Take notice of how Ari Fleischer makes the argument that the August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US was "vague," and didn't say where the attack would take place. This is a tactic 9/11 "debunkers" also use, pointing out that the information was historical in nature. Let's take a look at an excerpt that disagrees:
Is it just me or do you also interpret the above to be talking about non-historical information that suggests not just "preparations for hijackings," but targets in New York too? The answer to that depends on if you're a former Bush minion or a 9/11 "debunker" I guess.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Now combine this with other information that Chris Matthews SHOULD be pointing out, and we start to get a clearer picture of the situation...
9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets
Rockefeller Predicted "Event" To Trigger War Eleven Months Before 9/11 - Hollywood director Russo recalls remarkable "forecast" of coming attack
Not to mention the massive amount of other mainstream news reports concerning ignored warnings.
Here is what Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog had to say about the points I raised in this post and my reply.