Debating 9/11 hijackers with ex-CIA asset Susan Lindauer

Susan Lindauer will be my guest tomorrow, Saturday January 22nd, on Truth Jihad Radio.  On my Tuesday, Jan. 4th show, she broke the story about CIA foreknowledge of 9/11 and how her CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, stated on 9/11/01 that the Mossad did it.

We recently had a brief email debate about whether or not there were any actual hijackers on 9/11. Et voilĂ :

Hi Susan,

I transcribed and posted the first half of the interview yesterday. Things get around fast these days!

You'll probably hear from some wack jobs as well as thoughtful people, if my experience is any indication. But most of the 9/11 truth community - the bulk of my audience - is well-informed and rational.

Speaking of borderline wacky  responses...

One of the big points of controversy is your belief in hijackers. (Some of the more paranoid truthers have emailed me "If she supports hijackers she must be disinfo.") So allow me to explain why I think you're wrong; perhaps you can show me if I'm missing anything.

First is the absence of the evidence we would have been shown had any of these 19 guys (or any hijackers) boarded the planes: Official passenger lists, ticket stubs, testimony from airline employees, security videos, and DNA evidence (which the relatives of the falsely-blamed patsies have been screaming for, with no response from US officialdom).  See Elias Davidsson's article:

Second is the fact that obviously bogus "evidence" has been manufactured in an unbelievably lame attempt to implicate these guys. Atta's supposed will (found in baggage supposedly checked on board a suicide plane, and miraculously left at the airport to be discovered) is an absurdly bad forgery, as Robert Fisk among others has pointed out; an outrageously fake video purporting to show "hijackers" boarding Flight 77 is equally ludicrous (see here and here); and let's not even get started with the "magic passport" that floated down from the Towers and the "magic Shiite bandana" found outside the debris-free fifteen-foot hole in Pennsylvania. Whichever intelligence agency did this needs to hire better Orientalists -- people who can write wills that don't mangle the Islamic formulas, who can tell Shiites from Sunnis, and so on! They could also use some lessons in planting plausible evidence.

Third is the fact that the FBI finally admitted, after years of false statements, that its original claim of about 15 cell phone calls from impossible altitudes is false, and that Ted Olson's seminal claim about the alleged call from his wife Barbara was also false. Close study of this issue suggests that covert operators used voice morphing and spoofing to create at least a few bogus calls from loved ones--and that perhaps some or most of these stories, like Olson's, were invented out of whole cloth.

Fourth is that if you accept controlled demolition, there cannot have been hijackings.  Whatever hit the Towers had to have been guided into them with 99.9% certainty of an accurate hit, in order to provide a cover story for the demolitions. No human hijackers could be trusted to even gain control of planes, much less hit difficult-to-impossible targets at absurdly high speeds.  (The South Tower was hit at almost 600 mph at sea level, probably above the speed at which a 767 would fall apart, and obviously too fast for even the world's best pilot to hit such a narrow target with any consistency). Check out the videos by Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

Fifth is the activities and deportment of the alleged hijackers, who were not even practicing Muslims much less al-Qaeda types, trained and partied at Maxwell AFB and Pensacola Naval Air Station, hung around with CIA-authorized drug importers including Jack Abramoff and enjoyed endless supplies of cocaine, pretended to take flying lessons they either didn't take, were incompetent pilots with no experience in big jets, had no interest in, or didn't need, made obviously serious and sincere plans for activities after 9/11/01, and in 10 cases turned up alive, briefly at least, after 9/11/01.

On the improbable Atta:

And see Kolar's article.

Given this evidence and much more, I think it's clear that the "al-Qaeda" cell blamed for 9/11 was in fact a CIA/Mossad troupe of actors, many using stolen identities, that had little or no connection to any actual Islamist militancy, and that their duties as actors did not include boarding any of the alleged attack planes, much less hijacking them. Whoever ran them did a stunningly poor job of producing a convincing "suicide hijackers" storyline.

If you think about this from the standpoint of a covert ops specialist tasked with creating (the appearance of) a spectacularly successful suicide airplane attack on the Towers and the Pentagon, you'll quickly realize that using actual hijackers, or even actual airliners with pilots and passengers aboard, would probably create unnecessary complications. See:

These issues have been debated quite a bit in the 9/11 truth community, with the result that the better-informed people have mostly taken a no-hijackings position. The more excitable among them suspect that those who argue irrationally (as they must) for hijackings are supporting the "evil radical Muslims" storyline for nefarious reasons.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.


* * *


   This is an email that requires more time than I have right now to answer. I promise to come back to you with a response worthy of the time you took to pose all of these questions.

   For now, you will see from my book that I believe it was both hijackings & a demolition. Previous terrorist attacks created mayhem, but minimal damage once the sensational smoke cleared the site. Five people died in the first WTC attack in 1993. I believe 12 people died in the U.S.S. Cole. Yes, there were hijackings (though we might have named the wrong hijackers, and gone into kill them & dumped their bodies in the desert later on).

   My belief is that knowing the hijackings and strike on the WTC would occur--- and would provoke a War in Iraq, if the damage proved suitably devastating---- an orphan team sympathetic to Israel accessed the WTC and planted the explosives in elevator shafts, where it would be concealed from visual sight until the appropriate moment.

   That all fits with the airplane wreckage found on at Ground Zero. That's not a holograph. Those are two real airplanes. As they were flying below radar, cell phone transmissions should have worked for part of the flight, especially as the planes approached Manhattan.

    It's not one or the other. It's both. The missing explanation is the motive. People believe that war in Iraq was an after-thought. In fact, it formed the whole basis for tacit U.S. consent by the top echelons of the Bush Administration. They were so gung ho for War that they threatened Iraq aggressively from April and May, 2001 onwards with War. And that provided the motivation to accept a modern day Pearl Harbor and to stand down from obvious opportunities to protect the Twin Towers, even briefly for a few weeks. Command negligence was deliberate.

   It's really that simple, Kevin. The cover up was more imaginative than the original acts.


* * *



 >"My belief is that knowing the hijackings and strike on the WTC would occur --- and would provoke a War in Iraq, if the damage proved suitably devastating---- an orphan team sympathetic to Israel accessed the WTC and planted the explosives in elevator shafts, where it would be concealed from visual sight until the appropriate moment."

Given that the odds of hijackings plus a strike on even one Tower succeeding were one in a million -- there had not been a successful hijacking in US airspace in twenty years -- there would be no reason to set up the WTC for demolitions. Additionally, the alleged hijackers were clowns. They were about as likely to succeed in taking over a plane as the Florida street people were likely to bring down the Sears Tower. And none of them, except "Atta" (the Hebrew-speaking one in Florida) when he wasn't drunk and on drugs which was seldom, could even pilot Cessnas competently. Not that it matters, because even the world's fifteen best special forces soldiers and the world's four best pilots couldn't have done what these clowns are said to have done. (Not one plane even squawked the hijack code, which takes about two seconds!)

Yes, there were planes -- either military planes capable of accurate remote-control strikes at those speeds, or (just possibly) 767s under remote control.  If the latter, the perps had to have done high speed remote control flying tests of 767s and discovered their astonishing capabilities. Most pilots think 767s would be torn to pieces long before reaching almost 600 mph at sea level.

Bottom line: If the buildings were rigged for demolition, there were no hijackers.  Human hijackers and pilots could not be trusted to hit the targets.

Please re-think this, and address my points, for your more in-depth response.

And by the way, keep up the good work! Our interview is still going viral.


[PS Or we could discuss this in another interview...]

* * *


That sounds great! Let's book it@ That gives you time to read the book, and gives your listeners time to digest this. We can talk about how the Patriot Act was used in the cover up, and how the FBI/ US Attorneys office & Bureau of Prisons confirmed the 911 warnings & lied to Judge Mukasey.

you'll understand when you read my book

We can debate hijackers vs. detonations vs. both. Your information is very important for my theory, too!


Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,