Feinstein, Senator Dianne

Here is one good story and then the overall story about U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein with regard to 9/11 and the war on terror.

First, the good.  Feinstein was once a strong advocate for close the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as her speech in 2008 shows:

Senator Dianne Feinstein is one of the most powerful conspiracy theorists in the United States Government, advocating the official conspiracy theory that al Qaeda and nobody else carried out the 9/11 attacks.  She is an active and willing part of the ongoing government cover up and as such bears a large share of responsibility for the 5,000 Americans (or however many) killed and the tens of thousands injured, plus the hundreds of thousands suffering from PTSD and tinnitus, plus the uncounted hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, Afghans killed and many more injured or made homeless in the so called war on terror.  The Senator, by supporting all of this immoral, illegal, and senseless killing, is a terrorist.
In July 2009 and again in November 2009 some 9/11 Truth activists from Northern California met in her San Francisco office with Jim Molinari, who was her state director at the time.  We had requested the meeting to present evidence of the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center by explosives, that is by controlled demolition.  Molinari should have never taken the meeting.  He misled us by doing so.  It became clear within 5 minutes of the start of the meeting that not only was Molinair committed to the official conspiracy theory, but he was flat out unwilling to listen to our presentation of the evidence.  He interrupted us, told us some stories about the Mafia (as if they proved anything about 9/11) and basically said no to everything.  Useless.  Absolutely useless.
Toward the end of the meeting he mentioned that he had a friend who works in the State Department who is an expert in explosives.  We asked if we could come back to the Senator’s office for a meeting with that guy.  That meeting was in November 2009 and it was equally useless.  This blowhard from the State Department is a menace to world peace, as unwilling to listen to and look at our evidence as Molinari.  They are like two peas in a pod.  It is so much easier to open your mouth and run it, based on suspicion and paranioa and prejudice, than to actually look at the facts.  That’s what they did – run their mouths but not their brains.
Fast forward to October, 2012.  9/11 Truth activist Mark Graham wrote a letter to Senator Feinstein asking for her to commission a poll by the Congressional Research Service of the physics, chemistry, architecture and engineering departments at America’s colleges and universities, specifically asking them whether they believed and how strongly they believed (or agreed with) the two main theories for the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center.  And what was their scientific or factual basis for their beliefs.  Those are the fire induced collapse and explosive controlled demolition.   That letter was very similar to the petition on this page:


Senator Feinstein wrote back nine months later.  Her reply letter is reproduced here:

Feinstein letter June 2013 anon

Unfortunately Senator Feinstein’s letter is based on a misunderstanding of my request for a poll and a misunderstanding of the government’s conspiracy theory about 9/11.  The poll I requested did not mention anything about who committed the crimes of 9/11 or as Feinstein put it, “evidence of intentional Government cover-up or complicity in the September 1l terrorist attacks.”  That is a related issue but not the issue I proposed to poll the scientific community about.
It is also clear from this response that Senator Feinstein is not even aware that the 9/11 Commission Final Report did not even attempt to explain what caused the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.  They did not even mention that the building collapsed!  It is unfortunate and ought to be embarrassing to the Senator that 11 years after the fact, and after numerous activists in the 9/11 Truth movement have brought this information to her attention, she still does not know this.
On July 11 I sent a follow up fax to the Senator’s Washington D.C. office to Joshua Esquivel, who prepared the June 3 response from the Senator.  I spoke with him on July 12 (today).  I explained these facts to him and told him there was evidence of controlled demolition of Building 7 and of the Twin Towers.  He said that the Senator is not “interested in re-litigating” the 9/11 attacks.  People hide behind legal words when they know they are wrong or they don’t know what they are talking about.  It makes them sound important and knowledgeable and probably makes them feel important and knowledgeable too.
As I told Joshua Esquivel, the 9/11 attacks have never been litigated.  There has never been a trial.  There have been “investigations”, if you want to call them that, but they were biased and there has never been an honest investigation.  I had told him that Philip Zelikow, who was a Bush insider, controlled the 9/11 Commission’s investigation and deliberately steered it toward a predetermined conclusion:  the government’s conspiracy theory about Arabs and al Qaeda, and away from all evidence of controlled demolition or evidence that the government’s conspiracy theory was wrong.
Ultimately it became clear, after a 20 minute phone call, that Esquivel was not going to do anything other than, at most, mention my concerns to Senator Feinstein.  I would bet good money that he will not even do that – he will not do it properly.  At most he will mention something in passing like “One of your constitutions believes the World Trade Center was blown up in controlled demolition” but omit all of these key details.  Somebody should tell the Senator, and I asked Esquivel to tell the Senator, that the 9/11 Commission did not even attempt an explanation of what caused the collapse of Building 7.  If she knows nothing else, she should know that.  I said that I would hope that her intellectual curiosity would want her to know what are the reasons that 2,000 architects and engineers have said that the official theory of 9/11 is incorrect and that there is evidence of controlled demolition.  Esquivel had no response to that.  Feinstein is a warmonger, a conspiracy theorist when it comes to 9/11, and as the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has not only the obligation but the ability to look into these matters.  She is a terrorist in one of the highest positions in the U.S. government.
Just a quick note about our Senator, who ‘tuded us twice through her hatchet man Jim Molinari in 2009, being ‘tuded by the national security state, Scooter Libby, aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 A CIA plan to strike at al Qaeda in Afghanistan, including support for the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, is given to the White House. Sen. Dianne Feinstein asks for a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney. The California Democrat is told that Cheney’s staff would need six months to prepare for a meeting.
The link from the timeline from the CNN page that he refers to is gone. But the rest is here.
Here’s the excerpt from the Senator’s website, still up as of July, 2009
“What I said last July on CNN was that I was deeply concerned as to whether our house was in order to prevent a terrorist attack. My work on the Intelligence Committee and as chair of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee had given me a sense of foreboding for some time. I had no specific data leading to a possible attack.
“In fact, I was so concerned that I contacted Vice President Cheney’s office that same month to urge that he restructure our counter-terrorism and homeland defense programs to ensure better accountability and prevent important intelligence information from slipping through the cracks.
“Despite repeated efforts by myself and staff, the White House did not address my request. I followed this up last September 2001 before the attacks and was told by ‘Scooter’ Libby that it might be another six months before he would be able to review the material. I told him I did not believe we had six months to wait.”