I am still convinced that it is not the questions that matter in the interview, but rather the answers. I also hear some people come in so rehearsed that it hurts (the applicant of course). Rather than concentrating on what questions might be asked, I would (and did) concentrate on particular aspects of my life that 1. explain my goals, 2. describe me as a leader 3. give insight into my social life 4. paint a picture of me as a person. I found it very helpful because whatever question came my way, I had plenty of examples to throw back at the interviewer. I think if your interview gets to the nitty-gritty details of your career, life, social involvement, it is a good indicator that you hit the target, and the interviewer is trying to zero in on their conclusions. Once a positive conclusion is about to be made, you would normally want to get more evidence to support your decision. Similarly, once a negative conclusion is being formed about a candidate, it is probably because the signal from the candidate was very strong, so naturally people tend to look for justifications as to either prove themselves wrong and to make sure they're not making a mistake. A mistake about being wrong is then being the opposite to wrong.
If you know enough about yourself, if you have a lot of examples that describe your skills, then you can either provide more evidence to strengthen the positive conclusions about your candidacy, or to dissipate whatever doubts the interviewer might have about you, i.e. do very good damage control. So knowing the questions in advance does not help much, and frankly what are the chances that your interview will be similar to others'.