Rating Scale for Warnings of 9-11

I am going to try to come up with a rating scale to use as a measuring stick against which we can place the various claims of warnings about 9-11. I would also invite your comments and suggestions for other elements that might be considered relevant to an analysis of which claims are credible and worthy of further investigations, and which seem to be just the usual nonsense.

The way I see it, for a warning to be considered extremely relevant to 9-11, it has to score well in all of the following categories:

1. It has to be specific. A warning that "a terrorist attack is coming" is less specific than warnings of airplane hijackings, is less specific than warnings of aircraft hijackings with the planes then aimed at US landmarks.
2. It has to be timely. A warning in 1998 is less timely than one in March of 2001, is less timely than one in early September of that year.
3. It has to come from credible sources. Note that this applies both to the media outlet for the story and the actual sources that media outlook used to get the story. Raw Story is less credible than The New Republic is less credible than the New York Times. And for sources, an unnamed source is less credible than a former member of the Kazahkstan intelligence service is less credible than the British Prime Minister. The gold standard of credibility for warnings should be considered acknowledgment by the US government.

I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak about that last part, but the reason why the government's acknowledgment is the gold standard is simple: It's an admission against interest. I think we'd all agree (even the CTers) that the government has a vested interest in denying or minimizing any prior warnings, so if they 'fess up about some, those have to be considered very credible.

I'm thinking of a 100-point scale, with 40 possible points for 1 & 3, and 20 possible points for #2. Since there will probably be no warnings that score a perfect 100, we'll be generous and say that 50 is the minimum threshold for giving some credence to the warning.

Thoughts/comments?