One commonly-quoted story of 9/11 "foreknowledge" concerns the travel plans of some "top Pentagon officials", as 9-11 Research points out.
Here's the quote in context:
And consider the earlier version that appeared on September 13th.
How much reliance can we place in this report? Let's consider the issues.
First, we have an unnamed source. There’s no way to check the accuracy of the quote.
Second, even this unnamed source appears uncertain of the facts: “apparently” because of security concerns, a particularly urgent warning "may" have been received the night before the attacks. If the source doesn’t know for sure, then what is the basis for the claim at all?
Third, we don’t know where these “Pentagon officials” were located. There’s nothing in the story to say they were starting, or ending their prospective journey in America, for instance. If they did cancel the the trip, and this was because of security issues, then it could have been due to local circumstances that were nothing to do with 9/11.
Fourth, even if they were in the US, they may have been responding to a warning that is already public, and demonstrably nothing to do with 9/11. On September 7th 2001, for instance, a State Department “worldwide warning” was updated to “include the threats to U.S. military personnel in Asia”. And as you’ll see in that article, it was being circulated to others on September 10th 2001, just when the Pentagon cancellation were supposedly made. Is that just a coincidence?
Fifth, it’s unclear whether Pentagon “top brass” would require warnings anyway. Would they really be taking regular commercial flights, for instance? Or would a military aircraft be more likely?
And sixth, if the top brass were based in the Pentagon, and the trip was to take them elsewhere, then of course cancelling would leave them in the building and at risk of being killed. Not the most helpful example of specific 9/11 foreknowledge we’ve ever seen.
None of these issues are unsurmountable, then, but they do illustrate some of the problems with this account, which so far looks flimsy in the extreme.