3. Did the U.S foresee and stand down from 9/11?
To answer this loaded.. or better yet, explosive question, one must first consider the first actions that would need to be taken that would set this catastrophe into motion. The U.S. knows it is a country that has undertaken evil deeds in the name of its own people and children. It knows a lot of people and nations demand revenge for the loss of so many fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters. These individuals harmed for the supposed sake of our freedoms have extensive reporting mechanisms, spying networks, eyes in the dark, etc, that are always available and always relaying information to them.
Pipelines To 9/11 --By Rudo de Ruijter---17 August, 2006---Countercurrents.org
- Curious No-Fly list - On April 21, 2000, something remarkable happened. As an antiterrorist measure, the US Congress announced a single unified terrorist watch list, the TID (or Terrorist Identities Database), into which all international terrorist related data available to the US government - mainly the TIPOFF no-fly list - would be stored in a single repository. In airports, this list is used to prevent suspected people from going on board and from entering the US. .....However, the same day that Congress announces the unified TID list, the FAA created a new and separate domestic no-fly list and put only six names on it. Two weeks before 9/11, the list was expanded with six other names, making it a total list of 12 names......Thanks to this separate list the hijackers of 9/11, using domestic flights, and not listed among the 12 names, could board the planes without difficulties. On August 23, 2001, two names, later published as being two of the hijackers, had been added to the official TID-list, which counted 60,000 suspects, but was discarded for domestic flights.-
Ok, that and here, is where we start to get weird... People, once I burrowed down this hole, there was no coming back. My government had left a significant papertrail that inequivically pointed a bloody finger towards itself, especially when you find out that BEFORE 9/11, BEFORE the "discovery" that Bin Laden was behind it and that Bin Laden and his hordes were situated in Ragheadistan somewhere in "That" region... they (the United States Armed Forces and Special Services) were already loading up the weapons for battle... already planning and preparing. Something like is going on now, in preparation for the war in Iran. (- (http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/15660/index.php) - BTL:US Sends Warships to Iran, Pre-Election Attack Possible) I'ts sickening, but frightening. If they are following that script, then we should all be worried.
3: Preparations for 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan - Timing of the attacks
- As noticed above, the timing for the attacks on the US embassies in Africa helped Clinton, as it drew away the attention from his threatening conviction of perjury in the Monica Lewinsky affair, and focused on the common enemies: the terrorists.....The invasion of Afghanistan would have to wait for the next US president. Between 1998 and 2001 there was enough time to plan everything carefully. Below we will notice, that the attacks of 9/11 occurred at the very moment everything was in place. The only thing missing was a pretext to get support from Congress, from the US population and the rest of the world…
For the US to invade Afghanistan at the other side of the world was a delicate operation. Step by step the US had pushed its influence and control in the former soviet republics. US oil and gas related companies had started up activities in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and US' military had gained influence in the region, challenging Russia and China in their backyards....Already in 1997, north of Afghanistan, the US had considerably expanded its military "cooperation" with Kazakhstan, which forms the buffer with Russia.  In 1999, closer to Afghanistan, the US expanded its presence in Kyrgyzstan , and in Uzbekistan, one of Afghanistan's direct neighbours.  April 14-15, 2000, Uzbek and US troops conducted joint military exercises. .....East of Afghanistan the US administration has strong ties with the Pakistani intelligence service. Its director, Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, was with US' officials the week before and during the attacks of 9/11.  On the west side F-15 were based in Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey and the Fifth fleet was permanently based in the Persian Gulf. .....For the war in Afghanistan, huge transports of troops and material had to be organized well before the invasion. On November 7, 2000, the day all US-citizens were occupied with the election of their president, the UK announced its biggest military exercise since the Gulf War, operation Swift Sword (Saif Sareea in Arabic), involving 24,000 troops and a lot of heavy material. .......The exercise took place in Oman, a strategic location, since all oil tankers from the Persian Gulf region (Saudi-Arabia, the United Arabic Emirates, Qatar, Quait, Iraq and Iran) have to cross the Gulf of Oman. Here the UK detains a War Material Storage.  They exercised on the coast of Oman from September 15 until the end of October 2001,  and started moving their material in August 2001.  The UK participated in the invasion. .......From October 8 until the end of October, 2001 another military operation was planned in Egypt: NATO Operation Bright Star. It was the world's largest exercise with more than 11 Nations, and over 70,000 troops (among which 23,000 from the US) participating. ......Among several other "coincidental" military moves towards Afghanistan, we notice that on July 23 2001 aircraft carrier Carl Vinson was sent out from Bremerton (on US West coast) to the Arabian Sea. It arrived just in time to launch the first air strikes on Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. 
On the diplomatic front, to lower the risk of upsetting China, on June 19 2001, Bush had proposed to attend the APEC summit in Shang Hai and was expected to meet president Zemir between October 15 and October 21 2001.  &  (Bush's meeting with presidents Zemir and Putin took place on October 20, 2001) .......Besides, in 2001 China was completing its bilateral agreements with all 37 WTO members to become a full WTO-member. China wanted to become member since many years. China's bilateral agreement with Mexico would be the last and this would complete China's membership.  In July 2001 Bush would polish his relations with Mexico, "lobbying" against US unfair import restrictions on Mexican trucks. .......This was probably not only to get the Mexicans in the right mood to sign with China, but also because Mexico would be member of the UN Security Council in 2002 and 2003. China reached its bilateral agreement with Mexico and became WTO member on September 13, 2001. 
Not all material about 9/11 has been released to the public. Some of the reliable evidence has been confiscated by the CIA.  Statements of officials often turned out to be contradictory. And, in particular about possible advanced knowledge, the White House has confiscated dozens of documents of the 9/11 Commission.  It doesn't make truth finding easier..............The official version of the events on 9/11 involves a very high number of coincidences that facilitated the "success" of the attacks...........§ A nationwide military exercise, Global Guardian, originally planned for November 2001, is in full swing, creating confusion between exercises and real-world events. .................§ A large-scale military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, is taking place and involves all of NORAD, the defence department, which normally sends fighter jets after civil airplanes several times a week, when flight control operators report incidences. ..............§ The Vigilant Guardian exercise simulates an air attack on the United States. .........§ NORAD is also running a planned real-world operation named Operation Northern Vigilance, for which many NORAD fighters are located in Alaska and Canada. ..............§ Operation Northern Vigilance also creates false blips on radar screens at least until the second plane crashes into the World Trade Centre. .....................§ In Washington a planned National Reconnaissance Office exercise involves a scenario of an airplane as a flying weapon. ..........................§ The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is flying across the Atlantic on the way to Europe. ............................§ The Federal Emergency Management Agency Director is at a conference in Montana. ...................§ FAA hijack coordinator, who has to contact the National Military Command Centre in case of hijacks, is in Puerto Rico and cannot be reached. ........................§ All of FBI's anti-terrorist and top special operations agents are, together with the members of the CIA's anti-terrorist task force, on a training exercise in Monterey, California. .........................§ For the day of 9/11, the commander of the National Military Command Centre had requested to be replaced by someone without experience. .....................§ For FAA's new National Operations Manager it is the first day on the job. ......................§ The hijackers can board without trouble, since the official no-fly list is only used for international flights and, curiously, not for domestic flights.  & ........................§ Informed a few minutes after the start of the first hijack (Flight 11), American Airlines top management decide to "keep it quiet". ...........§ Boston flight controllers do not follow normal procedures and loose time by contacting various military bases, instead of NORAD. .....................§ After NORAD is finally informed, two F-15 will remain on the ground and only take off when flight 11 already crashes into the WTC. ...............§ For various reasons F-16 will only arrive on scene after the last plane has crashed.  & ..................§ A decision is taken to ground not only civil airplanes, but also all military planes. ...................§ The presumed hijacker pilot of flight 77 was not able to fly a Cessna without difficulty in August, but succeeded to spiral down a Boeing 757 and hit the Pentagon a few meters above the ground on September 11. ..............§ The President doesn't give any orders responding to the attack until just before the last plane crashes. ..................Above I only mentioned those coincidences that facilitated the success of the attacks. If I were to build a story on such series of coincidences, nobody would believe me. Well, I would not either. Keeping the things in their context, it makes more sense to look at them as facts, and not as coincidences...................All released details show that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out with military precision. However, the hijackers on the planes would have been improvised pilots without the extraordinary skills needed to fly like has been reported.  & .................Besides, they would not have been intelligent enough to foresee the reactions triggered by their actions. Apparently they had so little political awareness, they had not heard about the neoconservatives waiting for such a "catastrophic and catalysing event" to speed up US' conquests................The success of the plan relied on a lot of advanced knowledge of the situation that day, like the confusion offered by planned military exercises and the scenarios played by them, like the confusion offered by fake radar blibs, like traffic controllers lacking of primary radar images in specific areas, like the absence of several experienced officers in the command chains responding to the hijacks, like the absence of armed jet fighters to frustrate their plans..........All this seems more the work of a more influential and well trained organization, an organization willing to provide the justification for the neoconservatives' conquest plans, with Afghanistan as first target..................It does not seem likely to me that such an organization would let the success of its operation depend on the improvised skills of the hijackers. It makes more sense to suppose the hijackers were not in control. (In spite of an overheard phrase in the cockpit of the fourth plane, having been translated as "Pull it down" and by officials interpreted as "Crash the plane" ) It seems more likely the operation was conducted on the troubled frontier of technology and terror, and that technology had taken over the controls.....................The two types of planes used, Boeing 757 and 767, can be controlled remotely. Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the Financial Times a few days after 9/11 that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.  On 9/11 the remote control would have been in the hands of the wrong people..................If we look closer to the remote control scenario, we notice that if the published details about the transponders are right:...........1. the transponder of the second 767 is turned off shortly after the first 767 crashes..............2. the transponder of the second 757 is turned off shortly after the first 757 crashes...........So, it looks as if one remote pilot handled the two 767 one after the other, and another remote pilot handled the two 757 one after the other. ( 9/11 Commission Report, P.32, 8:47 & 9:41)................It has also been reported that a C-130 military cargo plane was tailing flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. The same C-130 was behind flight 93 when it crashed. Did the plane play a role? Or was it just a coincidental tourist, flying around while all other planes had been ordered to land? , , 
This is another conspiracy theory for thought that Rudo brought up, but it could have a grain of truth:
---By Rudo de Ruijter--The hijackers hijacked?---
Although the official story asks us to believe the hijackers wanted to fly into the WTC and the Pentagon, the released pieces of cockpit conversations offer no indications to support this theory. Although mountains of stories and counter-stories have been published about the hijackers, I did not find a single verifiable element.............If the hijackers were to support some Arabic or Islamic cause, they would probably be in a stronger position if they had returned to airports with four planes and hundreds of US citizens in their might. They could have negotiated the release of political prisoners. They could have demanded a retreat of US forces from Saudi Arabia. They could have pleaded any cause they were after.............Did the hijackers really have in mind to strike the WTC and the Pentagon or were they overruled by the organization that had "contracted" them? Will we find out? According to the official story, all radio contact and overhearing of cockpit conversations stopped before the planes made their final approach of the WTC and the Pentagon. If the hijackers were to create the biggest possible spectacle, wouldn't they have shouted a last accusation against the US or a last glorious prayer to Allah? Or were they surprised and in panic when they flew into the buildings?
4. Did the U.S. HAVE A ROLE! in 9/11!
So that's the million dollar question... Did our government not only ignore or stand down from their responsibilities, but could the most improbable have been the case... Could they have masterminded this entire incident? Could this have been a "self inflicted wound"? - as quoted from Alex Jones? That's the can of worms that you have to Eat, if you want to get to the bottom. In the end, the evidence provided by those that claim and disclaim speaks volumes. We'll get to the speculation after I provide evidence and facts, things that are factors that most people wouldnt even IMAGINE!
... Or could they imagine? Most people seem to think that if they speak out on behalf of their inner suspicions, they'll be ridiculed as 'loon', yet the only way to resolve an issue, is to admit that there IS in fact an issue. When you can't ask the people who YOU placed in power for an answer, you should recognize, they are no longer working for YOU. The last time I found out what government was, it specifically labeled those whom we elect into positions which they would be suited to handle overlooking our mass concerns, as stuarts...Servants...Employees...Vassels of the People. Not independent thinkers and critical hard(explicatives). Yet that's what it would seem they currently are. Since we can't obtain evidence in the straightforward way, by asking the accused, It would best help your efforts to create a query and man it yourself, correct?
Now, this may be off the point, but I'm quite the historian, and I was lucky enough to have sat down and read or watched tv and info on the science channel, history channel, discovery channel, many other different educational shows. I have a vast repository of information about a lot of NOTHING. Things you can't really use. Only through sifting further did I truly solidify the knowledge I had. It's almost as if, throughout life, I was picking up a lot of peices of puzzles, but really didn't think much of them. They were really interesting puzzle peices: red.. blue... TROPICAL RAINFOREST! ....man in chair... NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION!..... purple...SPACE CRAFT! Excuse my humor, but it's like after picking up all these peices, and when finally confronted with a question of substantial magnitude, I began finding that all the peices actually fit into a single large puzzle-board. I discovered an enigma... or enigma's, that had to be solved. Because in it, lies .. almost humorously, just about every single question that this planet holds: From cellular to universal to interdimensional.
If you think you or I are alone in our opinions, let's see what the pulse of our nation reads.
08/30/04 Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals ...
Released: August 30, 2004
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals
On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.
The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.
The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).
Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).
W. David Kubiak, executive director of 911truth.org, the group that commissioned the poll, expressed genuine surprise that New Yorkers' belief in the administration's complicity is as high or higher than that seen overseas. "We're familiar with high levels of 9/11 skepticism abroad where there has been open debate of the evidence for US government complicity. On May 26th the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians are also convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act. There was no US coverage of this startling poll or the facts supporting the Canadians' conclusions, and there has been virtually no debate on the victim families' scores of still unanswered questions. I think these numbers show that most New Yorkers are now fed up with the silence, and that politicians trying to exploit 9/11 do so at their peril. The 9/11 case is not closed and New York's questions are not going away."
Nicholas Levis of NY911truth.org, an advisor on the poll, agrees, "The 9/11 Commission gave us a plenty of 'recommendations', but far more plentiful were the discrepancies, gaps and omissions in their supposedly 'final' report. How can proposals based on such deficient findings ever make us safe? We think these poll numbers are basically saying, 'Wait just a minute. What about the scores of still outstanding questions? What about the unexplained collapses of WTC 7, our air defenses, official accountability, the chain of command on 9/11, the anthrax, insider trading & FBI field probes? There's so much more to this story that we need to know about.' When such a huge majority of New Yorkers want a new investigation, it will be interesting to see how quickly Attorney General Spitzer and our legislators respond."
SCOPE: The poll covered five areas of related interest: 1) Iraq - do New Yorkers think that our leaders "deliberately misled" us before the war (51.2% do); 2) the 9/11 Commission - did it answer all the "important questions" (only 36% said yes); 3) the inexplicable and largely unreported collapse of the third WTC skyscraper on 9/11 - what was its number (28% of NYC area residents knew); 4) the question on complicity; and 5) how many wanted a new 9/11 probe. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.
SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and resolve the hundreds of critical questions still swirling around 9/11, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11Commission which they fought to create. Initially welcomed by the commissioners as a "road map" for their inquiry, these queries cut to the heart of 9/11 crimes and accountability. Specifically, they raised the central issues of motive, means and cui bono (who profited?). But the Commission ignored the majority of these questions, opting only to explore system failures, miscommunications and incompetence. The victim families' most incisive issues remain unaddressed to this day. The Zogby International poll was also cosponsored by Walden Three (walden3.org) and 9/11 Citizens Watch (911citizenswatch.org), a watchdog group which has monitored the Commission since its inception and will release its findings, "The 9/11 Omission Report," in several weeks.
On September 9th and 11th, 911Truth.org will cosponsor two large successive inquiries in New York, a preliminary 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing and "Confronting the Evidence: 9/11 and the Search for Truth," a research-focused evidentiary forum. These inquiries will examine many of the 9/11 Commission-shunned questions and discuss preparation of a probable cause complaint demanding a grand jury and criminal investigation from the New York Attorney General. Possible charges range from criminal negligence and gross dereliction of duty to foreknowledge, complicity and subsequent obstruction of justice. For details and developments, see www.911truth.org. For press info, contact Kyle Hence 212-243-7787 firstname.lastname@example.org
Zogby International conducted interviews of 808 adults chosen at random in New York State. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from 8/24/04 through 8/26/04. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.