3.3.0 Foreknowledge

Of all the issues, anomalies, and unanswered questions about 9/11, the issue of foreknowledge is the one most commonly raised by the mainstream media. The issue of 'who knew what, and when' is, it seems, the only aspect of 9/11 truth that is not completely relegated to the class of a 'conspiracy theorists question'. The reason for this is that it fits in with the mainstream view - that warnings were received, but that certain failures prevented those warnings from being acted upon. Although the mainstream media have uncovered and reported numerous warnings, they do not usually examine or analyze them as a whole; the question is this explanation plausible? is rarely asked.

Indeed, revealing warnings the Administration had received prior to 9/11 in some sense strengthens the official story, for it makes the story of the attacks seem more plausible and even inevitable. Constant reminders about al Qaeda 'terrorism activities' prior to 9/11 help to embed the story that Islamic terrorists were responsible. (It should be noted that, if 9/11 was an inside job, then it is likely that al Qaeda is a tool - the terrorism activities were real, but at the leadership-level, al Qaeda was operating in collusion with insiders.) The embarrassment caused by the revealing of 'failures' prior to 9/11 is a small price to pay for someone who is guilty of mass-murder and treason. Furthermore, the idea that top U.S. officials were bumbling idiots strengthens the think-stop notion that the same officials would be incapable of concealing a big lie, let alone executing the attacks themselves. (This is itself based on the incorrect notion that the public faces of the Bush Administration would have been the masterminds behind an "inside job".)

As with most aspects of the official story of 9/11, the explanation of who had what foreknowledge of the attacks, and when they received it, has changed numerous times. At first we were told that the concept of planes being flown into buildings was unimaginable, and that we had little foreknowledge of a coming attack. These have both generally been acknowledged as untrue (even lies). In fact, many warnings were received from overseas intelligence agencies that were specific as to (at least one of): the location, the method and the approximate date of the attacks. There were also warnings following investigations conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI. These warnings were received by top officials, including President Bush. Other al Qaeda investigations were blocked by high-level officials.

Is it plausible that these warnings were not taken seriously? That information was not freely shared because of bureaucratic inefficiencies? Or is it more likely that information was suppressed, warnings deliberately ignored, and al Qaeda investigations deliberately blocked, so that the attacks were not thwarted?

We have been told that al Qaeda operated alone with no assistance (for example financial support) from any other organization, and that no-one else knew the attacks were coming. There are reasons to doubt both of these claims. The lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta, was reported to have been wired $100,000 by Ahmed Omar Sayed Sheikh, a known Pakistani ISI asset, shortly before the attacks. The Head of the ISI, General Mahmood Ahmed, was fired from his post the day after the Indian Times reported that he was being investigated about this wire transfer. It was later reported that he had, indeed, authorized the transfer. Ahmed was in Washington the week of the 9/11 attacks, meeting with the Director of the CIA and various Senators.

Allegations that the ISI, or Saudi royals, were the source of the funds used to carry out the attacks are compatible with the mainstream view - the idea being that their involvement was covered up by the White House for some reason. It is also compatible with the idea that 9/11 was an inside job - it especially implicates the CIA, given that they have a very close relationship with the ISI, and the Bush family and Administration, given that they are intricately entwined with Saudi businessman and royals, as well as the Bin Laden family.

Then there is the issue of the put options placed on United Airlines, American Airlines, Morgan Stanley and other companies whose stocks plummeted on 9/11. Is it more likely, as the 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe, that these suspicious trades were innocuous (lucky guesses), or that they were made by someone who knew that the attacks were coming (and knew some quite detailed information about it, such as the airlines that would be used)? These trades were apparently thoroughly investigated, and were concluded as innocuous because the traders had "no conceivable ties to al Qaeda" - therefore using circular logic.

Finally, there is evidence that top Pentagon officials, and various other individuals were given warnings not to fly. And there is evidence that individuals who worked at or were due to be at the World Trade Center were ('by lucky coincidence') elsewhere, thus spared from becoming a victim of the attacks. Once again, while we must resort to luck and coincidence as explanations for these anomalies, they are easily explained by the theory that 9/11 was an inside job.

Next Page: The NORAD Response