The warnings should be viewed as leads. The only question that matters should be where the information originally came from. A real criminal investigation, for example, would not make any assumptions about what the warnings mean without first trying to trace each one back to the original source of the intelligence. Ultimately, the warnings lead back to the perpetrators (or someone observing the perpetrators).

For any warning there are of course two "defusing" possibilities:

1) Least Likely, IMHO: It was made up after the fact by an intelligence service that is covering its ass and basically challenging the US to say otherwise, while also showing its willingness to reinforce the official story and thus play ball in the new world order.

2) It was delivered before 9/11, but did not actually refer to the events of 9/11, but only sounded that way. (Vague chatter.)

Three of the warning reports stand out as being too specific not to have been about 9/11:

Russia: 25 pilots from Uzbekistan are plotting to commit terror in US. (Says Jane's Defense Quarterly - Putin on television after 9/11 said he repeated a dire warning in advance of 9/11.)

Jordan: Beware a coming al-Qaeda terrorist plot called "The Big Wedding." (According to author and former ABC producer John Cooley, who wrote an excellent history of the original Afghan war)

Israel: Here is a list of 19 Arabs planning to commit an attack in the US, four of their names are Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid Almihdar, and Nawaf Alhazmi. (According to Die Zeit. Is that "specific" enough?)

My favorite is of course the Genoa warning: Osama bin Ladin planning to crash airplane into Bush's hotel at G-8 Summit in Genoa, July 2001. This does not relate to New York, but in combination with the "August 6 memo" to Bush it makes a non-plus ultra for an administration that a few weeks later would claim that no one could have imagined planes crashing into buildings!

This is in addition to a dozen other, not quite as spectacular warnings (at least, as reported in the press) from Britain, France, et al. To this, add the foreknowledge indicated by the suspicious financial dealings -- e.g., put option not just on United and American but on WTC tenants and reinsurance companies, bought not just in Chicago but in London, and reports of other suspicious financial deals from Frankfurt, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. And the many stories of foreknowledge by individuals, some more credible than others.

Further possibilities to explain the warnings:

3) Planted information, as John describes: a team is spreading details of the plot as propaganda preparation so that the official story is later believable. After hearing about the Genoa warning, we even have one writer (Jim Hatfield) guessing this in advance of the Summit (and 9/11) -- that Bush's team had made it up to gain some sympathy for their guy!

4) Blackmail: the countries are letting the administration know they know what's coming before it happens, so that they can protect themselves from being blamed for it (as Iraq was) and gain favors in the aftermath.

5) Hijackers were hijacked: There really was a 9/11 plot set up by independent hijackers, and this was being monitored, protected and facilitated by the intel agencies who had them under surveillance. "Innocent" intelligent agencies found out about the hijackers (or observed patsies and thought they were real) and honestly passed the informatin to the US, only to discover their warnings were ignored (by intent, since the patsies were under protection).

6) Official story: Americans incredibly incompetent, miss the warnings. Most absurd. It's not just that there was a large number of warnings; this was, after all, small compared to all the intelligence being processed at any given time. It's that the warnings were coming from so many different (and seemingly unrelated) directions at once. Ultimately there was some kind of common source behind them, a source with extensive knowledge.

Again, to really find out anything one would have to pursue each warning back to its original source. A real investigation is not interested in who missed or blocked the warning, but where the information actually came from. Of course, the 9/11 Commission didn't even mention any of these warnings, once again demonstrating its seriousness as an investigation.

---
"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."
summeroftruth.org

I really appreciate the detailed reponse you gave to my
question about the warnings. The "Foreign Warnings" were specifically what I was referring to,
since I'd already reached the conclusion that the hijackers were patsies and the "al caeda" attack was
a charade..
The Pakistani ISI and even the Israeli Mossad could have been planting or stoking rumors. I've long suspected CIA involvement with al caeda as a "useful enemy." Stateside, Mohammed Atta had ties to the NSA it appears (and thereby the Pentagon). He was an Able Danger patsy perhaps who was not in fact connected to Bin Laden!
If you've seen "Eyewitness" you'll recall the black helicopter dropping bombs on the roof of the Twin Towers-- was this an actual black operation disguised as an exercise? (With other exercises in play to help with the confusion. 1) Obfuscation of Air Defenses, 2) Standing down NYC rescue choppers, 3) Providing cover for an actual bombing raid.) Pretty nefarious stuff. Again, Thanks.