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".