CIA Asset Susan Lindauer.. Can Now Speaks 10 years after 2001-9-11

Wow. All you disinfo agents are coming out against this...relax. The American people cannot wake up from their slumber with their Double Think employed.

It's painfully obvious that anyone can tell this person is not insane or discredible. It's actually rare that someone is insane. It's a tool they use to allow corruption to happen right under our noses.

And no. There's not really anything new here, just another legit person verifying the truth of what actually happened. Really only the people that cruise the internet will find this stuff. If you are a hard working individual doing your job, you won't even see this stuff.

reply to post by Human_Alien


Yeah, watched the first 16 seconds. She's crazy.

Very interesting video. I don't grant it anymore credibility than I do any other facet of this entire 911 ordeal, from either side of the argument. I would be interested in verifying all of her claims and seeing the evidence she claims to be able to put forth. If that involves buying a book from her I would pass but otherwise lets do it. I am not saying I disbelieve her, but I don't believe her either.

Some contradictions taking place in her thought patterns make me wonder. For instance the supposed guy who shot down flight 93 who she mentions is in prison in Florida. She asks the audience to help the guy out, as in help him get out of prison? Or help the system kill him faster? Are you making a martyr of the guy that actually shot down the plane and killed the people in it at the same time as crucifying the person that ordered him to do it?

It would be really easy to argue either way as to if she is insane or not. She can't prove much other than that she was arrested and her apparent phone calls with complaints to the officials from what I understand. I know that could be incorrect but I haven't been able to look further yet. Yet the lack of evidence is easily explained, which the explanation is logically sound but that in itself makes you curious.

I wonder if we will ever really find out the absolute truth about that day. I wonder if there is anyone on the planet that actually knows the absolute truth about that day. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere between each end of the spectrum. I know that is a cop out and that much is obvious but how else to put it?

I would have to guess that someone (A) really did plan and execute an attack on the WTC using hijacked planes. I would have to also guess that someone else(B) took advantage of that situation in order to further their own agenda. I would guess that any number of others (C,D,E,F,G..Z) could have known about A's plan and probably also realized the possible benefits for themselves outweighed the detriment of the attack. Exactly who A-Z is I could only speculate but have no knowledge that everyone here doesn't have.

And then we did the rest ourselves by interjecting our own interpretations and rumors till no one knows for sure what is correct and what is "disinfo".

*edit* To add that I think the calls of disinfo agents posting in the thread are inaccurate. I haven't seen anyone that has made any blanket statements to discredit her that couldn't be alluded to from a very brief glance at the shroud surrounding her. Just calling someone crazy isn't really a clandestine attack to discredit her, but merely a personal observation. Don't read into it too much I suggest.

She said Bush was making a threat against the a Iraqis. We knew they had nothing to do with it and there were no weapons of mass destruction. I had talked to some students online over there and they knew nothing about what was going on with the Iranian government and there nuclear program. The whole tinderbox idea is ours, even if it is a reality. There world isn't that big. Clintons info was largely ignored a Bush was more interested in domestic affairs until he thought he was going to lose the re-election. The elites were probably in on it or some Zionist fraction rather than the CIA. I don't doubt they probably used it to their advantage. The statements about the military industrial complex loosing out seem consistent. Bush would not have been interested in the economic growth or peace in the middle east, but he would not say that publicly of course. He wouldn't believe the Iraqis had nothing to do with the threats on the tower or have no knowledge... that I believe is more than speculation.

They didn't have enough information to do a full scale evacuation of the towers. When a person gets right down to it can we point the finger? This lady was screwed over by the patriot act is whats going on here. Her information is very plausible.

reply to post by sputniksteve


Well that is interesting. So she says the man who shot down flight 93 is in prison. Can she produce a name and if so, is this person real and if the person is real, was he or she in the airforce at the time? If this detail of her story does not hold water, I have little motivation to sit through 90 min of her video.

So what is the name of the pilot who allegedly shot down flight 93 and is he real or fantasy? Can anything she said in the video be verified to be an outright lie?

Originally posted by outsidethesquare
who knows fore sure, but her mannerisms coupled with the look in her eye make he appear mildly insane

I don't know if what she says is true, but there is nothing here to make anyone think she's "mildly insane". Unless, of course, you feel that the things she's saying are insane. That's another issue.

Lets go by what she says. She says the pilot who shot down flight 93 is in prison in Florida. What can be said about that?

Originally posted by Smokey420
I don't know if what she says is true, but there is nothing here to make anyone think she's "mildly insane".

"Mildly" might have been understating it, but one does try to be gracious when speaking of a lady. A less gracious person might point out her long, official history of mental illness:

At least a half dozen doctors for both the defense and the prosecution have found that Ms. Lindauer suffers from delusions of grandeur and paranoia, which makes her incompetent to stand trial, the judge said. But she refuses to accept the diagnosis or to take medication, he said. One doctor found that Ms. Lindauer had a history of psychotic episodes going back to her childhood, possibly at the age of 7, the judge said. These include her contention that she had gifts of prophecy that allowed her to report 11 bombings before they happened, that she spoke with divine inspiration and that she was an angel.

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by Cassius666

Lets go by what she says. She says the pilot who shot down flight 93 is in prison in Florida. What can be said about that?

United flight 93 was not shot down. The history is clear.

So, what can be said about it is, she made it up. And, it makes absolutely no sense, so not sure why anyone even entertains this delusion.

reply to post by ProudBird


By the same token 911 was done by Bin Laden without any other involvement and we can move the whole section in the Hoax bin. I am really curious to hear what she said about the pilot allegedly held in the cell. We can not corrobat wether he shot down the plane or not, but if it turns out, that that person does not exist to begin with, we can save everybody watching the youtube vid.

So does this person she talks about have a name and was he in the airforce to begin with?

reply to post by Cassius666


By all means, let's find out all the details that this woman, Susan Lindauer, claims to know about (starting with) a 'former' military pilot who is now in prison.

His (or her) name, rank, serial number....deployment history, et cetera.

Follow-up questions might also include: How is it that this alleged "pilot in prison" has not, to date, come forward publicly through an attorney, or other official means? Surely this is a miscarriage of justice?

Or, is this alleged "pilot" in prison on some charge unrelated to the events of 9/11?

These are the sorts of details that need to be pinned down (among others). Or, is it left to people's imaginations, by inference? Merely state that a "pilot who shot down United 93 is in prison" (without any credible verification), and allow people to make up the 'details' in their imaginations, then?

I bet he is in prison for something unrelated to 911, if he is indeed in prison. But if he does not exist, he does not have a serial number either and we can stop right there discussing him or her.

So does this pilot exist and was he in the airforce at the time?

Originally posted by Cassius666
I bet he is in prison for something unrelated to 911, if he is indeed in prison. But if he does not exist, he does not have a serial number either and we can stop right there discussing him or her.

So does this pilot exist and was he in the airforce at the time?

So let's see - the task ahead of you is to prove that someone does NOT exist. And if no one can PROVE that this person does NOT exist then is the default that they do exist? Why not just assume that they do not exist due to a lack of any evidence beyond the rantings of an obvious mentally distrubed woman.

Thank you for sharing this video with us OP. I watched every second of it (yes...I have no life) and I still don't know what to think if the truth be told. Was interesting to watch however.

Rev

reply to post by hooper
I think you've got it backwards, if I'm reading Cassius666 right. The task is to evaluate the claim that was made, and try to prove that this person does exist - and if that can't be proven with solid evidence, then Cassius is ready to assume that the person does not exist, and therefore that part (at least) of Lindauer's evidence can be considered debunked. Isn't that the kind of approach that all of us should be taking? Researching claims and judging evidence? Sounds like a good approach to me.

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by hooper

 

I think you've got it backwards, if I'm reading Cassius666 right. The task is to evaluate the claim that was made, and try to prove that this person does exist - and if that can't be proven with solid evidence, then Cassius is ready to assume that the person does not exist, and therefore that part (at least) of Lindauer's evidence can be considered debunked. Isn't that the kind of approach that all of us should be taking? Researching claims and judging evidence? Sounds like a good approach to me.

In a perfect world, or even a real world you may be correct. However, it is my experience that once something like this is out there, no matter how dodgy the source or how ridiculous the claim it will remain in orbit forever until someone succeeds at the impossible, which is to absolutely prove a negative. So, with complete disregard for all logic and common sense it is now out there that we have a whistleblower who has sworn that Flight 93 was shot down contrary to the "official story". No advocate to the so-called truth movement will ever, ever, ever acknowledge that this is pure hocum unless and until this particluar little bit of fiction contradicts someone elses favorite flavor of conspiracy.

reply to post by hooper
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I do consider myself an advocate for the truth movement (hope you don't mind I omitted your "so-called" ), and I would definitely acknowledge this is pure hokum if it can't be proven, but I totally get where you're coming from. A lot of bad info does stay in orbit simply because somebody said it somewhere once, and I'm just as opposed to that as you are. But I think assuming a claim is not true is just as unreasonable as assuming it is true.

So, we do in fact have a "whistleblower who has sworn that Flight 93 was shot down contrary to the 'official story,'" as you said. There's no disregard for logic or common sense there, just a statement of fact. The question is, is this whistleblower credible? And is there hard evidence that can back up or refute the claims? I think there should be evidence - military records and/or prison records - if it's true.

If I find anything about this alleged pilot in prison I will post it here. I hope anyone else who finds something will do the same. And if there's no info to be found, it seems likely to me that there's no merit to this particular claim.

I apologize for not being more active on my own thread. It's just that I don't have the desire to defend this anymore.

Those who still believe what they were told (the Official Story) well...........that's their loss.

I was very active in the Movement for many years. I am getting too old now to care about something so big, like this anymore.

There's a definite agenda underway and short of an asteroid plowing into this planet, it won't be stopped. So I stopped caring.

I just want everyone to realize the OS is a lie.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Yeah, watched the first 16 seconds. She's crazy.

That's like me saying, I just read your first 8-words. You're brainwashed.

reply to post by Human_Alien


There is no such thing as an "OS".....except as 'defined' ion about two dozen different ways, as so-called "truthers" pick and choose:

I just want everyone to realize the OS is a lie.

But, in the context of the above quoted sentence....which "part" of the so-called "OS" is a so-called "lie"?