9/11 Prediction Revealed at Lindauer Competency hearing in NYC

Author Topic: 9/11 Prediction Revealed at Lindauer Competency hearing in NYC  (Read 13223 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Catalina

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,511
  • Government Censorship, Protecting You From Reality
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=7164

Comment from Susan Lindauer (submitted via email to The Intelligence Daily): I am Susan Lindauer, and I want to thank you guys so much for covering my story!! Mike Collins has done a truly awesome job, really amazing. His grasp of my case & ability to explain it all has been truly outstanding.

By contrast, the New York Times pulled a Judith Miller, claiming that I stuck out my tongue and rolled my eyes at the Prosecutor, something I categorically deny!

First of all, I had my back to the guy. He could not see my face to know whether I rolled my eyes or stuck out my tongue or anything else. Secondly, I was in rapt attention on the Judge & my witnesses. This was my FIRST evidentiary hearing in 4 1/2 years. I was totally focused on testimony, not distracted in the slightest. I would never have done something so stupid, while I'm trying to demonstrate that I'm competent to stand trial. I couldn't believe the New York Times story.

And why, in God's name, did the New York Times fail to report that I described a major attack involving airplanes & the World Trade Center in the summer before 9/11? You'd think the New York Times readers might be interested to know that.

No, Mike did a far superior job! Thanks for publishing my story!



(The Intelligence Daily) -- A surprise development occurred at today's hearing in the case of Susan Lindauer versus the United States. A long time associate of the accused, associate professor of computer science at Toronto's York University, Parke Godfrey, Ph.D., testified that Susan Lindauer predicted an attack on the United States in the southern part of Manhattan. According to his testimony, she said that the attack would be very similar to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Godfrey said that Lindauer made the prediction on several occasions, one as late as August 2001.

The testimony occurred in a hearing on Lindauer's competence to stand trial held before U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska, Southern District of New York, in lower Manhattan. On March 11, 2004, Lindauer was arrested for acting as an "unregistered agent" for the nation of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. Prosecutors have delayed the trial for over four years claiming Lindauer was delusional for asserting that she was a U.S. intelligence asset over a period of nine years, including the period covered by the indictment.

This was Lindauer's first real opportunity to argue her competence to stand trial and deny the delusions claimed by court psychiatrists. Lindauer asserts that she had been a U.S. intelligence asset since working on the Lockerbie case and subsequent antiterrorism efforts.

Appearing for the defense, Dr. Godfrey testified under oath that Lindauer told him of her specific concerns about an attack on the United States. She told him that a "massive" attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan, involving airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon. The witness said that she mentioned this in the year 2000, which coincided with the Lockerbie trial. And then in 2001, Lindauer mentioned the anticipated attack in the spring, 2001 and then August 2001. Godfrey said, at that time, Lindauer thought an attack was "imminent" and that it would complete what was started in the 1993 bombing (the original World Trade Center bombing).

After the hearing, Lindauer elaborated that this extreme threat scenario was done in concert with the man she says was one of her CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who has been associated with U.S. intelligence.

Federal prosecutor Edward O'Callaghan tried to diminish the prediction by asking Godfrey if Lindauer presented this a "prophesy". Godfrey denied hearing that word mentioned in their conversations. He stated that Lindauer used the term "premonition." The prosecution did not challenge Godfrey's testimony that Lindauer made the predictions in the time period given by the witness. After the hearing, Lindauer said that she'd called the Department of Justice Office of Counterterrorism in August of 2001 reporting her fears about an attack.

The courtroom where the revelation was made is about a 15 minute walk from the site of

September 11, 2001 attack where the former World Trade Center towers once stood.

The Issue of Competency to Stand Trial

After initially evaluating Lindauer, court appointed psychiatrists in New York argued that her clams of innocence and her willingness to produce witnesses to verify those claims were signs of delusional thinking. However, a Maryland based psychiatrist and two psychotherapists with whom Lindauer visited on a regular basis failed to support the notion of delusions or a debilitating mental illness. Lindauer has told federal authorities continuously that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and she offered to prove that in open court.

Prosecutors typically disparage appeals by defendants to delay or avoid trial based on psychological stress or suffering. This case is an exception. The United States Government is the party delaying the trial based on their claims of Lindauer's inability to assist in her own defense.

Today's testimony was limited to what is known as "lay" witnesses. Lindauer's expert witness, a distinguished psychiatrist and academic, will testify at a July 7, 2008 hearing that she's competent to stand trial.

Lindauer triggered today's hearing by refusing to attend court mandated counseling, a court requirement during her periods of release from 11 months of federal detention. In a recent interview in "Scoop," Lindauer said: "Since August, 2007, I have refused to go back [to court mandated counseling]. I told the Court the game is over. Go to trial or drop the charges, which are ridiculous anyway. They don't have a case, and they know it."

More Testimony by Dr. Godfrey and Kelly O'Meara

Dr. Godfrey's testimony contained some other elements of note. Lindauer's defense attorney, Brian Shaughnessy of Washington, DC, asked about Lindauer's personality and behavior. He said that she was "mercurial," subject to periods of joy and sadness in response to the events that she experienced. He also testified that he'd never seen her as having any mental impediments.

Kelly O'Meara was also called to the stand in Lindauer's behalf. O'Meara served as a senior congressional staffer for over two decades. She did investigative work for members of Congress on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 TWA Flight 800 crash on Long Island Sound in 1996. She's a former investigative reporter for Insight Magazine and the Washington Times and author of Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill, a recent book on the dangers of psychiatric medication.

When examined by the prosecution, O'Meara said that she had no reason to believe that Lindauer had a mental disorder. Prosecutor O'Callaghan then asked if she believed that she was qualified to make that judgment. O'Meara responded affirmatively saying that she could read the official diagnostic manual for mental disorders like anybody else and compare behavior with the list of symptoms provided.

Under questioning by defense attorney Shaughnessy, the witness described an after-work group that met every Thursday over a number of years at Capitol Hill's Hunan Restaurant. This group included Lindauer, 'O'Meara, and lobbyists and staffers who enjoyed talking politics and having a refreshment at the end of the day. O'Meara focused on her long term close friendship with Paul Hoven, who is described by Lindauer as an intelligence operative and one of her handlers.

The O'Meara-Hoven relationship included regular meetings over several years and frequent phone calls. O'Meara mentioned that Hoven enjoyed going to dinner at her sister's home and that she had accompanied Hoven to a shooting visit at the country home of a legendary intelligence figure.

O'Meara was asked if Hoven indicated any relationship with Lindauer. She responded that "I heard about Susan all the time from Paul." She also described him speaking with her frequently at the Thursday night group at the Capitol Hill restaurant.

O'Meara said that after Lindauer was sent to Carswell federal prison facility, O'Meara got a "strange call" form Hoven during which he said, "Susan's crazy." O'Meara said that she'd never heard Hoven make those remarks before Lindauer was sent to the federal prison facility began.

Lindauer's relationship with Hoven is a key part of her defense, with the Thursday night group as one of their frequent points of contact.

On cross examination, prosecutor O'Callaghan asked O'Meara if she would be surprised if Hoven had reported only a very few meetings with her throughout his entire life.

Visibly angry, O'Meara responded by saying, "I would be insulted."

Defense counsel Shaughnessy produced two witnesses, one a computer science professor and the other a reporter and congressional staffer. Together they provided the framework for Lindauer's claim that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and "lay" testimony that she did not impress either witness as having any type of mental or emotional problem.

The prosecution presented no lay witnesses.

After the hearing was over, Lindauer spoke to the press. She said, "I've been left out to dry" by those in the government who employed her services as an intelligence asset. She described efforts that she made to develop a major contact in Iraq to help with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.

Lindauer's next competency hearing is scheduled for July 7, 2008 before Judge Preska.

Spare no cost for truth's sake, neither depart from it for any gain. -Proverbs 23:23

Bestow not the gifts that God has given you to get worldly riches. -Proverbs 23:4

Offline HoneyMonkey

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 30
SUSAN LINDAUER was MICHELLE MALKINIZED when she blew the whistle on 911
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2008, 04:01:32 PM »
PLEASE have SUSAN LINDAUER as a guest!!!!

She has been through hell because she DID HER JOB as a qualified CIA asset.

It was her JOB to work with Iraqi intelligence. But she DID HER JOB TOO WELL! She had BANK ACCOUNT NUMBERS FOR AL QUAIDA. She knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. She could PROVE that every excuse for going to war with Iraq was A LIE.

So she went to JOHN McCAIN's and Trent Lott's offices to insist on testifying to congress. That's when SHE got ARRESTED and MALKIN-IZED.

She was sent to Carswell prison, inside an Air Force base in Fort Worth, Texas. Because she told several people that--whatever happened to her she would never commit suicide--our government flipped that 180 degrees and said, "She has talked about suicide. Therefore, she needs to be psychiatrically evaluated and declared incompetent." Then they tried and tried to get an order signed to chemically lobotomize her.

She was recently released, AND DESERVES TO HAVE A FORUM TO TELL HER STORY!!!

Alex: Imagine if you were Michelle Malkinized-BUT HAD NO WAY TO GET YOUR STORY OUT.

Give her the opportunity you would want and need.

Thank you!

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,655
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Former Accused Iraqi Agent Reveals Facts about 9/11 Warning
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2009, 01:18:55 PM »
Former Accused Iraqi Agent Reveals Facts about 9/11 Warning

http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2248&Itemid=2

Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Former Accused Iraqi Agent Reveals Facts about 9/11 Warning
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2009, 01:32:58 PM »
Dude, full post something with that kind of a title, please. (and nice catch)
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,655
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Former Accused Iraqi Agent Reveals Facts about 9/11 Warning
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2009, 04:50:14 PM »
My apologies Sane...here goes:

Susan Lindauer Blows the Whistle Again      
Written by Michael Collins   
Monday, 02 March 2009
Former Accused Iraqi Agent Reveals Facts about 9/11 Warning

The feds dropped all charges against Susan Lindauer, and now she's talking freely.  Michael Collins's interview with Lindauer covers the warnings provided to the Bush-Cheney administration prior to 9/11.  It presents entirely new information from an angel that will add substantially to knowledge that terrible attack.

 

March 2, 2009 Washington, DC (electionfraudnews.com) I first wrote about Susan Lindauer's struggle against the Bush-Cheney regime in October 2007, "American Cassandra: Susan Lindauer's Story."  This was initially published in "Scoop" Independent Media (complete series) and carried by a wide variety of concerned Internet news sites and blogs.  This interview follows the full dismissal of charges against her just before President Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009.  This is the first in depth interview that Lindauer has offered regarding 9/11.  Below is part one of the interview.

I asked Ms. Lindauer to make her own statement about why she's willing to go into detail now about 9/11 and the governments handling of pre-9/11 intelligence.
For five years, I was the poster child for President Bush's retaliation against Americans who opposed his War Policy in Iraq. In March, 2004 the Justice Department indicted me for acting as an "unregistered Iraqi Agent" (not espionage), because I delivered a prescient letter to my second cousin, Andy Card, former Chief of Staff to President Bush, warning of the dire consequences of War.

More dangerously, I had decided to talk. In February, 2004 I approached the senior staff of Senators Trent Lott and John McCain and asked to testify in front of the new blue ribbon Presidential Commission on Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence. Within a month, I was astounded to wake up one morning to hear FBI agents pounding on the door of my house in Maryland with an arrest warrant.

The indictment called me "Symbol Susan." It was a bizarre notation unsupported by any evidence or action in the indictment. It did however have one crucial purpose-to communicate a warning that anybody breaking ranks from the Bush White House should expect to be brutally crushed like I was.

To speak the truth under President George Bush was the worst crime of all. It was treason.

But what exactly was the U.S. government trying to hide?

The answer is more far reaching than you would expect. In the first article of this series written and edited with the help of Michael Collins, we talk about the 9/11 warning that my team delivered to the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department in August, 2001.

For those who think you've heard the whole story of 9/11, you might be surprised.

Susan Lindauer, March 1, 2009

Interview of Susan Lindauer by Michael Collins

Michael Collins: What confirmation can you provide that you actually warned about 9/11 several months before the attack?

Susan Lindauer:  On June 17, 2008 the Court granted the Defense our first and only pre-trial evidentiary hearing in five years, which allowed my attorney to begin confirming that my relationships with my intelligence handlers were fully authentic and involved counter-terrorism.

Dr. Parke Godfrey, an associate professor of computer science at York University in Toronto, testified under oath that starting in the year 2000, and several times in the spring and summer of 2001, I warned him that we expected a major attack on the southern part of Manhattan, and that the attack would encompass the World Trade Center.  Dr. Godfrey assured the Court that he had told the FBI about my 9/11 warning during a sit down interview in Toronto in September, 2004, which was jointly attended by a member of the Canadian Royal Mountie Police.

It's worth noting that Dr. Godfrey is a scientist and a precise, deliberate and methodical thinker, who chooses his words carefully. In style, he's been compared to Dr. Spock of Star Trek fame. He does Leonard Nimoy proud. He would make an outstanding witness at any congressional hearing.

Quoting from his testimony in June 2008, he said that I told him, "A massive attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan that would involve airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon."

He testified that I told him "the attack would complete the cycle of the first bombing of the World Trade Center. It would finish what was started in the 1993 (World Trade Center) attack."

Dr. Godfrey testified that I first mentioned the possibility of an attack in the year 2000, which coincided with the Lockerbie Trial. Then throughout the spring and summer of 2001, I described the threat much more specifically as "involving airplanes" and the World Trade Center.

In August 2001, I told him the attack was "imminent."

He testified that I urged him to stay out of New York City.

Collins:  What was your background that made it possible for you to issue this 9/11 warning?

Lindauer:  Throughout the 1990s, the U.S. used me as a back-channel to Libyan and Iraqi officials at the United Nations, seeking to leverage my anti-sanctions and anti-war activism to establish contacts within nations under sanctions, in support of anti-terrorism goals. I established contact with the Libyan Embassy in May, 1995, for the purpose of starting negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial. In that capacity, I met with Libyan diplomats approximately 150 times over the next eight years. I established contacts at the Iraqi Embassy in August, 1996. In addition to providing a back channel for terrorism intelligence from Baghdad, I conducted preliminary talks to resume the weapons inspections with Iraq's Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Saeed Hasan, and other senior Iraqi officials. Our purpose was to guarantee that Iraq would agree to rigorous U.S. standards for transparency in the inspections process before the matter went to the U.N. Security Council.

It must be emphasized that all of my work was heavily supervised by handlers from the U.S. Intelligence Community. And most unusually, from our first meetings, Iraqi and Libyan diplomats fully understood my motivations to assist in facilitating an end to sanctions, and that I would function as a back channel to contacts tied to the United States government. We wanted diplomats to use me for that purpose. There was no deceit involved.

Collins:  Who was your CIA handler?

Lindauer:  Dr. Richard Fuisz (FUZE) is the most fascinating individual I have encountered in my life.

Dr. Fuisz was a major CIA operative in Syria and Lebanon in the 1980s. Dr. Fuisz coordinated the hostage rescue of Terry Anderson et al out of Beirut, Lebanon. His team located their make-shift prisons and called in the Delta Force for a daring raid. He testified before Congress about U.S. corporations that supplied Iraq with weapons systems before the first Gulf War. He got outed as CIA by Damascus after stealing the blueprints for Syria's brand new telecommunications system.

Finally, Dr. Fuisz claims to know the real story of Lockerbie, including the identities of the terrorist masterminds, whom he insisted were not Libyan at all. It was he who suggested that somebody needed to approach Libya about the Lockerbie Trial. An individual who passionately opposed sanctions and recognized possible terrorist scenarios, he thought, would be ideal to start up the talks.

That was me.  Despite my ordeal, I am extremely proud of our work together. I remain deeply grateful that Dr. Fuisz invited me to embark on this extraordinary adventure inside the most interesting Middle Eastern embassies at the United Nations. I loved every moment of it.

Collins:  What first triggered your concern about a possible attack involving airplanes and the World Trade Center? How did Lockerbie figure into the 9/11 warning?

Lindauer:  The Lockerbie Trial in the year 2000 got us thinking of what the next terrorist scenario would look like. The bombings of Pan Am 103 in December, 1988 and UTA (French airlines) in September, 1989 were the last attacks involving airplanes prior to September 11, 2001. Our team worried openly that the Trial of the two accused Libyans would inspire a sort of "tribute attack" to the success of Lockerbie.

The problem is that while most Americans have refused to accept that Libya's man, Mr. Megraghi was innocent of the crime, it happens to be true. And terrorists groups know that. They know very well who was responsible for planting the bomb on Pan Am 103, and they know that those individuals have never been brought to justice. Indeed, throughout the Trial, when the U.S. made such a poor showing of forensic evidence against the accused Libyans, that U.S. failure was gossip throughout the Middle East. As Dr. Fuisz used to say, terrorist groups thought that for all the mighty resources of U.S. Intelligence, the U.S. was either too stupid to catch them. Or we were afraid because the real terrorists are "too big."

Either of those beliefs stood to create a huge and irresistible provocation to the younger generation of jihadis. It was an easy step to anticipate that younger terrorists would be inspired to launch a tribute attack to the "heroes" who came before them. On that basis, we drew up an extreme threat scenario that the next major attack would most likely involve airplane hijackings or airplane bombings.

That is exactly what happened by the way. Back in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden called Ahmed Jibril "a hero" and "the greatest fighter against Israel who ever lived."

Sure enough, my own extensive sources in the Middle East have repeatedly told me that Ahmed Jibril was the true mastermind of Lockerbie-And so we find the 9/11 puzzle fits together exactly.

Collins:  When did your concern jump from "hypothetical scenario" to the belief that an attack was actively being planned?

Lindauer:  I remember it all vividly. In April, 2001 I received a summons to visit Dr. Fuisz at his office in Virginia. We met almost weekly anyway. On this occasion, he phoned my home and asked me to come right away. He also inquired how quickly I was making my next trip to New York to see the Embassies. He wanted to talk to me before I left, and he wanted me to go soon.

Of course I visited him immediately. Dr. Fuisz demanded that I must warn diplomats at the Iraqi and Libyan Missions that their nations would suffer a major military offensive if it was discovered that either had possessed intelligence about possible airplane attacks, and failed to notify the United States through my back channel.

I was reluctant to deliver such a harsh message. I have always been an anti-war activist. That's a major reason for my success in dealing with the Arabs, because they appreciate the consistency of my opposition to violence on both sides. So, on my next trip to New York, I soft pedaled Dr. Fuisz's warning. I requested that diplomats send messages to Baghdad and Tripoli seeking intelligence on possible airplane attacks. But I made no threats of violent reprisal against them.

When I got home to Washington, I met with Dr. Fuisz, who demanded to know how diplomats had responded to his threat. I had to admit that I had stopped short of actually threatening them. But I assured him that I had requested their cooperation.

At that point, Dr. Fuisz became enraged. As I recall, in all our years together, there was never any other time that he lost his temper and yelled at me. He stormed up and down the room. He demanded that I must return to New York immediately, and I must tell diplomats "the United States will bomb them into the Stone Age, worse than they've ever been bombed before, if they don't help us identify any terrorist conspiracies involving airplanes. They will lose everything. We will destroy them." He was not pacified until I promised to deliver that message exactly as he had communicated it. He expressed great satisfaction when I promised that I would make sure they understood the warning came from him, not me, backed by forces above him.

Dr. Fuisz was determined the Arabs should know the threat was deadly serious.

Right then I knew terrorists were actively plotting an attack. This was more than checking our trap lines, or putting out inquiries. Something was moving. Dr. Fuisz was firing back to stop cooperation.

Reinforcing that tension, throughout the summer of 2001, Dr. Fuisz continued to prod and push hard for any fragment of intelligence from Iraq or Libya involving airplane hijackings or airplane bombings. He urged me not to filter intelligence or test its accuracy before informing him. During numerous meetings, he tried to explain how urgently he needed to collect even fragments of intelligence, whether it appeared to make sense to me or not. He begged me to hold nothing back.

That's when I knew that something bigger was going on. Dr. Fuisz was already onto it. Again and again, our talks turned to airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings in a reprise of the 1993 World Trade Center attack. It sounds uncanny but we all understood exactly what was going to happen.

In turn, I shared those fears and dangers with other friends and family, including Dr. Parke Godfrey.

All of us took the danger very seriously. Our team was strong, proactive and fiercely protective of American security.

Collins:  Ultimately, did Libya or Iraq provide any intelligence regarding the attack?

Lindauer:  No, they did not. After the attack, it became clear that neither country could have been party to the conspiracy. Gadhaffi and bin Laden hated each other. Back in 1995, Libya was the first country in the world to warn Interpol about Osama, and urge an international warrant for his arrest. Saddam's government hated him, too. Baghdad considered Osama's extreme brand of Sunni fundamentalism to pose a serious destabilizing threat to Iraq's moderate Sunni elite. Osama was a wrecking ball to Arab governments. They all despised him.

In fact, we pushed Iraq so hard for intelligence in the months before 9/11 that afterwards Iraqi diplomats aggressively challenged our U.S. claims of ignorance. A couple of diplomats put it to me bluntly: "Obviously you knew it was coming, because you kept telling us about it. So why didn't you stop it? Why didn't you do something before this, instead of blaming us now?  You should be blaming yourselves."

No, even before the 9/11 attack, I deduced that Dr. Fuisz's advance intelligence was derived from an entirely different source. It just happened to be one I had not expected.

Collins:  All right.  Who did you warn about this attack?

Lindauer:  By early August, 2001, our team was gravely concerned that an attack was "imminent."

When Robert Mueller was nominated to be Director of the FBI, we dallied with going to his confirmation hearings to put a buzz in the ears of congressional staffers about our fears.

Instead, Dr. Fuisz instructed me to telephone U. S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's office.

In mid-August, I phoned the staff of his private office at the Justice Department, which probably consists of about 20 people. Identifying myself as an asset covering Libya and Iraq, I made a formal request that his private office issue an emergency alert throughout the department for any fragment of intelligence pertaining to possible airplane hijackings or airplane bombings. I explained that we expected a major attack involving that scenario, and we urgently needed cooperation from all other agencies.

Ashcroft's office told me to contact the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department, and repeat what I had just told them. I did so immediately.

Collins:  What happened after that?

Lindauer:  I didn't stop there. Most Americans would be stunned to know that in mid-August, 2001, our team was so convinced a 9/11 style attack was imminent that I visited my second cousin, Andy Card at his house in Arlington, Virginia, so that we could warn him.

I parked on the street and waited in my car, chain smoking for almost two hours. Occasionally, I could see neighbors peering out of their windows. In my head, I rehearsed what I would tell the police if they showed up to investigate this strange car parked outside the house of the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.

Unhappily, he did not return home, and I finally left without sharing our fears.

Driving away, I remember feeling that I was making the greatest mistake of my life. Throughout all these years, it is one of my few regrets.

Collins:  Who appears to have been Dr. Fuisz's other source on 9/11?

Lindauer:  Dr. Fuisz never formally revealed his source to me. But within about 30 minutes after airplanes struck the Twin Towers, he blurted something to me over the phone.

He told me the Israeli Mossad had advance warning about the attack. As I recall, he said it before the buildings collapsed.

He asked me if I thought it was "an accident that a man and woman happened to be waiting on the sidewalk with a video camera, ready to record the attack." He was highly agitated. He challenged me "how often a bystander has a camera cued up to record a car accident?"

Then he said, "Those are Israeli agents. It's not an accident. They knew this attack was coming. And they were waiting for it."

I was outraged and shocked by the images on the television. I shot back something to the effect of, "You mean, we've been looking for an attack all this time! And the Israelis knew about it? And they didn't tell us?"  In retrospect, outside the passion of that particular moment, the Israelis may have told us much more than Richard Fuisz may have known.

Immediately the phone line cut dead between us.

I called him right back. Very calmly, he said, "Susan, we must never talk about that again."

There are a couple more details regarding this Mossad team with the video camera. Dr. Fuisz was able to announce their identities before the media publicized who they are. The attack was so new when he said it, that it seemed to me that he already knew about them.

I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

Collins:  Thank you Ms. Lindauer.  Part two of this series Susan Lindauer will describe the extraordinary efforts by the Justice Department to deceive U.S. Judge Michael Mukasey in the Southern District of New York of the authenticity of Ms. Lindauer's 9/11 warning.

Reprinted with permission of the author.

Michael Collins is a writer who focuses on clean elections and voting rights. He is the publisher of the web site ElectionFraudNews.com. His Scoop Independent News articles can be found here.
Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Offline oyashango

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,524
  • 43 Trillion and counting
Former Accused Iraqi Agent Reveals Facts about 9/11 Warning: Israel Knew
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2009, 10:44:05 PM »
             Former Accused Iraqi Agent Reveals Facts about 9/11 Warning


March 2, 2009 at 15:13:53
By Michael Collins

I first wrote about Susan Lindauer's struggle against the Bush-Cheney
regime in October 2007, "American Cassandra: Susan Lindauer's Story."  This
was initially published in "Scoop" Independent Media (complete series) and
carried by a wide variety of concerned Internet news sites and blogs.  This
interview follows the full dismissal of charges against her just before
President Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009.  This is the first in
depth interview that Lindauer has offered regarding 911.  Below is part one
of the interview.

I asked Ms. Lindauer to make her own statement about why she's willing to
go into detail now about 911 and the governments handling of pre 911
intelligence.

"For five years, I was the poster child for President Bush's retaliation
against Americans who opposed his War Policy in Iraq. In March, 2004 the
Justice Department indicted me for acting as an "unregistered Iraqi Agent"
(not espionage), because I delivered a prescient letter to my second
cousin, Andy Card, former Chief of Staff to President Bush, warning of the
dire consequences of War.

"More dangerously, I had decided to talk. In February, 2004 I approached
the senior staff of Senators Trent Lott and John McCain and asked to
testify in front of the new blue ribbon Presidential Commission on Iraqi
Pre-War Intelligence. Within a month, I was astounded to wake up one
morning to hear FBI agents pounding on the door of my house in Maryland
with an arrest warrant.

"The indictment called me "Symbol Susan." It was a bizarre notation
unsupported by any evidence or action in the indictment. It did however
have one crucial purpose-to communicate a warning that anybody breaking
ranks from the Bush White House should expect to be brutally crushed like I
was.

To speak the truth under President George Bush was the worst crime of all.
It was treason.

'But what exactly was the U.S. government trying to hide?

"The answer is more far reaching than you would expect. In the first
article of this series written and edited with the help of Michael Collins,
we talk about the 9/11 warning that my team delivered to the Office of
Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department in August, 2001.

"For those who think you've heard the whole story of 9/11, you might be
surprised."

Susan Lindauer, March 1, 2009

Interview of Susan Lindauer by Michael Collins

Michael Collins: What confirmation can you provide that you actually warned
about 9/11 several months before the attack?

Susan Lindauer:  On June 17, 2008 the Court granted the Defense our first
and only pre-trial evidentiary hearing in five years, which allowed my
attorney to begin confirming that my relationships with my intelligence
handlers were fully authentic and involved counter-terrorism.

Dr. Parke Godfrey, an associate professor of computer science at York
University in Toronto, testified under oath that starting in the year 2000,
and several times in the spring and summer of 2001, I warned him that we
expected a major attack on the southern part of Manhattan, and that the
attack would encompass the World Trade Center.  Dr. Godfrey assured the
Court that he had told the FBI about my 9/11 warning during a sit down
interview in Toronto in September, 2004, which was jointly attended by a
member of the Canadian Royal Mountie Police.

It's worth noting that Dr. Godfrey is a scientist and a precise, deliberate
and methodical thinker, who chooses his words carefully. In style, he's
been compared to Dr. Spock of Star Trek fame. He does Leonard Nimoy proud.
He would make an outstanding witness at any congressional hearing.

Quoting from his testimony in June 2008, he said that I told him, "A
massive attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan that would
involve airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon."

He testified that I told him "the attack would complete the cycle of the
first bombing of the World Trade Center. It would finish what was started
in the 1993 (World Trade Center) attack."

Dr. Godfrey testified that I first mentioned the possibility of an attack
in the year 2000, which coincided with the Lockerbie Trial. Then throughout
the spring and summer of 2001, I described the threat much more
specifically as "involving airplanes" and the World Trade Center.

In August 2001, I told him the attack was "imminent."

He testified that I urged him to stay out of New York City.

Collins:  What was your background that made it possible for you to issue
this 9/11 warning?

Lindauer:  Throughout the 1990s, the U.S. used me as a back-channel to
Libyan and Iraqi officials at the United Nations, seeking to leverage my
anti-sanctions and anti-war activism to establish contacts within nations
under sanctions, in support of anti-terrorism goals. I established contact
with the Libyan Embassy in May, 1995, for the purpose of starting
negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial. In that capacity, I met with Libyan
diplomats approximately 150 times over the next eight years. I established
contacts at the Iraqi Embassy in August, 1996. In addition to providing a
back channel for terrorism intelligence from Baghdad, I conducted
preliminary talks to resume the weapons inspections with Iraq's Ambassador
to the United Nations, Dr. Saeed Hasan, and other senior Iraqi officials.
Our purpose was to guarantee that Iraq would agree to rigorous U.S.
standards for transparency in the inspections process before the matter
went to the U.N. Security Council.

It must be emphasized that all of my work was heavily supervised by
handlers from the U.S. Intelligence Community. And most unusually, from our
first meetings, Iraqi and Libyan diplomats fully understood my motivations
to assist in facilitating an end to sanctions, and that I would function as
a back channel to contacts tied to the United States government. We wanted
diplomats to use me for that purpose. There was no deceit involved.

Collins:  Who was your CIA handler?

Lindauer:  Dr. Richard Fuisz (FUZE) is the most fascinating individual I
have encountered in my life.

Dr. Fuisz was a major CIA operative in Syria and Lebanon in the 1980s. Dr.
Fuisz coordinated the hostage rescue of Terry Anderson et al out of Beirut,
Lebanon. His team located their make-shift prisons and called in the Delta
Force for a daring raid. He testified before Congress about U.S.
corporations that supplied Iraq with weapons systems before the first Gulf
War. He got outed as CIA by Damascus after stealing the blueprints for
Syria's brand new telecommunications system.

Finally, Dr. Fuisz claims to know the real story of Lockerbie, including
the identities of the terrorist masterminds, whom he insisted were not
Libyan at all. It was he who suggested that somebody needed to approach
Libya about the Lockerbie Trial. An individual who passionately opposed
sanctions and recognized possible terrorist scenarios, he thought, would be
ideal to start up the talks.

That was me.  Despite my ordeal, I am extremely proud of our work together.
I remain deeply grateful that Dr. Fuisz invited me to embark on this
extraordinary adventure inside the most interesting Middle Eastern
embassies at the United Nations. I loved every moment of it.

Collins:  What first triggered your concern about a possible attack
involving airplanes and the World Trade Center? How did Lockerbie figure
into the 9/11 warning?

Lindauer:  The Lockerbie Trial in the year 2000 got us thinking of what the
next terrorist scenario would look like. The bombings of Pan Am 103 in
December, 1988 and UTA (French airlines) in September, 1989 were the last
attacks involving airplanes prior to September 11, 2001. Our team worried
openly that the Trial of the two accused Libyans would inspire a sort of
"tribute attack" to the success of Lockerbie.

The problem is that while most Americans have refused to accept that
Libya's man, Mr. Megraghi was innocent of the crime, it happens to be true.
And terrorists groups know that. They know very well who was responsible
for planting the bomb on Pan Am 103, and they know that those individuals
have never been brought to justice. Indeed, throughout the Trial, when the
U.S. made such a poor showing of forensic evidence against the accused
Libyans, that U.S. failure was gossip throughout the Middle East. As Dr.
Fuisz used to say, terrorist groups thought that for all the mighty
resources of U.S. Intelligence, the U.S. was either too stupid to catch
them. Or we were afraid because the real terrorists are "too big."

Either of those beliefs stood to create a huge and irresistible provocation
to the younger generation of jihadis. It was an easy step to anticipate
that younger terrorists would be inspired to launch a tribute attack to the
"heroes" who came before them. On that basis, we drew up an extreme threat
scenario that the next major attack would most likely involve airplane
hijackings or airplane bombings.

That is exactly what happened by the way. Back in the 1980s, Osama bin
Laden called Ahmed Jibril "a hero" and "the greatest fighter against Israel
who ever lived."

Sure enough, my own extensive sources in the Middle East have repeatedly
told me that Ahmed Jibril was the true mastermind of Lockerbie-And so we
find the 9/11 puzzle fits together exactly.

Collins:  When did your concern jump from "hypothetical scenario" to the
belief that an attack was actively being planned?

Lindauer:  I remember it all vividly. In April, 2001 I received a summons
to visit Dr. Fuisz at his office in Virginia. We met almost weekly anyway.
On this occasion, he phoned my home and asked me to come right away. He
also inquired how quickly I was making my next trip to New York to see the
Embassies. He wanted to talk to me before I left, and he wanted me to go
soon.

Of course I visited him immediately. Dr. Fuisz demanded that I must warn
diplomats at the Iraqi and Libyan Missions that their nations would suffer
a major military offensive if it was discovered that either had possessed
intelligence about possible airplane attacks, and failed to notify the
United States through my back channel.

I was reluctant to deliver such a harsh message. I have always been an
anti-war activist. That's a major reason for my success in dealing with the
Arabs, because they appreciate the consistency of my opposition to violence
on both sides. So, on my next trip to New York, I soft pedaled Dr. Fuisz's
warning. I requested that diplomats send messages to Baghdad and Tripoli
seeking intelligence on possible airplane attacks. But I made no threats of
violent reprisal against them.

When I got home to Washington, I met with Dr. Fuisz, who demanded to know
how diplomats had responded to his threat. I had to admit that I had
stopped short of actually threatening them. But I assured him that I had
requested their cooperation.

At that point, Dr. Fuisz became enraged. As I recall, in all our years
together, there was never any other time that he lost his temper and yelled
at me. He stormed up and down the room. He demanded that I must return to
New York immediately, and I must tell diplomats "the United States will
bomb them into the Stone Age, worse than they've ever been bombed before,
if they don't help us identify any terrorist conspiracies involving
airplanes. They will lose everything. We will destroy them." He was not
pacified until I promised to deliver that message exactly as he had
communicated it. He expressed great satisfaction when I promised that I
would make sure they understood the warning came from him, not me, backed
by forces above him.

Dr. Fuisz was determined the Arabs should know the threat was deadly
serious.

Right then I knew terrorists were actively plotting an attack. This was
more than checking our trap lines, or putting out inquiries. Something was
moving. Dr. Fuisz was firing back to stop cooperation.

Reinforcing that tension, throughout the summer of 2001, Dr. Fuisz
continued to prod and push hard for any fragment of intelligence from Iraq
or Libya involving airplane hijackings or airplane bombings. He urged me
not to filter intelligence or test its accuracy before informing him.
During numerous meetings, he tried to explain how urgently he needed to
collect even fragments of intelligence, whether it appeared to make sense
to me or not. He begged me to hold nothing back.

That's when I knew that something bigger was going on. Dr. Fuisz was
already onto it. Again and again, our talks turned to airplane hijackings
and/or airplane bombings in a reprise of the 1993 World Trade Center
attack. It sounds uncanny but we all understood exactly what was going to
happen.

In turn, I shared those fears and dangers with other friends and family,
including Dr. Parke Godfrey.

All of us took the danger very seriously. Our team was strong, proactive
and fiercely protective of American security.

Collins:  Ultimately, did Libya or Iraq provide any intelligence regarding
the attack?

Lindauer:  No, they did not. After the attack, it became clear that neither
country could have been party to the conspiracy. Gadhaffi and bin Laden
hated each other. Back in 1995, Libya was the first country in the world to
warn Interpol about Osama, and urge an international warrant for his
arrest. Saddam's government hated him, too. Baghdad considered Osama's
extreme brand of Sunni fundamentalism to pose a serious destabilizing
threat to Iraq's moderate Sunni elite. Osama was a wrecking ball to Arab
governments. They all despised him.

In fact, we pushed Iraq so hard for intelligence in the months before 9/11
that afterwards Iraqi diplomats aggressively challenged our U.S. claims of
ignorance. A couple of diplomats put it to me bluntly: "Obviously you knew
it was coming, because you kept telling us about it. So why didn't you stop
it? Why didn't you do something before this, instead of blaming us now?
You should be blaming yourselves."

No, even before the 9/11 attack, I deduced that Dr. Fuisz's advance
intelligence was derived from an entirely different source. It just
happened to be one I had not expected.

Collins:  All right.  Who did you warn about this attack?

Lindauer:  By early August, 2001, our team was gravely concerned that an
attack was "imminent."

When Robert Mueller was nominated to be Director of the FBI, we dallied
with going to his confirmation hearings to put a buzz in the ears of
congressional staffers about our fears.

Instead, Dr. Fuisz instructed me to telephone U. S. Attorney General John
Ashcroft's office.

In mid-August, I phoned the staff of his private office at the Justice
Department, which probably consists of about 20 people. Identifying myself
as an asset covering Libya and Iraq, I made a formal request that his
private office issue an emergency alert throughout the department for any
fragment of intelligence pertaining to possible airplane hijackings or
airplane bombings. I explained that we expected a major attack involving
that scenario, and we urgently needed cooperation from all other agencies.

Ashcroft's office told me to contact the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the
Justice Department, and repeat what I had just told them. I did so
immediately.

Collins:  What happened after that?

Lindauer:  I didn't stop there. Most Americans would be stunned to know
that in mid-August, 2001, our team was so convinced a 9/11 style attack was
imminent that I visited my second cousin, Andy Card at his house in
Arlington, Virginia, so that we could warn him.

I parked on the street and waited in my car, chain smoking for almost two
hours. Occasionally, I could see neighbors peering out of their windows. In
my head, I rehearsed what I would tell the police if they showed up to
investigate this strange car parked outside the house of the Chief of Staff
to the President of the United States.

Unhappily, he did not return home, and I finally left without sharing our
fears.

Driving away, I remember feeling that I was making the greatest mistake of
my life. Throughout all these years, it is one of my few regrets.

Collins:  Who appears to have been Dr. Fuisz's other source on 9/11?

Lindauer:  Dr. Fuisz never formally revealed his source to me. But within
about 30 minutes after airplanes struck the Twin Towers, he blurted
something to me over the phone.

He told me the Israeli Mossad had advance warning about the attack. As I
recall, he said it before the buildings collapsed.

He asked me if I thought it was "an accident that a man and woman happened
to be waiting on the sidewalk with a video camera, ready to record the
attack." He was highly agitated. He challenged me "how often a bystander
has a camera cued up to record a car accident?"

Then he said, "Those are Israeli agents. It's not an accident. They knew
this attack was coming. And they were waiting for it."

I was outraged and shocked by the images on the television. I shot back
something to the effect of, "You mean, we've been looking for an attack all
this time! And the Israelis knew about it? And they didn't tell us?"  In
retrospect, outside the passion of that particular moment, the Israelis may
have told us much more than Richard Fuisz may have known.

Immediately the phone line cut dead between us.

I called him right back. Very calmly, he said, "Susan, we must never talk
about that again."

There are a couple more details regarding this Mossad team with the video
camera. Dr. Fuisz was able to announce their identities before the media
publicized who they are. The attack was so new when he said it, that it
seemed to me that he already knew about them.

I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

Collins:  Thank you Ms. Lindauer.  Part two of this series Susan Lindauer
will describe the extraordinary efforts by the Justice Department to
deceive U.S. Judge Michael Mukasey in the Southern District of New York of
the authenticity of Ms. Lindauer's 9/11 warning.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Former-Accused-Iraqi-Agent-by-Michael-Collins-090302-909.html

zafada

  • Guest
Nice.  Very interesting.