Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
The Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, has received all the attention as the worst expression of the Obama presidency, but Dodd-Frank deserves a look. Just as ObamaCare was the wrong prescription for health care, Dodd-Frank was based on a faulty diagnosis of the financial crisis. Until that diagnosis is corrected—until it is made clear to the American people that the financial crisis was caused by the government rather than by deregulation or insufficient regulation—economic growth will be impeded. It follows that when the true causes of the financial crisis have been made clear, it will become possible to repeal Dodd-Frank.Also See:
This has happened before. During the 1930s, the dominant view was that the Depression was caused by excessive competition. It seems crackpot now, but the New Dealers thought that too much competition drove down prices, caused firms to fail, and thus increased unemployment. The Dodd-Frank of the time was the National Industrial Recovery Act. Although it was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court, its purpose was to cartelize industry and limit competition so that businesses could raise their prices. It was only in the 1960s, when Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz showed that the Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, that national policies began to move away from regulation and toward competition. What followed was a flood of deregulation—of trucking, air travel, securities, and communications, among others—which has given us the Internet, affordable air travel for families instead of just business, securities transactions at a penny a share, and Fedex. Ironically, however, the regulation of banking increased, accounting for the problems of the industry today.
If the American people come to recognize that the financial crisis was caused by the housing policies of their own government—rather than insufficient regulation or the inherent instability of the U.S. financial system—Dodd-Frank will be seen as an illegitimate response to the crisis. Only then will it be possible to repeal or substantially modify this repressive law.
 |
| http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2023/04/bombshell-some-911-hijackers-were-cia.html |
The original WTC7 (World Trade Center 7) was a 47-storey reinforced steel building. It became a small heap of rubble in just 7 seconds at 5:20pm on September 11th, 2001. It was not until two months after WTC7's destruction on 9/11 that the presence of CIA offices in the building was revealed. In a New York Times article published on November 4th, 2001, James Risen wrote:
"The agency's New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas."[1]
Large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse. The Los Angeles Times reported that "substantial files were destroyed" for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC's cases. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. 3 Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports -- reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack.https://911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html
There were more “planes into buildings” scenarios going on that morning. “In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings… The National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise…in which a small corporate jet would crash into…the agency’s headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. …The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.”43
Finally, USA Today reported that “a joint FBI/CIA anti-terrorist task force that specifically prepared for this type of disaster” was on a “training exercise in Monterey, Calif.” Thus, “as of late Tuesday, with airports closed around the country, the task force still hadn’t found a way to fly back to Washington.”44 Furthermore, the FBI had deployed “all of its anti-terrorist and top special operations agents at a training exercise (complete with all associated helicopters and light aircraft) in Monterey, California.” While the attacks were in progress, then, “the chief federal agency responsible for preventing such crimes was being AWOL.”45
A Summary of the Contradictions:
There is a strong and clear contradiction between the White House and 9/11 Commission claims of wildly unpredictable surprise attacks, and the training exercises which were running to counter such attacks. In short, these training exercises reflected an expectation that multiple, simultaneous, internal hijackings using planes as weapons were very imaginable indeed.
How did the Commission deal with this problem? With the exception of one footnote mentioning Northern Vigilance, it simply failed to mention the drills at all. By repeatedly claiming that no one had expected such attacks to have originated from within the United States, it diverted attention away from the drills, and away from warnings that there were Muslim operatives within the country who were learning to fly commercial airliners.Were these diversions merely cowardly flights from a failed responsibility, or were they more ominous indications of foreknowledge? This crucial question should be the subject of a new impartial investigation.
If, as the evidence suggests, the White House and the Commission were not surprised by such attacks (whereas in fact they were aware of such events)46 the new investigation should ask why they said they were.
As mentioned above, the only reference made by the 9/11 Commission to the September 11th training exercises was to Vigilant Guardian, in footnote 116 from Chapter 1 of the Report:
- Did the 9/11 Military Training Drills Help or Harm the Response?
“On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military’s response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan. 23, 2004).”47
Unfortunately for the Commission, this conclusion has been contradicted by many military participants that day.
He’s been at the center of one of the enduring mysteries of 9/11: Why the CIA refused to share information with the FBI (or any other agency) about the arrival of at least two well-known Al-Qaeda operatives in the United States in 2000, even though the spy agency had been tracking them closely for years.
That the CIA did block him and Doug Miller, a fellow FBI agent assigned to the “Alec Station,” the cover name for CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, from notifying bureau headquarters about the terrorists has been told before, most notably in a 2009 Nova documentary on PBS, “The Spy Factory.” Rossini and Miller related how they learned earlier from the CIA that one of the terrorists (and future hijacker), Khalid al-Mihdhar, had multi-entry visas on a Saudi passport to enter the United States. When Miller drafted a report for FBI headquarters, a CIA manager in the top-secret unit told him to hold off. Incredulous, Miller and Rossini had to back down. The station’s rules prohibited them from talking to anyone outside their top-secret group.
All these years later, Rossini still regrets complying with that command. If he had disobeyed the gag order, the nearly 3,000 Americans slaughtered on 9/11 would probably still be alive. “This is the pain that never escapes me, that haunts me each and every day of my life,” he wrote in the draft of a book he shared with me. “I feel like I failed, even though I know it was the system and the intelligence community on the whole that failed.”CIA Admits Foreknowledge of 9-11 - "We had very, very good intelligence of the general structure and strategies of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. We knew and we warned that Al Qaeda was planning a major strike. There need be no question about that." - CIA Deputy Director James Pavitt
9/11 Warnings Revealed: CIA Reported Attack ‘Will Occur Soon’
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.Those warnings not being heeded are one thing, but a report from the French paper Le Figaro claiming that a CIA agent met with bin Laden two months before 9/11 is undoubtedly suggestive of complicity given all that the CIA knew and that bin Laden was on the FBI's top ten wanted list sine 1998. The 9/11 "debunking" website 9/11myths.com tries to cast doubt on the validly of this report, while at the same time admitting possible confirmation, they state:
Author Richard Labeviere later wrote a book, where he said "a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain" confirmed the meeting, which had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia.Hasn't this site ever heard that a good reporter never reveals their sources? In the words of John Coulter of the Irish Daily Star, "If you can't keep your gob shut about your sources, never, Never, NEVER become a journalist."
Confirmation? Maybe, but again we don't know the source, so there’s no way to determine its accuracy.
Labeviere said he learned of an encounter from a contact in the Dubai hospital, and said the event was confirmed in detail during a separate interview in New York with a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain.And as HistoryCommons.org points out:
The prince, who the author met in a Manhattan hotel in November 2001, appeared very well-informed about the CIA-bin Laden meeting.
Labeviere said the second contact told him the face-to-face had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Department...
Labeviere named Larry Mitchell as the CIA station chief who met bin Laden, describing him as a colorful figure well-known on the Dubai social circuit.
French counterterrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising: It "is nothing extraordinary. Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989.We also have reports of an Al Qaeda trainer who it turns out worked with the Green Berets, CIA, and FBI! "Triple Cross or Inside Job?"
J.D. Smith, a defense contractor who claims he worked on the technical side of the unit, code-named "Able Danger"... said data was gathered from a variety of sources, including about 30 or 40 individuals. He said they all had strong Middle Eastern connections and were paid for their information. Smith said Able Danger's photo of Atta was obtained from overseas.
I endorse the NYC CAN campaign and support the need for a new, independent, investigation of the events and failures that lead up to the 9/11 attacks.What is the motive in the theory that 9-11 was an inside job?
The original 9/11 Commission inquiry became an exercise in bureaucratic ass-covering and obfuscation of accountability.
I had no intention of joining the ranks of “whistle blowers”. In 2003, when I made my disclosure to the 9/11 commission regarding the existence of a pre 9/11 offensive counter-terrorism operation that had discovered several of the 9/11 terrorists a full year before the 9/11 attacks my intention was to simply tell the truth, and fulfill my oath of office.
Unfortunately, this was a minority view.
Instead of supporting the search for the truth, members of the Bush/Rumsfeld Department of Defense did everything within their power to destroy my 20 year career as a clandestine intelligence operative simply to try to discredit me and my disclosure.
In 2006 I testified before Congress on the pre-9/11 issues regarding the systemic failures I was personally aware of – in both open and closed sessions – and yet nothing was ever done to correct these problems.
The families and victims of the 9/11 attacks are owed a real accounting of why their government failed them. We all deserve answers.
The full accounting has never been made. This accounting is long overdue. I hope the NYC CAN effort will result in a real, detailed, independent investigation that will reveal the full truth – whatever that truth may be.
Tony Shaffer
This is important. This investigation was halted by the President. This treasonous act needs to be addressed. Instead of calling for a new investigation how about allowing this original one to continue? What reason is there for supporting the idea that our elected officials representing us have no right to talk to an informant housing people who murdered 3000 Americans? But it gets worse... If you are an American tax payer, you paid this informant $100,000 in order to not cooperate with this investigation. I would like a debunker to explain to me why they are OK with this.Similarly, author Phillip D. Collins, editor of The Hidden Face of Terrorism, writes:
Princess Haifa bint Faisal claimed she had no idea that the money was going to al-Bayoumi. The Princess' alibi was enough to satisfy the farcical 9/11 Commission and tug on the heartstrings of the gullible. According to her, the intended recipient of the cashier checks was Majeda Ibrahin Dweikat, a woman seeking monetary help to treat her thyroid condition. Majeda would receive the checks and then sign them over to al-Bayoumi's wife. So Majeda was the terrorist financier, not the poor, unsuspecting Princess Haifa or Prince Bandar.Finally, regarding Saudi involvement, it's worth noting that a Saudi family living in Sarasota Florida, reportedly with close ties to the 9/11 hijackers, was investigated by the FBI after they fled just prior to 9/11...
The only problem is that Majeda's husband, Osama Basnan, was known to be a "vocal Al-Qaeda sympathizer" (no pagination). According to a law enforcement official, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Basnan "celebrated the heroes of September 11" and referred to September 11 as a "wonderful, glorious day". Basnan is also known to have "met with a high Saudi prince who has responsibilities for intelligence matters and is known to bring suitcases full of cash into the United States". This all makes Princess Haifa and Prince Bandar's actions look less like charity and more like the financing of terror.
