CIA Asset Susan Lindauer Blows Whistle On 9/11, Iraq + BBC Interview

reply to post by Gixxer

I have to ask if you even listened to the interview of her by Kevin Barret. Did she sound like she was a mental case? I know, sometimes its hard to tell, but still, if you have doubts, check some of the people she referenced in the interview. A lot of what she said seems quite possible.

Originally posted by NadaCambia
Infact, here you are; books.google.co.uk...:+The+Investment+Theory+of+Party+Competition+and+the+Logic+of+Money-Driven+Politi cal+Systems&hl=en&ei=Do0rTeW_O8eHhQfIzfWwAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA

Read up.

For more localised government collusion try Peter Oborne's The Triumph of the Political Class. Lewis Namiers 'The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III' is another, that although dated, is still applicable.

edit on 10-1-2011 by NadaCambia because: (no reason given)

Thank you for these references!

It is my mission, since the last couple of elections, to convince people to vote independent.

The whole party system we have is in effect anti-democratic, in the sense that we DO NOT vote for our head of state. They are chosen by their respective parties, and are therefore, answerable to them, and not the people of the country.

Here in Canada, we recently had the "Oliphant Commission" a toothless commission investigating our ex-prime minister Brian Mulroney (during the Reagan era) receiving kick-backs from "Airbus" in exchange for state contracts.

Anyhow, during this commission he clearly stated that his ONLY responsibility was toward his party, for they are the one's who voted for him, and in this regard, his number one priority as his party's leader was to ensure campaign donations. Not very democratic!

I know this is a tangent from the OP, but I thought it relevant to your post nonetheless.

Thanks once again,

the Billmeister

Originally posted by R_Clark

She states in her interview that the Administration knew fully well the trade towers were to be hit as early as April.

in my personal worldview & timeline...the knowledge of insider info as early April 2001, corresponds to
the series of eerie events that were launched around that spring of 2001.

if one can access the archives of American Heritage magazine, vol. 52, issue 3, may 2001
the cover picture, 'Vet's against the War' the image is of an anti-war rally up in DC in Oct. 1969.

some of the Archives articles in this particular issue were:
' Goodbye To All That'...'Half a Million Purple Hearts'...'The Magician and the Cardsharp'

the cover story 'How We Won the Vietnam War' has been digitally buried...but that's not the focus.

the AH magazine is/was a Forbes owned publication, i tried to sue them (July 2001)
for not paying me for the use of my image (the guy with the 'V'-peace sign) but was rebuked.

It is my contention that the AH magazine was used as the medium to send a clear message,
the message being; "we're not looking for you yet - but keep your mouth shut"... that's what the
other articles were stating in so much couched language (Goodbye/PurpleHearts/CardSharp)


This long held image of a demonstrater in a 1969 washington monument rally ... was suddenly
magazine cover material in May 2001... only 4 months before 9-11... whats the connection U ask?
To myself, it tells me that the 911 operation was already in the works prior to the April 2001 date
Susan Lindauer claims of having iron-clad knowledge of the WTC being one of the targets.
The Vet on the cover was warning friends and aquaintances of zealot Arabs crashing planes
into the WTC, Pentagon & the Wash Monument since the summer of 1969 at Swann Street, DC.

So, with my own flavor of insider knowledge, i am convinced that Susan's narrative is Truth...
but i still differ that the Bush-Cheney regime executed the deed, i prefer to think an outside
manipulator was the actual orchestrator and the collapses were a complete surprize to the elites

Originally posted by eyestotheskies

Originally posted by Gixxer
she was found mentally unfit to stand trial so that kind of rings a bell for her "self proclaimed" cia ties wich i have to say with her anti war stance i highly doubt the cia would have anything todo with her.

so then that leaves us a lyer and a mentally ill woman claiming something............lol

Having done 5 minutes research into your claim that she was unfit for trial I think the more probable reason that she was never allowed to stand trial was that it wasnt in the best interests of the US for her to discuss the issues in an open forum. The suggestion that she was unfit to stand trial because of mental illness - even though there was no external evidence of any illness, was a blatent and cynical mechanism to undermine her credibility and her character and thus avoid a trial... Just an alternative view.

if you want to be taken seriously, learn to either spell or at least learn to use spell check

reply to post by Billmeister

hmmm, being a child of the cretin, i was not aware of these airbus "donations". Im deeply interested in Canadian political debauchery over American, even though they are so linked its hard to tell them apart sometimes. Hmmmm back to the archives.

WAR TRUTH!

The scary thing about it is,with all the evidence that's out there why haven't they reopened the case?

I could show a hundred things that prove 9/11 was an inside job but because it's the evidence is everywhere I don't need to do that.

What evidence?Besides all the lies,videos,witnesses and just plain common sense?What more do you need?

I want to see evidence of the 19 Arabs with box cutters theory.Besides a couple of news stories I don't see anything that proves 19 Arabs with box cutters pulled off 9/11.

Originally posted by Machiavellian
reply to post by Billmeister

 

hmmm, being a child of the cretin, i was not aware of these airbus "donations". Im deeply interested in Canadian political debauchery over American, even though they are so linked its hard to tell them apart sometimes. Hmmmm back to the archives.

WAR TRUTH!

It's a pretty interesting example of how things work in politics.

Here is the Wikipedia summary on the "Airbus Affair".

What I found particularly frustrating, is that the RCMP (our equivalent to the FBI for our American friends) had evidence in 1995 of Mulroney's shady dealings. He had the gall to sue the government for libel, and was awarded $2.1 million these allegations, but later admitted to having accepted brown envelopes full of cash (exactly what the RCMP had alleged) ! Funny how he didn't have to reimburse the $2.1 million.

Again, I apologize to the OP for this tangent.

the Billmeister

reply to post by Gixxer


I disagree...As when the MSM and Elites in control try to stop the truth it is their standard practice that when the words can not be controlled or the messenger murdered...then the next step is to DISCREDIT the messenger and obfuscate the message.

As, once the real truth comes out with no way of putting truth back into the bottle, the MSM resort to character assassination. Don't fall for it. And for sure, don't buy it as truth.

This is their real hidden agenda, distract, obfuscate, and feed falsehoods with biased reasonings and logic.

Their agenda is to remain on top, their methods are to keep the truth as far away from you and me as is possible...including death threats, murder, and attack the messenger at all costs.

I find it strange that the same people that are calling others "sheeple" are basically "sheeple" themselves. You deny what msm tells us and act like those that believe the big bad government are insane while spending maybe 5 minutes reading an excerpt from an article about a woman that you can never prove is right or wrong and agree with her instead.

I'm not saying she is being truthful or not...but don't criticize the profane for accepting what is fed to them so easily while on the same hand believing and s&f-ing everything that appears on this website that is to the contrary of "sheeple" belief.

What now? Are we using this woman's increadibly suspect story over all of the previous evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? This stands to contradict everything that has been uncovered by those who dont believe the official story.

This too, shall pass.

All I want to say is that if this lady worked for the CIA as an asset, and in fact she is telling the truth about this stuff, then she would not be around today. Coming from a dude who has family and friends whom are retired from the certain government agencies, they would never allow for this. Think all you want that she could really be spilling the beans, but that book would have never been published, and she'd be in jail or worse.

She got busted, turned sour, and wanted to milk her situation.

reply to post by RustyShakleford92


Well actually it would be more suspicious if she was found dead because of the stuff she was speaking about. If they play the mentally unfit card they could disregard any new information that she would put out to make the gov't and CIA look bad.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mossad was working for the US gov't and the CIA for the Israeli gov't. It would make sense to get another agency to work in your country rather than risk the chance of getting caught and labeled a traitor.

CIA may have asked the Mossad to act within the US on 9/11 so that they may exert more influence in the region around them. This gives them more power under that region which is a big plus for Israel and Corporate USA. You can sit here and deny that your government's agencies are partaking in such events but all I have to say is look at the family jewels files. If that stuff was declassified and released to the public...what kind of stuff are they still hiding?

reply to post by eyestotheskies


Agreed.

reply to post by Equinox99


The CIA would not have let her out of prison!!! I'm telling you, they can and will make people disappear, that's a fact. If she could blow the whole case open with new revelations, then the CIA would leave no opportunities for her to be heard. Hell, they probably would have killed her when their relationship with each other turned sour.

It makes no sense she is walking around today in the USA when she "blew the cover" of the US government on what "really happened" on 9-11.

Absolutely not!!!

Very, very interesting and alarming if true, but, as usual, inconclusive. (And frustratingly so.)

It's possible all of the psychologists and psychiatrists who evaluated her - including those for her own defense - were manipulated, paid off, or insiders working to paint her as delusional. Is it likely, though? I don't know.

In any case, as usual, there is enough doubt created by that factor to render this neither here nor there. Whether that's because that was the intent of some shadowy force within the government (or elsewhere) in an effort to prevent her from having any credibility, or because she really is delusional (or was at the time,) I have no way of knowing.

Either way, it renders her claims dubious and in doubt by my standards of skepticism. Not because I definitively believe she is delusional (or was,) but simply because there is a reasonable possibility that she may be (or may have been then.) Again, maybe that's the whole point, but that doesn't change it. That's why these kinds of cases are so frustrating in my opinion. The evidence may seem tantalizing, but it's in doubt because of other potential factors, for which there is also evidence (if not proof.)

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Very, very interesting and alarming if true, but, as usual, inconclusive. (And frustratingly so.)

It's possible all of the psychologists and psychiatrists who evaluated her - including those for her own defense - were manipulated, paid off, or insiders working to paint her as delusional. Is it likely, though? I don't know.

In any case, as usual, there is enough doubt created by that factor to render this neither here nor there. Whether that's because that was the intent of some shadowy force within the government (or elsewhere) in an effort to prevent her from having any credibility, or because she really is delusional (or was at the time,) I have no way of knowing.

Either way, it renders her claims dubious and in doubt by my standards of skepticism. Not because I definitively believe she is delusional (or was,) but simply because there is a reasonable possibility that she may be (or may have been then.) Again, maybe that's the whole point, but that doesn't change it. That's why these kinds of cases are so frustrating in my opinion. The evidence may seem tantalizing, but it's in doubt because of other potential factors, for which there is also evidence (if not proof.)

edit on 1/11/2011 by AceWombat04 because: Clarification

I agree.

What actually turned me into a hardcore skeptic was watching the Iran/Contra commission, anyone who remembers it will know the fool proof "I do not recall" defense. All signs and presented evidence pointed toward knowledge and collusion at the upper echelons of power, but nothing could ever beat the "I do not recall" defense.

Extremely frustrating, but also extremely effective in casting enough doubt to make any prosecution impossible.

reply to post by Gixxer


You may be right, but it would be awfully convenient for her to be found mentally unfit. Pretty easy for everything she says to be dismissed. If I were a conspirator, I would absolutely work to have her declared mentally unfit.

As to her fitness,
When she was in Federal custody, they found nothing wrong with her behaviour. It was a different scenario with the military custody, both parties were charged with her evaluation. On a different tack, why did her charge officer keep sending her on a wild goose chase to the Iraqi embassy, in regard to the possibly impending WTC attack. I say wild goose on the basis of Richard Fuisz's remarks about being Mossad cameramen in some video. In the interview it's hard to know exactly which video they were discussing, Not the Naudet bros's but she does make reference to something also only shown the next day. If Fuisz knew who they were, why should it surprise him that they were there in New York, or rather the CIA in general should have had knowledge of known Mossad agents tripping about NYC with cameras. It is known that Mossad did inform american intelligence of an impending attack anyway, and since Mossad cameramen were there on the day, by default that means that all parties knew when the attack was to be, except Fuisz it seems. She also mentions the use of a thermonuclear device, as well as planes. It certainly would help with the dust problem.

LOL I see Hooper and Alfie"s 9/11 thread alarm went off to report for duty. In classic form too I might add. Whats the first thing they do? Rules of disinfo number 5. I really do not see why anyone even replies to them, they dont even make any good points. Its, "name call" this and "you all are stupid" that.

Originally posted by Gixxer
she was found mentally unfit to stand trial so that kind of rings a bell for her "self proclaimed" cia ties wich i have to say with her anti war stance i highly doubt the cia would have anything todo with her.

so then that leaves us a lyer and a mentally ill woman claiming something............lol

Funny how when someone, especially the government, calls you crazy, you must be crazy. They don't need any proof, just call you crazy whenever you disagree with them.
Now that you made it chic to mantra the government, what recourse will you have when the police officer lies to the judge saying you were driving at 80 mph and your defense is that you weren't even in the area? They will call you crazy for disagreeing with the government and lock you up, no questions asked. It really kills me that unless it is something that affects you directly that you can not understand it.
Let's provide some history on why you shouldn't be buying the government's prognosis for the people:
Waverly Hill
This old haunt was made popular by Ghost Hunters on SciFi Channel. These butchers accepted anyone the government brought in no questions asked. Back in the early days of medicine, it was believed that you, the common man/woman had no right telling a doctor anything. You took your prognosis or went into an asylum. It was that simple. Women went the most because it was a convenient way for a husband to get rid of his wife so he could remarry. Many died a horrible death due to their government appointed treatment. There are other hospitals, like Glendale, MD which also took in TB patients, that abused the mentally ill because they were perceived as being sub-human so any experiments done on them would be considered a benefit to humanity.
Henryton Very close to DC and still listed as government property (yuk yuk), this prime piece of land and its buildings will never be sold because documentation of their horrors are still on the premises. Or, it will never be sold because of all the electroshock equipment still on the property.
Oh and for people like you who think this could never happen to me (common American misconception) Here is a game for you based on Waverly stories called Sanitarium
It truly amazes me how the young think they know everything and have the answers to everything. The fact is, you don't. You never will until you stop refusing to do your homework. Our government has a history of treating anyone they can the worst way possible. Tuskegee Syphilis Studies done by the CDC in the twenties used US citizens that would not be noticed (blacks) by the mainstream society. Those studies went on until the 70's! If you are not aware, The Centers for Disease Control, is a government entity charged with the well being of the US citizen, not the infliction and study thereof.
I could go on and on, but here's the gist of it: When you call someone crazy, you need documentation. Where is the government documentation that this woman was crazy except their word? And if the government knew she was crazy, why did they hire her? Also, why is it you all don't ask the correct questions?