911 Poll

NO!

Even ignoring all of the theories as to the actual events on the day and afterwards, there's too much irrefutable proof against the OS. We cannot necessarily say how it happened but we know that it didn't happen the way they explained it.

The complete lack of official interest in a proper investigation speaks volumes.

Update to the poll from pg 27.

No 401 voted, the government lied about 911.
Yes 20 voted, the government told the truth about 911.

I will continue counting as more votes come in.

No, They have not told the truth.

Yes, they have done everything they can to convince the world that the OS is fact.
The OS is packed with Distortions and Omissions.

The problem is this idiotic focus on CONSPIRACIES instead of getting people to concentrate on and understand the GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS so thaty can conclude that it is ridiculous to think that normal airliners could destroy buildings that BIG that FAST.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by without_prejudice

 

This seems to me an eminently comforting way of looking at 9/11.

My point is simply that your reaction is not unusual. Indeed to me the Truth Movement is just a search for meaning carried out by people for whom the event was cataclysmic to their world view. It's an attempt to reimagine things in a pre-9/11, post-cold war mould, where power (albeit venal and destructive) is American.

To me the TM is an extension of that visceral feeling you had, that something wasn't right. In its eagerness to validate this feeling the TM searches, ever more despairingly, for a comfortable explanation.

Like the bad scientist starting with an assumption (something is "wrong") everything the TM employs is marshaled to that task. It's just that, IMO, what you were feeling was not the shock of insight, but fear.

Wow. Talk about being lost in a comforting delusion, you certainly must be very comfortable in yours to wring that sentiment and ideology out of what I said.

You see, for me everything didn't change on 9-11. Not after Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City. Not after Vince Foster. Not after Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris pulled their stunt with blacklisting tens of thousands of minority voters. Not after Justice Scalia's Supreme Court stepped in and appointed Bush president.

9-11 was just another day of business as usual in my eyes, and you can believe me when I tell you there was no comfort to be found in any of it. But it didn't alter my world-view, not radically, not even a little. I just hoped the rest of America would now see what i'd been seeing since I was a kid.

But talking about changing world views reminds me of something. What I think is very revealing about the Denier movement is their total disregard for the feelings of the victim's families. It used to be that someone like me couldn't say a word about US government involvement in the attacks without some denier calling me to task about how disrespectful I was being to the victim's families, about how insensitive I was to their loss. But now that the vast majority of victim's families have publicly stated their desire for a new investigation and many have professed their opinion that the official story is a lie, the deniers have turned a deaf ear to their pleas for justice. I guess they only showed concern for the families when they thought it would bolster their arguments. Now that they don't, the deniers don't care two bits about them.

Come on people those of you who have not voted in the 911 poll, please post your votes thank you, I know there are more than four hundred members on ATS.

NO, they have never told the truth and never will.

You cannot operate global slavery by telling truth!

No.
A new public & transparent investigation is the need of the hour.

No they didn't tell the truth...

I just hope I live to see the day when it all comes out into the open.

No they did not tell the truth. Alot of unanswered questions still remain.

Update to the poll from this pg.

No 405 voted, the government lied about 911.
Yes 20 voted, the government told the truth about 911.

I will continue counting as more votes come in.

This has so far been an informative dialog, impressme thanks for the clarity.

At first I thought the question(s) was(were) too open ended but have enjoyed the 'results' of your pole.

star for you

I believe the OS is not 1% accurate, and they are lying about almost every aspect of the case.

What is the point of this poll?

Do you really hope to get an accurate presentation of what the public believes here?

This is a conspiracy theory website, where the majority of people are inclined to believe that everything is a conspiracy regardless of their own researching.

However, if your goal was to rack up points I congratulate you.

You can put me down for believing the story. I have yet to see tangible proof that it was anything other than what they told us it was.

No I do not believe we have been given the proof or the truth. We will never be given the truth.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Do you really hope to get an accurate presentation of what the public believes here?

This is a conspiracy theory website, where the majority of people are inclined to believe that everything is a conspiracy regardless of their own researching.

Actually people have been posting polls taken outside this website all through the thread and the numbers are not really that much different.

For example there have been several MSM polls both in the US and Canada that still reflect a large majority of people believing we have been lied to, or that the government allowed it or made it happen on purpose.

Take your head out of the sand and look around for these polls, or Zogby polls of New Yorkers, you'll see the same pattern, that a LOT of people aren't buying this crap.


Of course the only reason any of this would matter in the first place is if you look to groups or authorities to form your opinions, and not to the direct evidence itself as it has been presented to the public. I don't suppose you've ever actually looked at what hard evidence they have presented for the various "official" claims.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't suppose you've ever actually looked at what hard evidence they have presented for the various "official" claims.

I have. I find it much easier to believe their facts and data than the truthers who deny that information because it does not make their theories work.

Smarter people than me have performed objective experiments that prove what happened was possible.

As far as what the government knew, can anyone here point out the reports that they had in hand prior to the attacks which listed targets and methods and then show how they ignored them?

Anyone?

Course truthers will just claim that no such evidence exists or it isn't accessible to them.

[edit on 7/2/10 by COOL HAND]

Originally posted by COOL HAND
I find it much easier to believe their facts and data than the truthers who deny that information because it does not make their theories work.

You can come up with whatever excuses you want but the only thing that is ever going to change my mind is seeing the actual evidence that you claim is easier for you to believe.

The only thing that's "easy" for me to believe is something that makes objective sense. And if it doesn't, even if it's the fact that my own mother is dying, or my country's foreign policy is being ran by fascists who are simply trying to fuel an indefinite military campaign in the Middle East, I would much rather know the truth, than wallow in blissful ignorance until Orwell's 1984 comes knocking on my door.

Smarter people than me have performed objective experiments that prove what was happened was possible.

Post them, please. We would all love to see this. The only thing remotely resembling what you are talking about is NIST's report and they relied on computer simulations in which they constantly adjusted the variables until they got the outcome they were looking for, and they NEVER physically recreated/reproduced their hypothesis. I know the scientific method, I learned it in elementary school, when they put me in "gifted" classes. I know that I know this stuff because all throughout school I knew this stuff and after 9/11 nothing changed. I am not simply ignorant. So if you think you have evidence please post it. Everyone who voted "no" on this poll would LOVE to see it, though I know we won't be, and you'll have plenty of cute excuses for why you are unable to post it.

As far as what the government knew, can anyone here point out the reports that they had in hand prior to the attacks which listed targets and methods and then show how they ignored them?

I know you ask this rhetorically with no real intention of fairly considering the following information (your mind is already made up of course), but I'll post it anyway.

1989: DEA Agent Receives Information about Possible WTC Attack, According to Controversial Film [Note the film is NOT controversial BECAUSE of this forewarning.]

In the controversial film The Maltese Double Cross—Lockerbie by Allan Francovich, DEA agent Steve Donahue says that in 1989 a man named Mustafa Jafar provides him with information about a possible attack on the World Trade Center. After describing information that Jafar had given him about a possible drugs shipment being carried on Pan Am 103, which was downed over Lockerbie, Donahue says: “In the course of many calls and in direct contact with the FBI and a number of other people, the State Department, and every normal channel and authority, it became quite clear that [Jafar] had significant information, and in fact had predictive information, in terms of the attacks on the World Trade Center, which was one of several attacks which he said were staged, were going to be staged, at that time. This was well in advance of those attacks.” The World Trade Center will be bombed in 1993 (see February 26, 1993). Francovich’s film about Lockerbie is controversial because it blames Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and their contacts with the US for the bombing, rather than Libya. [Allan Francovich, 1994]

The film was a documentary and came out in 1994. So there's one clue in public domain for everyone to consider.

November 1992-February 11, 1993: Egyptian Intelligence Repeatedly Warns US about Cells Linked to ‘Blind Sheikh’ in New York

Beginning in November 1992, Egyptian intelligence repeatedly warns US intelligence that Sheikh Abdul-Rahman’s principal mosques in the US, the Al Salaam and Al Farouq mosques in Brooklyn, are “hotbeds of terrorist activity,” and that Abdul-Rahman is plotting a new round of terrorist attacks in Egypt. The Al-Kifah Refugee Center charity front is based inside the Al Farouq mosque (see 1986-1993). One Egyptian official later says, “There were many, many contacts between Cairo and Washington.” On November 12, 1992, members of the Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya militant group led by Abdul-Rahman machine-guns a bus-load of Western tourists in Egypt, injuring five Germans. [Village Voice, 3/30/1993] Between February 6 and 11, 1993, some FBI agents travel to Cairo, Egypt, to discuss Egyptian concerns with officials there. The Egyptians are said to warn about certain terrorist cells in the US connected to Abdul-Rahman but do not specifically warn about the WTC bombing. [New York Times, 4/6/1993] Perhaps as a result of these concerns, on February 13, the FBI obtains a FISA warrant and begins tapping Abdul-Rahman’s phone calls. [Lance, 2003, pp. 103] Shortly after the WTC bombing two weeks later (see February 26, 1993), Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will say that the bombing could have been prevented if Egypt’s warnings had been heeded. [New York Times, 4/6/1993]

1993-1994: Expert Panel Predicts Terrorists Will Use Planes as Weapons on Symbolic US Targets

An expert panel commissioned by the Pentagon in 1993 postulates that an airplane could be used as a missile to bomb national landmarks. Marvin Cetron, president of Forecasting International, a company which conducts studies for many companies and governments, writes the panel’s report. He will later recall telling the panel, “Coming down the Potomac, you could make a left turn at the Washington Monument and take out the White House, or you could make a right turn and take out the Pentagon.” [Reeve, 1999, pp. 259-260; Washington Post, 10/2/2001] However, State Department officials edit out the planes as weapons references in the final version of the panel’s Terror 2000 Report. [United Press International, 5/17/2002] Centron later says, “We were told by the Department of Defense not to put it in… and I said, ‘It’s unclassified, everything is available.’ In addition, they said, ‘We don’t want it released, because you can’t handle a crisis before it becomes a crisis. And no one is going to believe you.’” [ABC News, 2/20/2002] Air Force Col. Doug Menarchik, who organized the study for the Pentagon, will later recall, “It was considered radical thinking, a little too scary for the times. After I left, it met a quiet death.” [Washington Post, 10/2/2001] However, in 1994, Cetron will write in a Futurist magazine article about the report, “Targets such as the World Trade Center not only provide the requisite casualties but, because of their symbolic nature, provide more bang for the buck. In order to maximize their odds for success, terrorist groups will likely consider mounting multiple, simultaneous operations with the aim of overtaxing a government’s ability to respond, as well as demonstrating their professionalism and reach.” [Washington Post, 10/2/2001]

February 11, 1993: Hijacking Raises Concern of Plane Being Crashed into New York Building

A 20-year-old Ethiopian man hijacks a Lufthansa Airbus bound from Frankfurt to Addis Ababa, via Cairo. Wielding a gun (which is subsequently found to be just a starter pistol), he forces the pilot to divert the plane to New York. The 11-hour ordeal ends after the plane lands at JFK International Airport and the hijacker surrenders to the FBI. [CNN, 3/14/1996; Guardian, 2/8/2000; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 457]
Fears of Plane Being Crashed - Journalist Eric Margolis, who is on the plane, will later say that he and the other passengers are “convinced the hijacker… intended to crash the plane into Manhattan.” [Eric Margolis (.com), 2/13/2000] While giving television commentary on the morning of 9/11, Larry Johnson—currently the deputy director of the State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism—will say it was feared when the plane was flown to New York “that it might be crashed into something.” [NBC, 9/11/2001]

(forewarnings continued)

February 26, 1993: WTC Is Bombed but Does Not Collapse, as Bombers Had Hoped

An attempt to topple the World Trade Center fails, but six people are killed and over 1000 are injured in the misfired blast. An FBI explosives expert later states that, “If they had found the exact architectural Achilles’ heel or if the bomb had been a little bit bigger, not much more, 500 pounds more, I think it would have brought her down.” Ramzi Yousef, who has close ties to bin Laden, organizes the attempt. [Village Voice, 3/30/1993; US Congress, 2/24/1998] The New York Times later reports on Emad Salem, an undercover agent who will be the key government witness in the trial against Yousef. Salem testifies that the FBI knew about the attack beforehand and told him they would thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for the explosives. However, an FBI supervisor called off this plan, and the bombing was not stopped. [New York Times, 10/28/1993] Other suspects were ineptly investigated before the bombing as early as 1990. Several of the bombers were trained by the CIA to fight in the Afghan war, and the CIA later concludes, in internal documents, that it was “partly culpable” for this bombing (see January 24, 1994). [Independent, 11/1/1998] 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is an uncle of Yousef and also has a role in the WTC bombing (see March 20, 1993). [Independent, 6/6/2002; Los Angeles Times, 9/1/2002] One of the attackers even leaves a message which will later be found by investigators, stating, “Next time, it will be very precise.” [Associated Press, 9/30/2001]

After February 26, 1993: Security Chief Predicts Terrorists Flying Plane into WTC

Rick Rescorla, a Vietnam veteran who also previously worked for British intelligence, is vice president for security at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and has an office in the south WTC tower. Following the 1993 bombing, he believes terrorists will attack the WTC again, this time by flying a cargo plane, maybe loaded with biological or chemical weapons, into it. Fred McBee, a close friend of his, will later say, “He assumed that it would be the terrorists’ mission to bring the Trade Center down.” Rescorla therefore wants his company to leave the WTC and relocate to New Jersey, but their lease doesn’t expire until 2006. Previously, he had predicted an attack much like the 1993 bombing: Around 1990, along with friend and ex-special forces soldier Dan Hill, he had done a security survey of the WTC and concluded that the biggest threat to it was an underground truck bomb. He had met with New York Port Authority security officials about this, but, according to Hill, was told it was none of his business. Rescorla will be in his office on the 44th floor of the South Tower at the time of the first attack on 9/11, and immediately order and supervise a successful evacuation of almost all of Morgan Stanley’s 2,700 workers from the building. Unfortunately, he will himself die when the tower collapses. [Washington Post, 10/28/2001; New Yorker, 2/11/2002; National Review, 9/20/2002; BBC, 2/10/2003]

After February 26, 1993: Threat Assessments Predict Possibility of Terrorists Crashing Plane into WTC

Following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (see February 26, 1993), the New York Port Authority asks investigative and security consulting firm Kroll Associates to help design new security measures for the WTC. Kroll’s Deputy Chairman Brian Michael Jenkins leads the analysis of future terrorist threats and how they might be addressed. Assessments conclude that a second terrorist attack against the WTC is probable. Although it is considered unlikely, the possibility of terrorists deliberately flying a plane into the WTC towers is included in the range of possible threats. [Jenkins and Edwards-Winslow, 9/2003, pp. 11; New Yorker, 10/19/2009]

Spring 1993: ’Blind Sheikh’ Plot to Crash Airplane into US Embassy in Egypt

In March 1995, Emad Salem, an FBI informant and an ex-Egyptian army officer, publicly testifies in a 1995 trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing plotters. He mentions a plot taking place at this time by Islamic radicals tied to the “Blind Sheikh,” Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman (see July 1990). A Sudanese Air Force pilot would hijack an airplane, attack Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, then crash the plane into the US Embassy in Cairo, Egypt. Siddig Siddig Ali, who will be one of the defendants in the trial, asks Salem for help to find “gaps in the air defense in Egypt” so the pilot could “bomb the presidential house and then turn around, crash the plane into the American embassy after he ejects himself out of the plane.” Abdul-Rahman gives his approval to the plot, but apparently it never goes beyond the discussion stage. Although details of this plot are in public records of the World Trade Center bombing trial, both the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry and 9/11 Commission fail to mention it. [Lance, 2004, pp. 196; Intelwire, 4/8/2004] Abdul-Rahman is closely tied to bin Laden and in fact in 1998 there will be an al-Qaeda hijacking plot designed to free him from prison (see 1998). Individuals connected to Abdul-Rahman and al-Qaeda will also plot to crash an airplane into the White House in 1996 (see January 1996).

May 1, 1993: Iran Trains Suicide Pilots at Secret Terror School, Expert Says

Yossef Bodansky, the director of the Republican Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US Congress, writes that Iran is training terrorists in aviation hijacking at a secret facility in Wakilabad, near the city of Mashad. The training includes suicide missions. “According to a former trainee in Wakilabad, one of the exercises included having an Islamic jihad detachment seize (or hijack) a transport aircraft. Then, trained air crews from among the terrorists would crash the airliner into a selected objective.” [Bodansky, 1993, pp. 15] After the 9/11 attacks, Bodansky will suspect Iranian culpability. He will say: “We’ve known since the mid-eighties, for example, that Iran was training people to fly as kamikazes on commercial planes, as bombs, into civilian targets.… The bottom line is that the attack in New York and Washington was carefully prepared and studied. The people who flew into the World Trade Center were highly trained professionals with experience in flying large commercial jets. Flying large aircraft at low altitudes in an urban sky is not a simple thing.” [New Yorker, 9/24/2001] Representative Eric Cantor (R), the chair of a Congressional task force on terrorism and unconventional warfare, will make the same charge. [Associated Press, 9/20/2001]

June 24, 1993: New York ‘Landmarks’ Bombing Plot Is Foiled

Eight people are arrested, foiling a plot to bomb several New York City landmarks. The targets were the United Nations building, 26 Federal Plaza, and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. This is known as the “Landmarks” or “Day of Terror” plot. The plotters are connected to Ramzi Yousef and the “Blind Sheikh,” Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman. If the bombing, planned for later in the year, had been successful, thousands would have died. An FBI informant named Emad Salem had infiltrated the group, gathering information that leads to arrests of the plotters (see April 23, 1993). [US Congress, 7/24/2003] Abdul-Rahman will eventually be sentenced to life in prison for a role in the plot. Nine others will be given long prison terms, including Ibrahim El-Gabrowny and Clement Rodney Hampton-El. [New York Times, 1/18/1996] Siddig Siddig Ali, who was possibly the main force behind the plot (see April 23, 1993), will eventually be sentenced to only 11 years in prison because he agreed to provide evidence on the other suspects [New York Times, 10/16/1999]

September 11, 1993: NSA Analyst Warns of Terrorist Attacks on US; Analyst Ordered to Undergo Psych Evalation

A National Security Agency (NSA) linguist runs afoul of his superiors after he and other linguists submit a report concluding that Islamist terrorists are planning attacks on America. The analyst, who insists on remaining anonymous and is nicknamed “J” by press reports, is fluent in an unusual number of languages. His and his colleagues’ study of Arabic language messages, and the flow of money to terrorist organizations from Saudi Arabia, lead them to believe that Saudi extremists are plotting an attack. J will recall in January 2006: “You could see, this was the pure rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and his group, the exact same group, and we had an early indication.… All of us in the group had this view of a burgeoning threat, and suddenly we were all trotted off to the office of security. Then came the call to report for a battery of psychological tests.” J will issue further warnings of potential terrorist strikes, this time involving hijackers, passenger planes, and US buildings, in May 2001 (see May 2001). In 2006, other current and former NSA officials will claim that the NSA routinely uses unfavorable psychological evaluations to retaliate against whistleblowers and those employees who come into conflict with superiors (see January 25-26, 2006). [Cybercast News Service, 1/25/2006]

[edit on 7-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Spring 1995: More Evidence that WTC Remains a Target

In the wake of uncovering the Operation Bojinka plot, Philippine authorities find a letter on a computer disc written by the plotters of the failed 1993 WTC bombing. This letter apparently was never sent, but its contents will be revealed in 1998 congressional testimony. [US Congress, 2/24/1998] The Manila police chief also reports discovering a statement from bin Laden around this time that, although they failed to blow up the WTC in 1993, “on the second attempt they would be successful.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/13/2001]

April-May 1995: FBI Learns KSM Has Been in US and Is Planning to Come Back for Flight Training

The FBI interrogates Bojinka plotter Abdul Hakim Murad and learns that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) has been in the US and is planning to return for flight training. Murad had already been interrogated in the Philippines by Colonel Rodolfo Mendoza (see February-Early May 1995). The Associated Press will say that KSM “had traveled to Israel and the United States, according to [Mendoza’s] report.” Further, Murad met KSM several times in Pakistan in 1993, and “their conversations focused mainly on aircraft because of Mohammed’s intense interest in pilot training, Mendoza quoted Murad as saying.” [Associated Press, 6/25/2002] After Murad is handed over to the FBI around April, along with Mendoza’s report on him, he repeats much the same information to the FBI and adds more details about a man he calls Abdul Majid (which Mendoza had already learned was one of KSM’s many aliases). [Associated Press, 6/25/2002; Knight Ridder, 9/9/2002] An FBI account of his April 1995 interrogation dated May 11, 1995, states, “Murad also advised that Majid had a United States visa and was planning to travel to the US sometime in the near future. Murad stated that he thought that Majid might go to the Richmor Flying School in Albany, New York, because Majid seemed interested in obtaining his pilots license and Murad suggested the Richmor Flying School.” [Associated Press, 6/25/2002; Lance, 2006, pp. 501-502] Despite this warning, apparently KSM will still be able to travel to the US, because in the summer of 2001 an al-Qaeda operative will reveal that KSM visited the US at least through the summer of 1998 (see Summer 1998).

April 3, 1995: Time Magazine and Senator Highlight Plane as Weapon Idea

Time magazine’s cover story reports on the potential for anti-American militants to kill thousands in highly destructive acts. It mentions that, three weeks earlier, Senator Sam Nunn (D) had outlined a scenario in which terrorists attack the US Capitol building on the night of a State of the Union address, by crashing a radio-controlled airplane into it, “engulfing it with chemical weapons and causing tremendous death and destruction.” The scenario is “not far-fetched,” and the required technology is readily available, Nunn said. [Time, 4/3/1995] An almost identical scenario was included in the storyline of the Tom Clancy bestseller Debt of Honor, released the previous year, but this involved a plane guided by a suicide pilot, rather than radio control (see August 17, 1994). High-ranking al-Qaeda leaders will claim later that Flight 93’s target was the Capitol Building. [Guardian, 9/9/2002]

Other headlines you can check out at the link I will give at the end:

1996: FBI Fumbles Flight School Investigation; Murad and Eleven Other Al-Qaeda Pilots Trained in US

Early 1996: KSM Said to be Building a Bomb

July 6, 1996-August 11, 1996: Atlanta Rules Established to Protect Against Attacks Using Planes as Flying Weapons

October 1996: Phoenix FBI Agent Has First Suspicions of Local Flight Students

November 24, 1996: Passenger Plane Suicide Attack Narrowly Averted

Late 1996: Trusted Informant Warns that Bin Laden May Attack Inside US or US Embassies

1997-1998: World Trade Center Rated ‘Critical’ as a Possible Terrorist Target

February 12, 1997: Vice President Gore’s Aviation Security Report Released

May 1997: Saudis Reveal Bin Laden Is Sending Money to US but Fail to Share More on Al-Qaeda Finances

July 31, 1997: Islamic Extremist Suicide Attack in New York City Narrowly Averted

1998: FBI Agent Starts First Investigation into Arizona Flight Students

1998: Indonesia Gives US Warning of 9/11 Attack?

Hendropriyono, the Indonesian chief of intelligence, will later claim that, “[we] had intelligence predicting the September 11 attacks three years before it happened but nobody believed us.” He says Indonesian intelligence agents identify bin Laden as the leader of the group plotting the attack and that the US disregards the warning, but otherwise offers no additional details. The Associated Press notes, “Indonesia’s intelligence services are not renowned for their accuracy.” [Associated Press, 7/9/2003]

Early 1998: CIA Ignores Ex-Agent’s Warning KSM Is ‘Going to Hijack Some Planes,’ Visiting Germany

Spring 1998: Experts Warn FAA of Potential Massive Kamikaze Attack

It goes on and on and on and on and on.

Notice I haven't mentioned specific memos that C. Rice is KNOWN to have received, despite her claiming otherwise under oath and thus committing perjury.

All of these are from 1 page of documented news events, out of 5 pages of events that could be taken as advanced warnings, all found here: History Commons

Many of them, as you probably have noticed, specifically mention the WTC as a major target of interest, even for airliner impacts.


Also the Port Authority itself, that maintained the WTC Towers, considered both airliner impacts AND underground parking garage bombings as early as 1984:

The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds “one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site.” In particular, “There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage.” However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.” He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The OSP will issue its report called “Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center” late in 1985 (see November 1985).

www.historycommons.org...


Note that even though they only consider a "slow-moving airplane" in 1984, during construction, a separate engineering team from Robertson's, John Skilling's firm, reported that the building had been analyzed and found sound after a collision with a Boeing 707 moving at 600 mph. On 9/11 it was confirmed that the buildings could obviously withstand the impacts themselves. The question is then whether the ensuing fires were enough to cause them to then completely collapse to the ground, which is another issue, considering the planes themselves only severed less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors in either building and fire itself has never caused such catastrophic failures in these buildings, only deformations and warping in the steel at absolute worst.


So yeah, there was definitely plenty of forewarning.


If you look up FBI whisteblower Sibel Edmonds, who had her case banned from court by John Ashcroft citing "states secrets" privileges, she said her supervisors in the FBI were intentionally misdirecting agents in the field prior to 9/11 to prevent them from putting all the appropriate pieces of the puzzle together. She was a translator for them and she knew exactly what information they were intercepting.

Several other nations even gave us forewarnings, such as Russia, for example.

There is plenty out there if you just look at it. But when you make your mind up in advance and refuse to consider anything else, that is a psychological problem unto itself not even considering that you are ignorant of all of this information.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by bsbray11]