The CIA Agent Larry Mitchell meeting Bin Laden is something I'm a bit Leary of. However, Summers and Swann(authors of The Eleventh Day ) seem to believe it as well. They talked to the reporter who wrote the story for the French paper Le Figaro, then talked to the source of that reporter, and French Intelligence officials. They believe it happened. I'm not denying it. It's just hard for me to believe they would actually meet with him face to face rather than have the Saudis handle whatever business they were discussing.





911debunkers.blogspot.com

[1] "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."

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/WTC7



also stated, " The New York station was believed to have been the largest and most important CIA domestic station outside the Washington area." Noting that that the CIA agents had searched the rubble for secret documents and that investigations had been "seriously disrupted." The Times article also stated,









The motive of losing information on purpose comes to mind as it pertains to "a special CIA team scouring the rubble for

intelligence reports either on paper or in computers."

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.





On 9/11 the Intelligence Agency the National Reconnaissance Office Conducts a Plane Into Building Drill -

All Members of an

FBI/CIA Anti-Terrorist Task Force Unable to Respond, Flown Out to Training Exercise During Attacks

Expert Panel Reports False Accounts of US Political and Military Leaders on 9/11: "Although the 9/11 Commission mentioned only one military exercise – Vigilant Guardian – that was scheduled for 9/11, evidence shows that at least 12 exercises had been scheduled for that day."





Excerpt:

Ther e 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

, 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.” Finallyreported 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.

not surprised by such attacks (whereas in fact they were aware of such events)were. If, as the evidence suggests, the White House and the Commission wereby such attacks (whereas in fact they were aware of such events) 46 the new investigation should ask why they said they

Did the 9/11 Military Training Drills Help or Harm the Response? 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:

“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.”

"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

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.



Confirmation? Maybe, but again we don't know the source, so there’s no way to determine its accuracy.

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."



That being said, Labeviere did reveal some details about his sources, through who he revealed very detailed information, including the name of the CIA station chief in question! A 2003 Reuters report states :

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.



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 ! "



Counter-terrorism Operation Able Danger

Identified Several of the 9/11 Terrorists a Year Before 9/11

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.

As noted on HistoryCommons.org , "Acquaintances in San Diego long suspect al-Bayoumi is a Saudi government spy reporting on the activities of Saudi-born college students." Furthermore, "Chairman of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry Senator Bob Graham and his investigators will, in author Philip Shenon’s words, 'find it obvious that the amiable al-Bayoumi was a low-ranking Saudi intelligence agent.'"

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.

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.



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.





http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2019/04/a-saudi-family-living-in-sarasota.html



Excerpt:



"Essentially, the source claims the Sarasota family had links to not only to Mohamed Atta, a central person in the Sept. 11 attacks, but also other 9/11 terrorists; two of them even supposedly visited the family's home. 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...Excerpt:

Activist 9/11 Widows: Obama Shielding Saudis from Justice

The Saudi split - a motive for 9/11?

On October 9th 2001 the Times of India ran the headline " India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links ." The article claimed that the head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), General Mahmud Ahmed, had $100,000 wired to 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta through convicted terrorist Ahmad Umar Sheikh . The website 9/11myths.com has a variety of pages devoted to different aspects of this subject, trying to shed doubt on its validity, as well as downplay its significance if true.



Here is their take.

http://911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html



Here is the other side of the story.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/AAsaeed.html



Please take a look at both arguments, it'll take some time!



Now when weighing these two arguments out remember this.



Condoleezza Rice was confronted by the press on May 16, 2002. The transcript of that encounter has been altered, doctored both on CNN and in the "FDCH Federal Department and Agency Documents REGULATORY INTELLIGENCE DATA." The words "ISI chief" disappeared from history , down the memory hole. This is black and white proof of cover up. - Source: http://www.911blogger.com/node/8713?page=1



Q: Dr. Rice?

Ms RICE: Yes?

Q: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why was he here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the Administration?

Ms RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me. (...)

Although there is no official confirmation, in all likelihood General Mahmoud Ahmad met Dr. Rice during the course of his official visit.



The word 'ISI Chief' was later erased from the transcript and replaced with 'inaudible'.

Conclusion: This event didn't 'officially' happen in Washington, but there are various reports about it. - Source: http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Ahmad,GeneralMahmud.shtml



The correct transcript with the missing words was made available by the Federal News Service. (See documentation at www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html ) - Source: http://justicefor911.org/iiA3_PakistaniISI_111904.php

Does this seem like the actions of people with nothing to hide?



The Israeli Mossad Connections