Government Heard 9/11 Plans from Hijackers' Own Mouths

Many essays have discussed the U.S. government's foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, the number of facts pointing towards likely foreknowledge are so numerous that it is easy to get lost in the details.

This essay focuses solely on the proof that American and allied intelligence services actually heard the hijackers discuss and make their plans before 9/11.

Initially, an FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000.

And a CIA agent allegedly met with Bin Laden in an American hospital in July 2001

Furthermore, Israel tracked the hijackers' every move prior to the attacks, and sent agents to film the attack on the World Trade Centers. How did Israel know that the Trade Centers would be attacked unless they knew the exact plans for 9/11?

Moreover, the intelligence services of the French and other governments had infiltrated the highest levels of Al-Qaeda's camps, and actually listened to the hijackers' debates about which airlines' planes should be hijacked, and allied intelligence services also listened into satellite phone conversations between the hijackers.

And the National Security Agency and the FBI were both independently listening in on the phone calls between the supposed mastermind of the attacks and the lead hijacker. Indeed, the FBI built its own antenna in Madagascar specifically to listen in on the mastermind's phone calls. The day before 9/11, the mastermind told the lead hijacker "tomorrow is zero hour" and gave final approval for the attacks. The NSA intercepted the message that day and the FBI was likely also monitoring the mastermind's phone calls. (The NSA claims that it did not translate the intercept until September 12th; however, the above-mentioned FBI translator said that she was frequently ordered to falsify dates of translations regarding 9/11)

Shortly before 9/11, the NSA also intercepted multiple phone calls to the United States from Bin Laden's chief of operations.

The CIA and the NSA had been intercepting phone calls by the hijackers for years.

Indeed, two days before 9/11, Osama Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her "In two days, you're going to hear big news and you're not going to hear from me for a while.” US officials later told CNN that “in recent years they've been able to monitor some of bin Laden's telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded." Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother.

Forget complicated arguments about warnings. The government actually heard the plans for 9/11 from the hijackers' own mouths.

Bush Knew...

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Mr. President...

You knew they were in the United States . You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. Didn't do anything to harden our border security. Didn't do anything to harden airport security. Didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement. Didn't do anything to round up INS and the consular office, and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people. What did you do? Nothing so far as we can see.

— Bob Kerrey - 9/11 Commissioner

Or did they? Did they do as Wesley Clark suggested because the "evidence seems pretty clear," and "actually misused the intelligence information at hand" to their advantage?

By pre-wiring buildings for demolition? By rescheduling wargames to coincide with 9/11? By changing hijacking protocols? By doing any number of things...

I don't know.

big difference between foreknowledge of things that happened

and those that did not. "foreknowledge" of hijackings that never took place are no way the same as foreknowledge of the demolition of the three trade towers.

Let's put it this way--suppose that the hijackings DID all take place as claimed by the BushCo team. This leaves the obvious problem that planes crashed into the towers could not possibly have brought them down the way they fell. There would still be the question of WHO SET THE EXPLOSIVES IN THE TOWERS?

It does not follow that whoever these hypothetical hijackers were would have had any knowledge of the demolitions planned for the towers. They might well have asked, had they been aware of the plan to bring them down with explosives, why their martyrdom was going to be wasted crashing into buildings rigged to explode at a moments notice instead of crashing themselves into some other target, like the busy morning streets of Manhattan say.

It is also absurd to believe that anyone with foreknowledge of an impending attack with planes--even if their info was accurate to the hour--would set out weeks before to set explosive charges in preparation for a day when any number of things could have gone wrong. Whoever crashed the planes into the towers had to have known about the explosives and vice versa. That is perhaps what the LIHOP holdouts cannot bring themselves to agree with despite it being almost inconceivable that it was not so.

That's assuming the planes really were hijacked, for which their is no evidence that does not appear to have been falsified and planted.

We also run into the problem that it seems so many people had this "foreknowledge" of alleged events that it seems remarkable that word never got out to anyone--unless everyone with foreknowledge was indeed complicit. In the case of the demolitions we don't have all these allegations of foreknowledge, so that problem does not arise. If we are to believe that the hijackings really took place, we also have to believe that none of the people who were honestly tracking this plot made any effort to alert the media.

In short, I think it's long past time we all acknowledge that the foreknowledge--->LIHOP scenario is untenable. That alleged hijackings are not nearly as worthy of scrutiny as are clearly demonstrable and indeed SELF-EVIDENT cases of demolition.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Have you read


Do you agree that there are millions of Americans who might believe lihop, but can't yet believe mihop?

Do you think that if they hear lihop evidence, that they'll eventually go mihop (of course, imho)

Do you think that a lihop trial would bring out evidence of mihop (of course, imho)

Do you think impeachment based on lihop would turn mihop?

I'm not saying not to push mihop. I passionately believe we should push mihop also, imho.

But to exclude lihop would probably doom to failure 9/11 truth and the ability to bring all of the perps to justice, imho.

We need both, as they reach different people, imho.


Of course!

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

fair enough, but i disagree

It was all well and good when we were desperate to turn people onto the truth to accept LIHOP as a gateway to MIHOP, but as our numbers and awareness grow, we who know that the real question is "WHO MIHOP?" see less and less justifying the use of LIHOP in the manner you describe. We see the danger that comes from the complicit media "discovering" LIHOP just in time to nip WHO MIHOP in the bud. Fool me once, can't get fooled again!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I respectfully disagree . . .

while we may have made huge progress, the MSM still doesn't fairly discuss 9/11, so many MILLIONS upon millions of Americans are still asleep.

Push fact-based mihop (i.e. mihop theories with enough factual evidence to back them up so they won't fall down like a house of cards), but also target those who can only hear lihop, imho . . .

That's why I write both.

and to your credit Gdub...

you are usually pretty clear about that. Unfortunately there are those who still claim to think that it may well have been LIHOP like, for real, and as long as that is considered an acceptable truther position I will have to persist in pointing out the danger inherent in your (and what was until recently mine too) approach to the diehard OCT believers....


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I think that even now,

years after it should have become obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together that 9/11 was an inside job, there are still many millions of Americans who have only heard drip . . . drip . . . drips of truth, and so hasn't seen anything put together. EVER.

That's one reason I write essays that try to put the facts together.

Sure, some portion of the population will never believe the government had anything to do with 9/11.

But I believe MILLIONS are waking up because people are putting things together in here-it-all-is style exposes.

So I do some for the really clueless as to lihop.

But I agree that lihop and mihop have outlived their usefulness.

I respectfully disagree...

I really believe that the LIHOP/MIHOP distinction is obsolete because the nature of the "it" has clearly changed in the post-Steven Jones era of the Truth movement. The central "it" can no longer be seen as "hijack the planes" -- it has to be "blew up the buildings." So did someone let someone blow up buildings? You could look at it that way, but without the illusion that we know who the "lettees" are in that case, who cares (as a primary or sole concern) who the "letters" might have been?

No argument from me that this is one big, hard-to-swallow red horsepill. Therefore, meet people where they are with what they can hear, within the limits of conscience. That is, I won't willingly support someone's belief in scary, swarthy freedom-haters even if that person might be persuaded that they were permitted to use their Islamo-superpowers by our own government.

excellent point

and the truth is, we don't seriously argue about whether it WAS LIHOP or MIHOP. We know it was WHO MIHOP? LIHOP has just turned out to be good shorthand for the insistence on beloieving that the hijackings took place as we were originally led to believe. Once you acknowledge that the planes, hijacked or not, could not have made the buildings collapse onto the hundreds inside of each, it is absurd to act like there is any equivalence between the issue of who blew up the towers and who, if anyone, helped the alleged hijackers wipe their butts, snort coke, pay for lapdances, etc.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


LIHOP rubbish is pure disinformation and fantasy

This is some of the worst government COINTELPRO propaganda I've seen yet posted at 911blogger:

Why would anyone be propping up Pentagon psy-ops efforts as they trot out the same old absurdist B-grade Hollywood plot-line of

"19 crazed hijackers with boxcutters, masterminded by a dialysis patient on a laptop from a cave in lower Afghanistan"

This is precisely the sort of drivel currently promoted by CIA disinfo plants like Michael Scheuer.
Do we have to see it trotted out yet one more time here ?

One more time, in case any of you don't get it yet.
There were no hijackers.
There isn't even any evidence of hijacked planes ...
or any kind of carshed Boeing planes.

At this late date, to see dz or georgewasinhgton (or whatever handle Floum or Fred Burks happen to be using) bodygurading the MSM by posting this brainwashing garbage, is astounding.

you're wrong on one point

and I want to point this out because 100% no-planers (as opposed to those of us who think Boeings hit the towers but did not crash in Pennsylvania or the Pentagon) overstate what is actually a compelling case--the fact that most of the 9/11 story is just pure lies unsupported by any evidence except that which was planted.

There is no credible evidence of hijackers or hijackings, true. There is no compelling evidence that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, or Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. Phone calls are not proof. Radar blips and transponder signals are not proof. All those things are easily faked. Big planes did hit the towers--that video evidence is NOT easy to fake.

Again--nota bene!--those who claim no planes hit the towers do so as part of a false dichotomy created for the purposes of the coverup whereby they try to make it seem that there are two positions--one that believes the hijacker story and one that believes no planes hit the towers. The truth is of course somewhere in between these two incorrect points of view.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


This is all based on government information

We know the government is lying -- how is this credible? How can it be used to build a case? Do you have any idea how many excuses could be developed for these stories?

I don't accept the premise that people are more willing to accept LIHOP. Maybe some, but not enough to make it worth pursuing this line of inquiry that is most likely disinformation.

The NSA claims that it did not translate the intercept until September 12th; however, the above-mentioned FBI translator said that she was frequently ordered to falsify dates of translations regarding 9/11)

NSA is credible? Please. But assume the intercept exists - they say they didn't translate it. How are you going to prove they did? Because the FBI might have gotten it and an FBI translator said that other dates were altered? Good luck with that. And assume you prove the message was translated. Where does that get you? Nowhere. Bureaucratic snafus and hind sight is 20/20 - end of story. A story we've heard since 2002 and can read in the 9/11 Commission Report.

It's not just that it is most likely disinformation, it's that it proves nothing but the official story of incompetence.
If that doesn't work, counterintelligence sting gone bad, whatever.

None of these "foreknowledge" stories explain the blowing up of the towers, which is the crime that killed many more people than boarded planes.

very well put


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force