If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Saturday, January 8, 2011

CIA Asset Susan Lindauer blows the whistle on 9/11, Iraq

Susan Lindauer, author of Extreme Prejudice, is the first CIA asset to have spoken out, under her own name and for the record, on Israeli complicity in 9/11, the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and the specific, detailed foreknowledge of the time, target, and means of the 9/11 attacks held throughout the months prior to 9/11 by the CIA in general and Lindauer's CIA handler, Richard Fuisz, in particular. She has also exposed her first-hand knowledge of pre-war intelligence and negotiations showing that Iraq was willing to give the US "anything it asked" and that the war was therefore--from the perspective of US interests--not only utterly unnecessary, but wildly counterproductive. Lindauer's evidence points strongly to 9/11 being a coup d'etat by hard-line Zionists determined to steer the US into a self-destructive war on Israel's enemies.

Listen to my complete interview with Susan Lindauer here. Below is a transcript of the first half of the interview.


Barrett
I understand that you had some 9/11 foreknowledge, but were actually busted for trying to explain to the Bush Administration through your cousin Andrew Card, that invading Iraq was insane, that the Iraqis were basically going to do anything we wanted anyway--they'll agree to anything for peace--and that there would be a terrible resistance and a terrible war if there was an invasion. And for that very accurate and prescient warning, they went after you.

Lindauer
Well, you have a very good grasp of this issue, I will tell you. It is a complicated story. I was one of the very few (CIA) assets covering Iraq before the war. And I had established contact with the Iraqi embassy at the United Nations in New York back in August of 1996. And for seven years before the invasion, I was what they call a "back channel" to Iraq on the question of terrorism. That was my foremost priority. This was covert in the sense that it was covert to the West. But the Iraqis were fully informed as to who I was and what I was doing and what my purpose was. My motivation was that I hated the United Nations sanctions. I hated the genocidal consequences and suffering for the Iraqi people, most truly and genuinely--that was very sincere. And they knew it. And both sides knew my politics. In fact, the CIA had come to me knowing my politics and said "hey, why don't you try to help us." They co-opted me--they did--but I agreed to be co-opted. We all understood each other. And that's very important for what happened.

Barrett
That's not necessarily a bad thing. There is a role for people who are intermediaries between warring parties and who try to make peace. And it sounds like that's what you were doing.

Lindauer
Yes indeed. And both sides understood my politics, that I wanted to help end the sanctions. And the CIA was very adamant that Iraq had to meet certain criteria in order for that to happen. And my contribution from the very first days was on terrorism. Our team started what we called preliminary talks with Baghdad in November of 2000, two years before the United Nations got involved. Our team started back channel talks to get Iraq's agreement on the weapons inspections. And over the next fifteen months, my supervisor, Richard Fuisz (pronounced "fuse"), through talks at the Iraqi embassy, mostly with Iraq's ambassador Dr. Sayeed Hassan, and with other senior Iraqi diplomats, on what conditions Iraq would have to accept in order to resume the weapons inspections. And at that point we had begun to develop a comprehensive peace framework which extended great support to anti-terrorism. Iraq agreed to let the FBI come into Baghdad and operate a task force that would have authority--this was before 9/11 ever happened! Nine months before 9/11 happened, Iraq agreed to have the FBI come into Baghdad with the authority to conduct terrorism investigations, interview witnesses, make arrests. After 9/11, Iraq agreed to give financial records on al-Qaeda to the United States. BUT the United states didn't want to take the records.

Barrett

It makes you wonder why not.

Lindauer
Isn't that an interesting question.

Barrett
It leads me to (my next question): You apparently had some kind of foreknowledge of 9/11. Can you explain to us what that was?

Lindauer
Yes. This is a very interesting thing, and I'm glad...I hope your audience will pay attention to this. We absolutely expected 9/11 to happen. And there's a subtlety here that I hope your audience will appreciate. In April and May of 2001 I was summoned to my CIA handler's office and told that I needed to confront the Iraqi diplomats at the United Nations, through my back channel, with a demand for any fragment of intelligence regarding airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings. And over the summer, that progressed to a deep belief that there was going to be an airplane hijacking attack, and some sort of aerial strike, on the World Trade Center. We talked about this in our one-on-one meetings practically every week. Just so we are clear, this was not a one-time conversation. This was a major focus of our efforts. Richard (Fuisz, Lindauer's CIA handler) was very worried about it, very agitated about it, how Iraq must give us this intelligence. Now, I don't mean to patronize you, but I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of deniability. I do not think that Richard Fuisz knew all the details of 9/11. However, he knew enough. My book Extreme Prejudice goes into the conversations that we had in great detail. And he knew the timing of the attack. By August 2001, Richard was telling me not to go into New York City because this attack was immanent. And on the day of FBI Director Robert Mueller's confirmation hearings, which I think was August 2nd--in my book it's very clear, I've checked all the dates--Richard Fuisz told me that the attack was immanent. And I said, well, I'm going up to New York to ask my Iraqi sources about this again. And he said "Don't go to New York, it's too dangerous, I don't want you going there again." And I said "I'm just going up this weekend, and I promise I will not go back to New York." And that's how close this was. They knew a great deal. And what was interesting is that after 9/11, I get arrested, and he gets thirteen million dollars in payoffs. (laughs) 

Barrett
(laughing) Oh boy. That's amazing. They arrested you, because they were probably concerned about you revealing the contents of your conversations with Richard, among other things.

Lindauer
Oh yes, absolutely. And the fact that there was a peace option on the table that had been developed over a two year period before the war, a comprehensive peace framework. It included cooperation on anti-terrorism; it included the weapons inspections, of course--you already knew that; and it included Iraq's commitment to donate economic reconstruction--donate is not the right word--to dedicate economic reconstruction contracts to United States corporations with preferential treatment, preferential contracts in telecommunications, health care, pharmaceuticals, and transportation. This was a comprehensive peace framework! We covered everything! We covered a lot. And nobody even knows about this!

Barrett
That's amazing. There have been general reports of this nature, including post-9/11, right up to the eve of the invasion, there have been reports that Saddam Hussein was willing to give the US basically everything it wanted to hold off the invasion.

Lindauer
Yes. Yes.

Barrett

That leads to the question: Why do you think, given that you recognize just how insane this invasion was, how completely unnecessary--the Iraqis were caving as far as they had to cave anyway--what was the point?

Lindauer
Yes, literally, Iraq said to me: "What is it the United States wants? Anything that the United States asks for, we will give them. Just tell us what it is!" When I was on a trip to Baghdad, they offered to buy one million American-made automobiles every year for ten years. And (an Iraqi diplomat) said to me, "Look, Susan, if ten years isn't enough, we'll make it twenty years."

Barrett
You know, Susan, you're kind of ruining Saddam Hussein's posthumous reputation as somebody who stood up to the U.S.!

Lindauer
He was more harsh on terrorists than we were.

Barrett
He didn't get along with al-Qaeda, and he didn't get along with Islamists of any kind, including the Iranians.

Lindauer

That's right.

Barrett
You would have thought that the U.S. would have just kept running him as an American puppet. He got his start as a CIA hit man, apparently.

Lindauer

Yes indeed.

Barrett
So why, why this insane insistence on going to war with Iraq--a war that has killed one and a half million innocent Iraqis and destroyed that country. What was the purpose of it?

Lindauer
It was so incredibly stupid. And 9/11...9/11 could have been used at the start...9/11 was a tragedy, a terrible, terrible tragedy, but 9/11 could have accomplished great good. Because right after 9/11 Iraq went into high mode of giving. They were offering us everything we wanted: Financial records on al-Qaeda, proof of a Middle Eastern link to what we used to call the inter-Arab group of terrorists, which was actually an amalgamation of several different terrorist factions, coalesced into al-Qaeda. They were willing to prove that there was a Middle Eastern link to the Oklahoma City bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center, and those included financial documents, bank records...we could have tracked the money that's financing terrorism around the world. Instead what we do is, we create an enemy. Because it looks better--the politicians could go grandstand. As a former (CIA) asset I can assure you, they don't actually do anything on terrorism. They give speeches. They go wave their hands in the parades. But they don't do anything to contribute to anti-terrorism efforts. But the people have been fooled by their showmanship and their grandstanding and their spectacle. It's like a circus performance now! In fact, before 9/11, there were 200 to 300 terrorists in the world who wanted to attack America. Now, after 9/11 and after the war in Iraq and after the war on Afghanistan, there are only about 2000 to 3000 individuals whose entire focus of life is revenge and coming into the United States and attacking us. That's only 3000 people. The way I look at it, this is like a high school auditorium that you could fill with the potential terrorists. That's it! This is an invention! We've made this up!

Barrett

Right. Very well put. I've often explained to people that there was no real terrorist threat pre-9/11, and that for every one person pre-9/11 who was bent on doing harm to the US, there must be a great many today, because of all the terrible things that have gone on since 9/11.

Lindauer
Yes.

Barrett
So the question then, is...is it just sheer total incompetence and stupidity and grandstanding and egotism--I'm sure all of that contributes to it, but---uh...well, frankly, Susan, my take on all of this is that 9/11 was a Mossad operation, that it was of course done through Cheney's office. There were no hijackings. The guys that they blamed for it were not terrorists at all. They weren't even on the planes. There is not a shred of evidence that any of these guys were on those planes, nor is there a shred of actual evidence that there were any hijackings. Instead, we had a military operation that was essentially a Zionist coup d'├ętat by the Likkud faction that wanted to destroy Iraq so it would never be a threat to Israel. A prosperous Iraq, allied to the US, would actually be terrible for Israel. That's why they wouldn't take the deals that you were brokering. Care to comment?

Lindauer
I think that you are--I do believe in the hijackings, but I believe in everything else that you have just said. One of the things that came out right after 9/11: I've often been asked by people what my CIA handler Richard Fuisz's source was for the 9/11 attack. And he told me briefly, he let it slip. Immediately after the attack, when we were all in a state of shock, he said to me...the first building had collapsed, but it was before the second building collapsed. This is a very important time frame. He made reference to video tape, which by the way was not released to the public until the next day, but right after 9/11 Richard Fuisz already knows about this video tape! Right after the attack--the first building has collapsed, the second one is still standing--and we're both talking in the living room, we're both shouting--I'm in my living room, he's in his living room, and we're shouting at the televisions--and he blurts out to me: "Susan, how many times do you think a camera is cued up waiting for a car accident to occur?" He said, "What do you think are the odds  that those two people were just standing on the sidewalk with a video camera waiting patiently for the plane to hit the building?" And he said, "Those are Mossad agents. They knew that the World Trade Center was about to get hit, and they were waiting there for it to happen so they could record it and put it out in the media." Now this is before it has even come out in the media. He identifies them as Mossad agents, and I believe--I'm convinced--that that was the source of our knowledge of al-Qaeda. But what you guys don't know, which I will throw out to you, which comes out in my book, is that from April and May of 2001 onwards, Richard Fuisz instructed me to threaten the Iraqis with war. Now everybody assumes that the war stuff came after 9/11. But it didn't. They had decided months before 9/11 ever happened that as soon as this attack occurred, this would be the motivation for the war. So they absolutely knew that this attack was coming. They knew that it was going to be in late August or September. And that opens up a whole new dynamic proving what you have just said: That it was a Mossad conspiracy, that there was complicity...maybe that's a better word, complicity...I'm going to go a little softer on the language than you. Mossad complicity.

Barrett

I would argue that it's a little more than complicity--that the demolitions of the three tallest buildings ever taken down in controlled demolitions required immense skill and military specialization and so on...

Lindauer

Oh yes, when I say complicity, I include that in it. Yes. I believe in the detonations. In fact...do I have time to tell you one story before break?

Barrett
Tell it, go for it.

Lindauer

While I was writing my book, I had a high-ranking State Department official, who has a very very high, top-top-top security classification, and I cannot name him for you because I don't want to hurt his reputation. He's close to retirement, he's going to have a pension--they would crush him if he was ever exposed, I suspect.  He thinks it too. He says that a couple of weeks before 9/11, at the end of August, for about two weeks, strange vans were arriving at the World Trade Center at three o' clock in the morning. They were staying from about three o' clock to about four-thirty or five. They were coming in for a brief period. And he swore to me that he personally had investigated the janitorial services, and he said "I know first hand how many employees the janitorial service had, what their trucks looked like, what their revenues were like, where they lived." He said "we know the addresses." We are confident that none of the people from the janitorial services were tied to these trucks. It had never happened before, it was a unique thing. This was not a constant thing like over a six month period. It was a strange anomaly right before (the attack on) the World Trade Center. And he was convinced that this was government-level thermite, government-level weapons, that had been put into either the stairwells or the elevator shafts. And he is convinced that this is when it happened.

60 comments:

  1. 9-11 like all their other pretexts were planned and executed by their own people against their own people:
    AT CENTRAL TELEVISION STUDIOS BIRMINGHAM – ENGLAND – SEPTEMBER 14TH 1990. I was introduced as - David M Pidcock Leader of the Islamic Party of Britain: “….Having been introduced to the other guests, Miles Copeland, in a stage whisper said: “So Dave what are you going to say tonight?” I said – (1) The sinking of the Lusitania was the Pretext for America entering World War I; (2) The sinking of her fleet at Pearl Harbour was the pretext for her entering World War II, and (3) the sinking of the U.S. Kuwait, is the pretext for her occupying the oilfields of the Gulf and Hijaz.”
    He said “’O Christ! we’re going to have problems with you – but you’re absolutely right”. At which Christopher Monkton choked and spat his drink all over General Hackett. Needless to say I was prevented from raising this at any point in the program – Afterwards Copeland came to speak to me and confirmed his remarks. He inscribed my copy of his Autobiography - THE GAME PLAYER with:
    “David, Read this very carefully – Miles”

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good work, Kevin. Susan has succinctly re-opened the Pandora's Box of 9/11 and the high possibility of Mossad complicity. In that regard, I feel the money trail will eventually include Bernard Madoff. But the political trail will eventually lead to the White House and Darth Vader himself ~ Dick Cheney.

    ALR

    ReplyDelete
  3. RE: Susan Lindauer’s conclusions: I told you so! ;-)
    Wendy

    ReplyDelete
  4. I suppose I have come to see figures like Lindauer as red herrings deliberately deployed to muddy the waters and keep us running around in circles.

    You and I (and quite many others .. especially in Europe, Latin America, Asia) all realize that
    9/11 was a media hoax and that (other than some kind of “drill” or “exercise”) they were probably NO actual “human“ hijackings of Boeings that morning.

    Certainly not with characters out of a Hollywood script armed with boxcutters.

    Paralyzing NORAD, Andrews AFB and the entire defensive grid around the Pentagon.

    Perhaps Susan Lindauer thinks this ?
    If she really does, she is utterly useless to us.

    By her “testimony” I can’t imagine what you could possibly mean ?
    You mean her testimony in a legal proceeding or trial ?

    Do you mean insofar as it has credibility in convincing others ?
    The way credentials like Ph.D. do ?
    Only instead of Ph.D. her credential is “official former CIA asset”.

    Are all their “assets” gullible morons ?

    I wonder who really ghost wrote her book.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What she tells us about Iraq's willingness to be cooperative about intelligence and other matters, up to purchasing some 1,000,000 American vehicles each year for the next ten years, tells us that going to war was not in the interests of the US but to advance the interests of Israel. It was a ruthless, cruel and sadistic thing to do.
    She is wrong about the hijackers, of course, but the rest looks right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A few questions. Who is this Susan person? She says she's an asset? What do you mean? Anyone can say they're an asset including crazy and delusional people so I want to know her credentials and background. How can you prove you worked for the CIA? I usually take these "Zionists" did it all "theories" as utter racist crap but she puts emphasis on the word "complicity" which is what it would have to be; an inside job with outside influence. I buy that... if her credentials check out. Who is Susan Lindauer and what backs her story up?

    ReplyDelete
  7. wrong about the hyjackers?
    how is she wrong?
    prove it...

    ReplyDelete
  8. The U.S. military/NORAD was not in control of the airspace OR the "code keys" on the morning of 9/11/01.

    They had been given over to the Canadian "war game" team by the SES (Senior Executive Sucession)in the Able Danger war games that morning.

    There was a silent coup that day that is still being unraveled.

    Check out www.abeldanger.com (correct spelling for this website)for forensic analysis that changes the WHOLE story. Goes through Chicago politics and leads to Crown Agents of Londinium bankers. Who may be connected with Mossad, who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Susan Lindauer is full of shit. Don't buy a word from this crook, yet again, she is simply reinforcing the 9/11 official story lie, only, she is trying to make herself believable by advocating foreknowledge. What an understatement. The Govt didn't fail to prevent 9/11, they MADE 9/11 happen, anything short of this is a lie.

    She did not opt to mention anything about planted explosives in the WTC until Barrett pressed on her about it. So let me get this straight, she now says "yeah sure, bombs were planted in the buildings", but still believes that hijacked airliners were flown into the WTC - when the WTC was already intended to be demolished? Give me an effing break, all of these "whistle blowers" are frauds who are complicit in the 9/11 coverup.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, you make the same simplistic either-or conclusion that most make based on a false presumption of duality: Either the hijacks, or controlled demolition. Id you read what she writes - and what she says - it was both. She never for a second suggests the towers fell due to airplane collisions alone, but that the planes were used as cover for detonation, which seems to be quite accurate.

      Delete
  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

    http://911review.org/Lindauer/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why doesn't she mention Maurice Strong and Crown Agents City & Guilds Oil-for-Food program which was used to finance the al-Qaeda SWAT teams base at Abbotsford, B.C.? Details... www.abeldanger.net

    ReplyDelete
  12. So was this the first time Susan discovered that the organization she worked for did something wrong and covered up the truth ?

    was she the good, fair, humanitarian agent ?

    would we be reading this book if she got the 13 million offer ?

    this kind of information would have been so much more truthful when needed...everybody tells "the truth" when they have nothing to lose..

    spectator from austrlia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the US government threw her in jail for 18 months and she was fighting charges for 18 more months after that. During that time her significant other died of cancer.

      All the while the mainstream media never wanted to pick up her story, so she had to self publish.

      Delete
  13. are people supposed to thank her now and buy her book and make her a millionaire cause she didn't get her 13 million to be quiet ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. She was trying to get her story out several years ago, but apparently was dealing with the wrong media (such as Democracy Now, which refused to report on her while she was locked up in the brig). If she makes any money on her book -- which isn't all that likely, given the sad realities of the book market -- I won't begrudge her. A year in military prison under the Patriot Act? I call that "paying your dues."

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is all very important information, but the fly in the ointment is what Anon 7:41 brings up above.

    The description gives the impression that Ms. Lindaur was the "good" CIA asset, simply working to bring peace about. I'm sorry, but I very seriously doubt there are any such persons working for the CIA.

    She refers to "Al-queda" and "terrorists" interchangeably, without recognizing that fact that "Al-queda" was created by the very agency for which she worked.

    Do I hear any contrition for being involved with some of the most evil, scummy, fucked up people on the planet?

    A year in jail definitely lends some credibility, but on the other hand, agents have gone through more than that to maintain cover.

    Don't get me wrong, this is incredible, valuable information, but it should be viewed with skepticism just like everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ray McGovern and Bill Christison are two examples of decent, peace-loving people who worked for CIA. While I agree it's a terrible organization doing far more evil than good, I suspect that a lot of people who have worked there have had issues with their consciences, have generally tried to do what they thought was the right thing, and so on. We need to encourage such people to come clean, as Susan apparently has.

    On top of that, keep in mind that CIA people who put the (perceived) US national interest first -- which is probably most of them -- may come into conflict with the rogue networks of Mossadniks and drug dealers. In those conflicts, the patriotic CIA people who push back against the Zionists may actually be heroes.

    In short, the world is very complex and nuanced, and we shouldn't be too manichean and self-righteous about damning everybody in power. We NEED good people in power. If every good person avoids the institutions of power, we're screwed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I want to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.— John F. Kennedy

    ReplyDelete
  18. For whatever it's worth, my 0.03 cents is that there is no such thing as a "whistle blower". It is merely a tune of the Mighty Wurlitzer. Any genuine whistleblower will "not only sleep with fishes", but the fear of having the same happen to their loved ones kills any lofty notions of martyrdom right in the rapidly elongating amigdilla (that part of the brain which modulates one's primitive flight or fight response, a shrinking amigdilla makes one lose any sense of fear). Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Fie on you and your rapidly elongating amigdilla!

    People of conscience often take risks, sometimes extreme ones, and even court martyrdom. It happens all the time.

    If you want to lie down and die with Seligman's dogs, I can't stop you. But I can advise you that there are many reasons not to, including living well and dying well.

    Remember, the highest stations in paradise are reserved for the martyrs.

    Therefore risking ones own and ones family's lives for truth and justice is a very good pascalian wager.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Numerous people warned of 911 prior to it occuring including; Freeman, Aaron Russo (Nick Rockefeller), William Cooper,Tatyana Koryagina. If you listen to Carol Rosen you see the roll out plan for occupying earth's human population is (1) cold war then (2) communism (3)terroism (4) asteroids (Apophysis) and finally the last card (5) ETs.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Middle east connection to the Oklahoma city bombing ? I don't know about that one ...

    ReplyDelete
  22. CHRISTOPHER ANDREWJanuary 11, 2011 at 2:30 AM

    "Therefore risking ones own and ones family's lives for truth and justice is a very good pascalian wager."
    *-*-VS.-*-*
    "But the fear of having the same happen to their loved ones kills any lofty notions of martyrdom right in the rapidly elongating amigdilla."

    THIS IS WHERE WE ARE, ONCE AGAIN, ON THE ROAD TO THE MATURITY OF OUR CIVILIZATION. THIS JUXTAPOSITION DEFINES THE LAST DECADE, AND MOST LIKELY THE CENTURY TO COME. THIS IS NOT A SUBJECT YOU CAN RIDE THE FENCE ON, THIS IS NOT ABORTION OR HAPPY MEAL TOYS. THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT WILL FOLLOW EVERY AMERICAN, DARE SAY HUMAN, TO THEIR GRAVE WHETHER THEY LIKE OR NOT. JUST LIKE DEATH, THIS TOPIC IS INESCAPABLE. WHICH SIDE DO YOU AGREE WITH:

    1.DO WE SAVE THE LIFE OF THE LOVED ONES WE HAVE? WITH SILENCE NOW.

    -OR-

    2.DO WE FIGHT FOR THE LIFE OF OUR CHILDREN THAT WILL NEVER BE? WITH OUR DEDICATED ACTION NOW.

    WE NEED SOMETHING TO DEDICATE OUR TIME TO. AN INVESTMENT IN LIFE THAT CANNOT BE CORRUPTED. WHAT IM SAYING IS THAT WE AMERICANS NEED AT LEAST ONE, REAL, TRUE, HONEST SYMBOL TO STAND BEHIND. COULD BE A MAN, OR A WOMAN, OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE. IT DOES NOT MATTER AS LONG WE CAN FEEL IN OUR BONES THAT WHAT WE BELIEVE IN RIGHT. THEN WHEN WE COLLECTIVELY FOLLOW ONE PATH, AND DO SO NOT BLINDLY BUT WITH HEARTFELT CONVICTION, OUR WORK-LOAD WILL FINALLY LIGHTEN AND WE WILL SLEEP WELL AGAIN.

    WE DONT NEED MORE VIOLENCE LIKE IN AZ.
    WE DONT NEED MORE INFO, WE KNOW ENOUGH.
    WE NEED EACH OTHER

    ReplyDelete
  23. Office of the VP, office of the SecDef, the Blackstone Group, Veritas Capital and AIG were principal players involved.

    Key contact: Stephen Friedman

    myth_slayer

    ReplyDelete
  24. good catch Anon 9:15.

    "They were willing to prove that there was a Middle Eastern link to the Oklahoma City bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center."

    We all know perfectly well that the OKC was planned at Elohim City which was being headed and run by the Southern Poverty Law Center. We know that McVeigh was a member of the US miltary, trained in explosives.

    We all know perfectly well that in 1993, the fbi had a mole in the "terror cell" who had the opportunity to replace the bomb with a fake - BUT HE WAS TOLD BY THE FBI NOT TO DO IT. He has the fbi on tape, admitting this, as was noted on the front page of the New York Times.

    This woman is poison, Kevin. She is mixing the truth (Israelis did it) with blatant lies (a middle east connection to OKC and WTC1993).

    Again, I find it hard to trust ex-company, ex-mil, ex-fed people unless - at a minimum - they express contrition for the incredibly evil things they've been a part of. Jesse Ventura comes to mind - do any of us think the guy was an angel when he was a Navy Seal? Ever hear him say anything negative about the Navy Seals?

    Great, so we have a cia asset blowing the whistle. Let's use the information, but use it WISELY.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey Mr. ALL CAPS GUY...try Ron Paul for a start.

    (And try writing properly, all caps indicates non-stop YELLING!!!)

    Kevin makes some good points.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This article made me consider what it takes to get a notice in the President's Daily Briefing.

    If 1 Mossad agent saw 1 "hijacking" notice, that wouldn't do it. Mossad might tell the CIA, as a courtesy. But if it was 4 or 5, it might result in a meeting. But even that's not enough, because then someone from the CIA side has to believe it, and try to get it noticed by more people.

    Does that mean anyone, in CIA or Mossad, _knew_? It mean they _believed_. Lots of us believe things, and can't get others to believe us.

    For example, I don't believe any of you. You can see from my tone I believe, not that Mossad or the CIA was behind anything, but that there was intelligence, intelligence which _did_ make it to the President's Daily Briefing, but which, perhaps because he was on vacation at the time, or perhaps because Tenet was skeptical of the plan, or perhaps simply because there had never been a fatality in a domestic hijacking in American aviation history, the message was not heeded.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "imminent" = about to happen, not "immanent" (which means something else)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Iraq agreed to have the FBI come into Baghdad with the authority to conduct terrorism investigations, interview witnesses, make arrests. After 9/11, Iraq agreed to give financial records on al-Qaeda to the United States. BUT the United states didn't want to take the records. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This is just like Alex Jones: put much of the truth out there with just enough disinfo sprinkled in to get people thinking they're getting the final version of the true facts.

    Rinse and repeat.

    ReplyDelete
  30. LOL, Dis-info. Instead of buying her book, you may want to read 'The Pet Goat'

    no planes=no arabs hijackers

    http://www.youtube.com/user/simonshack

    ReplyDelete
  31. Susan Lindauer must think that we are as stupid as she looks. I don't believe in pet goats and cartoons of planes. her job is to perpetuate the plane myth, when people reject the plane myth, and embrace the cartoons, Rothschild's empire collapses

    ReplyDelete
  32. Kevin —

    as I told you in some post here somewhere last week, I went right over to Amazon and bought her book. I just dug my car out and was headed out of the driveway (I'm on vacay and the book was shipped to my job) when the city plow came by and buried the end of the driveway. I guess I could go shovel through that too (sheesh!)

    But I'm writing to you to say this, which I just told Sibel Edmonds:

    Are you familiar with the PTech story, and Indira Singh, and Joe Bergantino? How have I missed this story? It is, as Singh says, "the one golden thread you pull on and the whole 9-11 story unravels."

    I stumbled onto a reference to these people in a comment at Raw Story, did some digging, and came up with this audio of Bonnie Faulkner interviewing Singh at Guns & Butter. As great a shock as the Susan Lindauer interview was, frankly this is more so. The audio is at http://corbettreport.com/mp3/episode045_ptech_and_the_911_software.mp3. The relevant material begins at time=7:44

    ReplyDelete
  33. Where is the rest of the interview??

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anon 1:53 - Ron Paul is a member of the Republican Party and the Congress of the United States of America. He flat out *refuses* to recognize the truth of 9/11. (Don't give me BS about "politics" either. He lies. HE LIES. HE FUCKING LIES!)

    Anon 4:49 - you still falling for the "briefing" nonsense and Democratic "outrage" over the "imminent" memo... fact: they planned the afghan invasion BEFORE 9/11. fact: they were running Atta's friends at the Monterey Defense facility and other US mil sites.

    I don't need all this mainstream nonsense to confirm who the criminals are. You can NEVER piece together the facts provided by the government into a coherent truth. They lie. THEY LIE. THEY FUCKING LIE!!

    Did the Israelis "warn" us? I'm sorry, but only those who demonstrate fealty to Israel ask that question. The Israelis were CELEBRATING. Daniel Fucking Lewin WAS ON THE PLANE. He was former Maktal. Do some basic research! Please!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  35. In response to the "problem" with SL's account where she still maintains that planes were actually hijacked on 9/11:

    SL is a witness, not a researcher. We tend to get better information from witnesses who tell things as they experienced them and from their own viewpoints, and do not allow their testimony to be affected by later research. We cannot expect to get the complete 9/11 story from any one source, particularly a witness. I am frankly skeptical of witnesses who seem to know too much about the big picture, e.g., the Harley Guy on 9/11.

    I do not see SL and her book as a red herring "deliberately deployed to muddy the waters and keep us running around in circles", Mr/Ms Anonymous. On the contrary, information about CIA foreknowledge of the events leading up to 9/11 only helps solidify the case against the official myth. It helps to show that specific operational knowledge was kept tightly held, although rumors had spread pretty widely.

    Ms/Mr Anonymous also said, "We all know perfectly well that the OKC was planned at Elohim City which was being headed and run by the Southern Poverty Law Center." There has been a very good case made for SPLC management of or at least involvement with OKC. That does not rule out a Middle East connection. Witnesses reported seeing McVeigh with a Middle Eastern appearing person before OKC. Operations of this size usually have many players. Look at the JFK assassination or 9/11 as examples.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Re: "Witnesses reported seeing McVeigh with a Middle Eastern appearing person"

    I would appreciate a reliable link on that, please. Also, as I am sure we all know, "middle eastern appearing" is almost always a euphemism for "Israeli."

    You decline to rebut what I said regarding the 1993 WTC attack. Ms. Lindauer is under the impression that this was carried out by Islamic extremists, when it is blaring on the front page of the New York Times that it was a LIHOP operation. Everyone here also knows that LIHOP=MIHOP - they could have stopped it, but they didn't.

    You say "I am frankly skeptical of witnesses who seem to know too much about the big picture" .. however, to paraphrase you, I am frankly skeptical of anyone who wants to tell me that Muslim terrorists have actively targeted the United States...

    Why? Because in order to believe in such nonsense, one must be a racist. Why must one be a racist? Because you are ascribing irrational behaviour to people simply because of their race and ethnicity.

    People do not generally act against their own interests. Doing so is considered irrational, and within xenophobia, jingoism, and racism, irrationality is a quality assigned to the foreigner, the different, or the extreme.

    The only "middle eastern appearing" people who would have any interest in making OKC happen would be the Israelis.

    Muslims did not commit the 1993 WTC attack, the FBI did. The front page of the New York Times says so.

    Muslims/Arabs also had nothing to do with 9/11 (except perhaps as unwitting stooges playing the role of "hijacker" - and even that is suspect).

    I realize that CIA scum are compartmentalized, but what we are talking about here is simply deduction from facts, not a huge research project - basic logic.

    If Ms. Lindauer believes non-Israeli middle-easterners were behind WTC1993, or OKC, she is swimming upstream against the facts.

    Frankly, the only place I hear about Muslims being connected to OKC is in fringe right-wing circles of liars. The fact is that the world's most wicked, most devastating terrorists mostly have white skin and mostly have offices in London, Washington, and Tel Aviv. To swim against those facts takes enormous chutzpah. Go on telling me the darkies did it - I will keep pointing at factual history over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
  37. People who call themselves "Anonymous", can't spell al-Qaeda (or al-Qaida, also correct transliteration) and always default to obscene and degrading language —

    I tend to take them less seriously than the others

    ReplyDelete
  38. I went to my job and picked up the copy of her book I inadvertantly shipped there yesterday, and I'm reading into it a ways. And I too was wishing I could ask her, "Ma'am, does the name Emad Salem mean anything to you?" I wish you had asked her that, Kevin.

    But to say flatly that the Blind Sheikh was completely framed, I'm guessing I too could be overstating my case if I think that. I'm willing to consider that all three classes of accused were involved and any of the three could have stopped it (Israel, Arabs, and our local spook traitors). But I'm need to finish the book before I will be able to sort that out, at the least.

    The first couple of chapters are very credible in their general tone. When she says that Saddam's intelligence, having been pampered by the US for several decades, was better able than any, even Mossad, to know the intricasies of the terrorist plots, seems striking, maybe shocking, but not out of the question; that Mossad would send people to her on the street offering virtually unlimited money to get things that Iraq knew were in the works is quite fascinating.

    I don't pretend to know it all. But every day, I manage to find things that blow my mind, a lot of it right here at truthjihad.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ms/Mr/? Anonymous last spotted at January 13, 2011 4:42 PM wrote:

    ``Re: "Witnesses reported seeing McVeigh with a Middle Eastern appearing person"

    I would appreciate a reliable link on that, please. Also, as I am sure we all know, "middle eastern appearing" is almost always a euphemism for "Israeli."``

    Over the years I've heard of John Doe 2 being described in many ways, including as a "swarthy Arab". A quick search brought this up:

    http://www.holology.com/mcveigh.html
    "Probably the biggest question remaining in the OKC bombing case is that of John Doe #2. The investigation finds numerous credible witnesses that attest to seeing John Doe #2 with McVeigh but oddly enough the FBI failed to follow through in explaining who he is, even going so far as to pressure one witness to change his story! Oklahoma City TV reporter Jayna Davis claims that John Doe #2 was an Iraqi named Hussain Al-Hussaini but the substance is still lacking to support it, remaining purely circumstantial and coincidental."

    I concede that I couldn't immediately find a "reliable link", so I'll let that one drop. I must question your logic, though. You state:
    ``Also, as I am sure we all know, "middle eastern appearing" is almost always a euphemism for "Israeli."``

    No, I'd guess that we all don't know that. Israelis constitute a tiny minority of middle easterners, and only a small minority of that minority are ethnic middle easterners having a "middle eastern" appearance. Therefore "middle eastern appearing", at least in my book, is not a ``euphemism for "Israeli"``

    Next you say,
    ``You decline to rebut what I said regarding the 1993 WTC attack. Ms. Lindauer is under the impression that this was carried out by Islamic extremists, when it is blaring on the front page of the New York Times that it was a LIHOP operation. Everyone here also knows that LIHOP=MIHOP - they could have stopped it, but they didn't.``

    First of all, I didn't realise that it was your argument in particular. All of you Anonymi look alike to me. Even so, you may have inferred what I wrote about witnesses being experts on the whole shebang as applying to this argument.

    Next:
    ``You say "I am frankly skeptical of witnesses who seem to know too much about the big picture" .. however, to paraphrase you, I am frankly skeptical of anyone who wants to tell me that Muslim terrorists have actively targeted the United States...``

    In Lindauer's compartmentalized world, this is what she was led to believe, and also that there was Mossad involvement. Perhaps in time she will disabuse herself of this notion. Meanwhile, she remains a witness to her own experiences, not an expert on the topic of false flag terrorism in the US.

    Next:
    ``Why? Because in order to believe in such nonsense, one must be a racist. Why must one be a racist? Because you are ascribing irrational behaviour to people simply because of their race and ethnicity.``

    Yeah, right. Susan Lindauer is a racist. That's why she was working so hard to get sanctions that were killing Iraqi children to be lifted.

    I'll leave it at that, except to say that I was not telling you that "the darkies did it".

    ReplyDelete
  40. "But to say flatly that the Blind Sheikh was completely framed, I'm guessing I too could be overstating my case if I think that."

    let's start here. the facts of the case are open and not hidden. the fbi had a mole in the organization. he reported back to them what the plan was. he had the opportunity to stop it and he informed his fbi handlers of the same. his handlers specifically told him to do nothing. he recorded the conversations in order to defend himself. all of this was reported on the front page of the new york times.

    were there some nutcase arabs involved? of course there were. if you gave me a virtually unlimited budget and told me to produce a group of terrorist flat-earthers, it would be a trivial task. it is always easy to find nutcase puppets no matter what the cause. and it is easy to get them to engage in violence.

    it provides us with an excellent litmus test. those who wish to equivocate on matters like the 1993 WTC incident insist blame lies with the puppets, while leaving the puppeteers virtually untouched.

    to paraphrase billy the butcher of bhagdad, it's the puppeteers, stupid.

    further, we do know the facts of OKC, and they are at odds with Ms. Lindauer's assertions.

    'People who call themselves "Anonymous",...'

    And your name is? You are employing the logical fallacy of ad hominem, claiming that the name I use (which is every bit as 'anonymous' as yours) has any bearing on the facts being presented.

    'can't spell al-Qaeda...'

    Again, an attempt at introducing an irrelevancy as an argument.

    "always default to obscene and degrading language"

    You would argue with me that there are employees of the CIA upon who the term "scum" should not be applied? Seems like just another attempt at obfuscation to me.

    All I have been saying throughout this thread is quite simple. Do not trust anyone who has ever been associated with the CIA completely. Take it with a grain of salt; use it appropriately; do not regard it as "the truth."

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'd be happy to respond, but Kevin isn't allowing my comments through anymore. GLTA

    ReplyDelete
  42. All in all, a good interview (I'll have to listen to the second half).

    I agree with Phillip Rose, there is nothing inconsistent with a witness account from a compartmentalized asset.

    What I'm a little surprised at is the "if you don't subscribe to my view in totality, you are a liar" attitude expressed by several of the commenters (possible disinfo?)

    Actually, her interview does add pieces to the puzzle and is consistent with 911 as an inside job with operational assistence from Mossad and Israeli First'ers like Silverstein and many others.

    Perhaps, there was no interest in Washington to know about al-Qaeda because they already knew all they wanted to know about al-Quaeda, in fact, didn't want to have al-Quaeda's financial trail come out because they knew were it led...back to Washington and Tel Aviv. And, of course, had already decided to attack Iraq and weren't going to take "yes" for an answer.

    Perhaps, Iraq didn't know everything about al-Quaeda, but was willing to promise anything, more than they actually knew, to avoid invasion (of course, Iraq would promise anything without the intention to actually fulfill their promises).

    The fact that her CIA handler knew the attack was imminent, again, tell's the lie that nobody had thought about the possibility of a "plane as weapon" attack.

    Too many different sources say those at the top were told of "plane as weapon", but, of course, the conspirators already knew the attacks were coming.

    Also, the fact the handler knew that video of the first plane would come out, strongly suggests that numerous people in the CIA knew Mossad was deeply involved -- if not operationally central to the operation.

    Not everybody has researched the facts & evidence... that's the problem, because when they do, 9 out of 10 will conclude a new investigation is warranted and 8 out of 10 will conclude 911 was an inside job (my estimate is conservative -- I find the evidence overwhelming).

    ReplyDelete
  43. I kind of gave up on the book after four or five chapters, but glancing back over the interview, I think I agree with the poster above (Anon January 15, 2011 6:21 PM — these Anon guys are kind of like the sons of George Foreman — all named George Foreman).

    But with this caveat — she says things in the interview I couldn't find in the book, like the word "Mossad" (an index is also absent from the book — a mark of un-scholarship.)

    But yeah, maybe the interview did her good.

    After abandoning the book, I think it would be really great to get somebody on the show that would talk about the work of Dimitri Khalezov.

    Kevin, back in the day when the Dynamic Duo was still on the air, you and Fetzer were talking about "no planes". Coward that I am, I went with the majority and cast the first stone at poor old Jim. After watching all 26 segments of Khalezov's movie/interview, and various other sources (a very good set of links is at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm) I am now firmly in the no-planes and the 3 H-bombs (50+27)m-below-ground camp.

    Please, Kevin, consider bringing this to your show in some form.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Low-whistle...the sum of all fears, elements within our own government going rogue--say it ain't so.

    Two thumbs up, Mr. Barrett!

    ReplyDelete
  45. another shill raises his ugly head and as usual the sheep follow. When will it ever end?

    ReplyDelete
  46. It is said that a large, dangerous operation should have more than one objective. Well, assisting Israel's standing in their neighborhood, digging Israeli defense firms more deeply into U.S. business, lining the pockets of our own war hardware providers, no-bid long term contracts for American service providers like Bechtel, stripping our treasury of any seed money that might be dedicated to alternative energy, provoking, indeed, almost ginning up out of whole cloth anti-American sentiment that can be used to serve various ends, most obviously an expanding war on terror that never ends,all seem to be objectives that the Evil Ones have met and/or continue to meet to their own satisfaction. Central to all this is the indefinite prolongation of the floruit of Big Oil. Don't forget the powwow before 9/11 with the oil bigwigs. Ironic that the goal that I believe was central to the 9/11 stunt, (OIL), has probably wasted more fossil fuel in the military effort to secure raw materials than could have been gained by simple negotiation for the stuff. Now we are super broke, our dollar destabilized even, due to this horror show and the other huge wealth transfers. (I personally want single payer universal health care similar to Japan's, but I can see how that, or even Obama's halfway measure, could be just another giant robbery of middle America.) The Perps of 9/11 know what a setback they could suffer if they are found out, them personally, and their stupid goals. They knew in the planning stages how awful their comeuppance might be. I believe that is why they used many different tools of destruction that day, to confuse the issue. Look at our present state. Various outspoken persons each champion different theories. One says thermate, another says low-yield nukes, another says directed energy weapons. Don't forget napalm in the swapped out planes. Well, it could very well be ALL of the above, and the brainiacs are wasting their breath competing for the most acceptable theory. Many seem to feel that a perfect scenario has to be presented to America and the world before progress can be made. Bolagna! Without subpeona power or the U.S. Army on our side whole generations will pass as the hairsplitting continues. Rich Gage and the movie In Plane Sight flagged MY attention, but maybe Morgan Reynolds is right with his no-plane theory. What of it. I know that there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence out there, enough to cause any brave and patriotic attorney general to convene a grand jury. So why don't any? There is no critical mass of popular pressure to do so. Americans DO NOT want to come to grips with 9/11, but they are nonetheless the key to progress. Therefore, new, more clever ways must be brought to bear, to compel the common man's attention to this ongoing outrage. Yet, all people, commoners, elite and downtrodden alike, all have a place in their minds that I call their Mythological Quotient. We all protect our most treasured beliefs, the ones we can't substantiate, with great energy. Achieving a breakthrough on 9/11 might just require the shattering of some of America's most revered fallacies. Are we enterprising souls who stand for Goodness ready for the mass psychic spasm our fellow citizens will go through when the awful truth hits them? More scary, what might be their fall back position? Full acceptance of the evil of 9/11, and conscience be damned? Many must already know that the event and the investigation are fishy, yet they stay silent. Job security and tribal conformity seem to figure in the timidity of our otherwise musclebound , rah-rah citizens. We're all over-worked, over-stimulated, over-entertained, over-matched by Evil Planners who don't want healthy families that have time to raise well rounded children. Unbalance people are needy people, who want, and find, a way to get more than their share. When we are all psycho needy, and are bouncing off of one another, where can we turn to for answers to our desperate cravings? You guessed it: UNCLE SAM.

    ReplyDelete
  47. blahhbity frickin blah.





    2 words. patriot act. no more proof is necessary as to why it was "allowed" to happen. The squawking here is much like denonominational bickering in christianity.
    Take the insight from this woman, AND the fact that she was imprisoned and stripped of her freedom like none of YOU have been , in all of your bravery and truth seeking........

    she PROVED the cia knew about 9-11 ahead of time. Go with THAT, and not with the inane pseudo facts like "she didnt mention lizard people or translate 9-11 EXACTLY as YOU see it" ...........

    ReplyDelete
  48. I may be too late for a post. I am new to this blog. I appreciate the posts that are not emotional or nasty. I especially appreciate Feb 13, 7:07 post. I think the kind of forsight in that post is essential. And of course, so is the truth.

    I have a question. Is China the major recipient of Libyan oil?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Critical thinking skills will identify "Susan Lindauer " as a CIA asset of disinformation & misinformation. Shame on you Susan and those cooperating with his Dark Occult network !

    Suggest you read Dr. John Coleman's book the Tavistock Institute of human relations.
    WhatOnEarthIsHappening.com with Mark Passio will clear up your understanding of the Dark Occult.

    ReplyDelete
  50. A friend and I have a very small leftist website and he allowed Susan to post there. It has been interesting, particularly when Susan makes a remark like, "You got to watch out for liberal fascism."

    You might want to skip Susan's most recent post, but I think most people here will find the discussion below it amusing:

    http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1083

    Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Knock it off guys--she is on the money--plans were hi-jacked by MOSSAD/CIA operatives. Very simple--gased the inside and dumped the bodies land fill site or better no evidence rendering plant :^/

    ReplyDelete
  52. Please read the following article:
    http://www.picassodreams.com/picasso_dreams/2011/05/the-spin-conspiracy-of-the-cold-war.html
    It explains (in simple terms) how the Cold War became War on Terror. Susan is right!

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Middle east connection to the Oklahoma city bombing ? I don't know about that one ... "

    ever heard of Israel?

    Oklahoma city bombing mirrors the KING DAVID Bombing.

    9/11 = LAVON Affair.

    WAKE THE FLOCK UP

    ReplyDelete
  54. Some people here think that planes were involved on 9/11 and crashed into buildings. You people are so deluded. You should read "WTC Didn't Collapse on 9/11 Because Those Buildings Were Optical Illusions All Those Years" by Dr Kookoobrains PHD. THERE WERE NOT ANY PLANES CRASHING INTO THINGS ON 9/11!!! Gawd why don't you people do some research, and get a life. Sorry, I'm just making fun of some people on this blog. To me those are the comments with breath smelling most like koolaid.

    ReplyDelete
  55. beware of anyone named Lindauer! I did a little research, and found she is the daughter of the most evil man on earth, John Lindauer, for whom I used to work and doesn't have a moral bone in his body. Granted, she is not him, but her father is absolutely amoral, and ruins others' lives as long as it benefits him. I question her motives simply because she was raised with evil incarnate as a father.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I have 2 simple questions for the readers of this post:

    1. Why were there Israelis filming the 9/11 event from a New Jersey roof top and dancing the Hora after it happened? Why were they released sortly after the FBI arrested them and sent back to the Land of Milk and Honey?

    2. How come there were practically no Jews present in the destroyed buildings since there was no Jewish holiday at the time?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous thanks You are right.
    The people sleep still, brainwashed as they are.
    How to awake them? They were so in shock in awe by this attack. All of them believe what was not there. No airplanes, so no hijackers so an illegal amoral bloody war on innocent people.

    I think a happening as shocking and awing is needed to awake them, to dismantle the deception, the big lie, to mobilise them to restore truth, justice and love!!!

    I'm still looking for the solution.
    If it succeded to mobilize a critical mass (about 5-10 %) of the people then a true democracy may be restored and the perps be brought to justice.

    ReplyDelete