's chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial, later claims that FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota contact him around this time and tell him that a terrorist attack is going to occur in lower Manhattan. According to Schippers, the agents had been developing extensive information on the planned attack for many months. However, the FBI soon pulls them off the terrorist investigation and threatens them with prosecution under the National Security Act if they go public with the information. As a result, they contact Schippers hoping he can persuade the government to take action. Schippers tries to pass the information on to high government officials, but apparently his efforts are ignored. Partly in conjunction with Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm, Schippers is now representing at least ten FBI agents in a suit against the US government in an attempt to have their testimony subpoenaed, which would enable them to legally tell what they know without going to jail. [Judicial Watch, 11/14/01, World Net Daily, 10/21/01, Alex Jones Show, 10/10/01, note the sources are partisan, Schipper's claims are being reported nowhere else]


And much much MUCH more.

For god's sake-- NORAD was running a hijacking drill on 9/11 itself!!!!!!!

The issue is NOT whether there was foreknowledge-- it is beyond any doubt that people in the government (the FBI for example) had ample foreknowledge of 9/11-- the issue, THE GREAT QUESTION OF 9/11, is: WHAT DOES THE FOREKNOWLEDGE MEAN?

Note: the foreknowledge goes FAR beyond saying there was incompetence and bueaucratic bungling and officials just had no clue what to do about the foreknowledge. There is too much active, high-level foreknowledge to be explained away by incompetence.

So, did THE FOREKNOWLEDGE MEAN they knew an "Al Qaeda" attack was coming and just LET IT HAPPEN because it suited their geopolitical agenda?

Or did THE FOREKNOWLEDGE MEAN they knew an "Al Qaeda" attack was coming and ACTIVELY FACILITATED IT because it suited their geopolitical agenda?

Or did THE FOREKNOWLEDGE MEAN that the government was giving off signs to itself that there was a false-flag terror operation in the works?

I imagine you can guess what my answer is.

Of course, the foreknowledge angle is far from the only evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, but it does complement other suspicious 9/11 evidence.

***As far as I can tell, the goal of the site is either to try to debunk all stories that 9/11 was "an inside job", or to only debunk stories that are clearly false about 9/11. If the former, then the site has a LONG way to go (and basically an impossible job) to debunk that there was foreknowledge. If the latter, then it would seem that there are abundant CREDIBLE stories pointing to foreknowledge of 9/11, which they have not debunked, thus supporting the overall contention that 9/11 was "an inside job".

21 Comments:

Blogger MarioStelzner said...

Spooked,
The truth is that buildings are not built like they used to be. Tall buildings nowadays are flimsy. It surprises me that more of them don't fall down in a good breeze. The twin towers buildings fell down because a couple of planes flew into them ripping metal beams that would have otherwise held up the building. As the first building collapsed, it caused the foundation to fail causing the second building to come down after the first finished collapsing. There was no conspiracy; it was just bad engineering.

12:17 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Um, this isn't really the right thread for this topic, but in any case-- I assume you are joking, right?

The WTC towers were massively strong steel framed structures built in the late 60s, and they were built to withstand VERY strong breezes.

12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're both wrong.

Every structural engineer in the world agrees on what really happened that day. A combination of fire and impact damage brought down both towers.

I don't know where you get your ideas from Mario, but they're about as scientifically sound as the chicken coop arsonist, here.

12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ha ha! maybe that's what mario learned from 911myths.com , in which case this would indeed be the right thread for this topic.

The truth is that buildings are not built like they used to be. Tall buildings nowadays are flimsy.

the real truth is that those buildings were built 40 years ago during the height of the cold war and they were built to last, and they were regularly subjected to wind forces much more powerful than the impact that a real 767 would impart upon one.

As the first building collapsed, it caused the foundation to fail causing the second building to come down after the first finished collapsing.

they didn't collapse at all - they exploded starting at the top. steel columns were ejected up and away, some at angles of 60deg, and all of the concrete was rendered into powder. this phenomenon raced all the way to the ground in a matter of 10 seconds. that's faster than 1/10 of a second per floor.

mario, to borrow a phrase from sword of truth who has yet to contribute anything remotely intelligent sounding other than a recap of a starwars episode:
find a structural engineer who will back your claims.

12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ha, careful now! i wouldn't go so far as to say SOT sounded remotely intelligent with his starwars episode recap...

The truth is that buildings are not built like they used to be. Tall buildings nowadays are flimsy. It surprises me that more of them don't fall down in a good breeze

Mario, got some links to back these claims up? No? Then perhaps you can enlighten us all as to why tall building aren't built like they used to be and are flimsy nowadays?

As the first building collapsed, it caused the foundation to fail causing the second building to come down after the first finished collapsing.

Clarify please. WTC2/South Tower fell first and WTC1/North Tower followed suit about 30 minutes later. Both towers began collapsing [and exploding] from the top down. Are you claiming that a collapse initiated from the top was able to cause the foundation to fail and subsequently the building to collapse?

The engineering and construction methods used when the towers were built has been discussed over and over again. They were not flimsy structures. They were not predominately glass structures (ain't that right, instabitch?). They were meant to withstand hurricane force winds - by blowing in the breeze so to speak.

Tall buildings nowadays are flimsy

I cannot get over the ridiculousness of this claim. We're not talking about stereo equipment or plastic children's toys; we're talking about 110 floor skyscrappers! These puppies where not flimsy, and by many accounts, they were overengineered.

I've got too many archived videos to remember where I've downloaded them all from, so I cannot provide a link (anyone?) but go watch the History Channel documentary about Building the World Trade Center and come back and tell us all why they were so flimsy. Seriously.

1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mario, to borrow a phrase from sword of truth who has yet to contribute anything remotely intelligent sounding other than a recap of a starwars episode:
find a structural engineer who will back your claims.


That sounds like good advice.

When do you plan on following it?

2:12 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Judy Wood is a structural engineer who has provided irrefutable evidence that the towers were blown up and did not undergo progressive global collapse starting from weakened columns near the top of the towers.

When will this enter the skull of SOT?

3:34 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

"Every structural engineer in the world agrees on what really happened that day."

An obviously false statement that renders the rest of the argument meaningless.

In any case, why is the FBI so uninterested that Mohamed Atta came into the US earlier than his official entry date?

How did Hani Hanjour ever get his pilot's license???

Why did government officials act like the idea that terrorists would fly airplanes into US building was a surprise?

3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judy Wood is a structural engineer who has provided irrefutable evidence that the towers were blown up

sot knows that. he continues to pretend that is not the case probably because it is the only tactic he has. the more time you have to spend countering his nonsense the less time you will have to question and speculate about 911. ignore him and every time i see his name i will point out that he merely has a case of light-saber envy.

4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judy Wood is a structural engineer who has provided irrefutable evidence...blah, blah, blah.

She is NOT a structural engineer. Her expereince has to do with analysing the stress and strain on freakin' DENTURES! There is not a structural engineer anywhere who believes your conspiracy crap. Give it up...

9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry guys, Judy Woods is NOT a structural engineer.

Go look at http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html and show me where it says "structural" under her name.

9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Better yet... go check out her professional work:

http://www.ces.clemson.edu/~woodj/

There's about a dozen papers there with her name on them and they all deal with TEETH.

Can someone explain to me how "Doctor" Woods admittedly vast experience with molars, inscisors and bicupsids qualifies her to analyze the collapse of a 110 storey office tower?

9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

morons - do you think janedoe is disqualified because she is smart enough to calculate the exact stresses that a tooth sees on the different parts of its surface?
if you can refute even one morsel of her example then you should do so. until then you should shut your idiot mouths. or do i need to remind you of your idiot R2D2 analogy?

10:36 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

For god's sake, this is idiotic that I have to point this out. Dr. Wood is a trained structural engineer who works on the structure and strength of teeth. Basically, she does structural bio-engineering. What is so hard to understand about how her work relates to building structure and strength?

She HAS in fact consulted on building structure.

Like it or not, Dr. Wood is a structural engineer. She works in a Mechanical Engineering Dept, because that is often where structural engineers work.

Now, next time you bring up this bullshit about her not being a strucutral engineer, blah blah blah, I'm treating you as spam and you're getting deleted.

One other tip -- you have no credibility when you presume to speak for every structural engineer in the world.

10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you think a gynecologist is qualified to perform brain surgery simply because she (or he) is a doctor?

There is NOTHING in common between a tooth and a skyscraper.

Either find a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER or sit and watch your little movement fade into obscurity just like the Roswell and JFK crowd.

11:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mechanical engineers work in mechanical engineering. Structural engineers work in structural engineering.

If "Doctor" Wood is a structural engineer, why can't you find her curriculum vitae wich says as such?

Like this guy, for example:

http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php?person=1&page=miller/vita.php

11:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what the devil does the profile of woodruff miller have to do with this?
can you point to any specific part of prof. wood's model that is in error? more to the point, can you provide a structural engineer who disputes prof wood's model? since you are obviously so conversant on structural engineering you should have no problem providing one who disputes prof. wood. see if you can tear yourself away from your chewbacca dolls long enough to do so.

1:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Either find a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER or sit and watch your little movement fade into obscurity just like the Roswell and JFK crowd.

you know full well that prof. wood's work speaks for itself. it makes no difference if the billiard ball example comes from einstein himself or from a starwars ewok. it speaks for itself. if you think it is in error then you shoulder the responsibility for showing just exactly how it is in error.

you are mistaken in your assumption that there is any kind of movement associated with this blog.

1:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, "Porfessor" Woods work speaks only of her false assumptions.

The Billiard ball model assumes that the part of the building wich came down on that first floor would have come to a complete halt before progressing further. This is a false assumption. The weight of the initial portion of the WTC's collapse was greater than that of the USS Ronald Reagan (104,000 tons with full air-wing, crew and ships stores). The collapsing prtion never had to face the full structural strength of the towers all at once. It only had to destroy one floor at a time. There is no single floor of any of those buildings that would have held against the weight of a nuclear aircraft carrier in near free fall.

In fact, when 20 floors come down on one single floor, they will smash through it like an anvil dropped through a pane of glass.

Then the next floor down now has 21 floors of debris coming down on it.

The next floor then has 22 floors of collapsing skycraper crashing into it.

The following floor will have 23 floors worth of ex-tower smashing into it.

The Floor immedeately thereafter will have 24 floors of glass, steel, concrete, elevator machinery and all kinds of junk bearing down on it.

And it just keeps going and going and going and going...

If you want to create a truly realistic model of the collapse, stack 100 panes of glass on top of each other with 6 inches of space between each pane then drop a sledge-hammer on the stack.

This kind of raw kinetic energy from a mass that is actively accelerating is something a human tooth will never be subjected to.

2:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so you do use your mind other than for ridicule.
what you've said is valid except for the fact that the block of floors that initially fell onto the floor beneath was itself turning into powder and the steel was being ejected upwards and outwards which precludes any of it acting as any kind of force upon the floors beneath. every floor turned into powder and much of the steel was ejected all the way down. the fact that the steel was being ejected means that it couldn't have accounted for the force that it took to powder the concrete. that is my understanding of how the billiardball model applies to the official account of the wtc's demise.

so. since you have finally stated your opinion which contrasts with mine, does our differing opinions mean that we now are relegated to a foolish "yes it is no it isn't" or will you find an engineer (or even an ewok) who corroborates with your refutation of janedoe's BBE and post a link to it?
janedoe refutes NIST. you refute janedoe but i refute you. you and i are obviously not refuting anything which leaves janedoe refuting NIST since NIST has declined her offer of a debate. that leaves it on you to put up a structural engineer to do a proper refutation of janedoe.
good luck.
and now i will cease with the princess leia references.

3:18 AM  
Blogger MarioStelzner said...

Here's a story I heard many years ago about a claim made by an engineer: According to this engineer, he claimed that bumbles bees should not be able to fly. To prove his point he presented as evidence all the calculations he made which at first did prove that it was impossible for bumble bees to actually fly. It was later proven, though, that the engineer was wrong. It turns out that bumble bees do fly and that the engineers calculations were wrong.

How many times have you heard about a roof crashing in because too much water or snow accumulated on the roof of a building. Have you ever heard of the unsinkable Titanic. Then there is the Hindenburg, an airship claimed to be safe with its cargo of hydrogen gas. Collapsing cat walks. All works of engineers who thought they knew what they were doing and talking about.

The trade centers were not blown up. They fell in because two planes flew into them like two high speed wrecking balls.

12:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger