So I will observe that Hans, like many other CTists was happy to discuss only those parts of his "theory" that were subjective, and avoided like the plague any discussion that might require objective evidence.
This is of course nothing new and is a common thread in 9/11 or even general CT Theorists, especially those that are based on pictre puzzles and squinting at one image to see another, regardless of what "ology", "ism" or "field of research" they claim to be from.
The foremost issue is significance. That is to say would the "message" should be identifiable as significant on it's own with out the benefit of hindsight. I can think of no reason a "warning" might be useful if it is only recognisable after the event being warned of. If we take as an example the stories of Wingdings or other Picture Fonts that were popular a while back when it was said that if you typed a vaguely 911 related number you would see a significant message. Most these messages were based on numbers that were only related if you went through some numerology along the lines of "Add 9 and one and one, then consider the number of the firetruck on the left of the screen and add that". Eventually you would end up with a tower and a skull, or a plane and a flame, or something else that strongly suggested the final result was chosen first then steps were taken backwards through the mental olympics to find a 9/11 connection. Given the time and inclination you could find any pictorial font, find some pictures you like to think represents any event you choose, then make the same kind of connections. Anybody typing the number 68 or whatever in 2000 would have had no reason what so ever to assume this meant that the twin towers would collapse in the near future.
Here we have seen somebody finding significant an image he saw in a film that if he squinted looked kind of like an obelisk on fire, and text that if you squinted reminded him personally of New York. The question is if somebody in the year 2000 had noticed an obelisk like image in the background would they think it was one of the twin towers, would they see the My Toan as being New York? Would they then tie this with 2001 to decipher the message? No. At best those who saw the "message" speculated it might be an Easter Egg, of the kind Kubrick had included in other films for those looking closely, a nod to 2001, a poetic detail. From his own mouth we know they were wrong and it was incidental.
Far too often the reason we do not get a defined methodology is that there is none. Somebody has seen the image they want, and has chosen supporting facts through confirmation bias. The differences between this and mirrored image, (or for that matter the kinky details in the stonework of my local cathedral, the Mad centrefold, or the Queen of Hearts seeming to stab the King of Hearts in the back when you place cards next to each other) are many, but start with the complete lack of marker to identify this as a significant detail. The painting discussed in previous posts, or the Mad centrefold have markers in the composition and framing that will identify a secondary image. (I can unfortunately only find one text pertaining to secret rooms being discovered by an academic scholar -one Prof. Henry Jones Junior- through codes in a painting, or rather a stained glass window and I doubt the text could be used as a weighty and serious methodology). "Codes" found in archetecture, like those in Masonic buildings, or pub signs, have specific tells to draw you to them. There are rules not for finding iconic meaning and social significance, but for understanding them. A code is useless without a key. And those who have genuine "message" (joke, inversion of the meaning, masonic symbol, politcal message, etc) know that somebody will need their rules to unlock it. If we were to assume the message was a warning, statement of intent or other prediction it would be strange to do it in a way that for all intents and purposes could not be shown to be a message with any conviction and could only be discovered long after the message became useless.
This is not a case of "Deckard was a Simulant" being a theory before the directors cut because of a few carefully placed clues, this is not a case of the Public Telephone in Fight Club having a "does not recieve incoming calls sign", or even "The Narrator in Stand by Me is bull-fibbing a story to cover up for the time he and his mates shot a guy and 'discovered' the body in the swamp back when he was Wesley Crusher", this is not even the hidden origin of Cloverfield hidden in the last few frames of the film, and certainly is not a clever "place mirror here" Easter Egg.
No my friends when we see a theory suggesting a film, poster, work of art or musical piece predicted the attack it is far more likely to be a case of Munchkin Suicide in the Wizard of Oz, or the "ghost" of Three Men and a Baby. It is a coincidental background image chosen with out reason or marker, one of thousands in the same film that could be chosen and given an equally wonderful and equally unsupportable significance. If they are even able to identify a detail. I am sure we can all remember when the Olympic ceremonies were supposed to be filled with occult messages from the New World Order, despite nobody being able to decide what was or was not a message.
Personally if I were to believe that entertainers had made an effort to pass on messages about the attack, I would be more willing to wonder about the far less subtle warning given in the pilot episode of the Three Gunmen spin off from the X-Files.
