Susan Lindauer

Status
Not open for further replies.

CharlieB

New Member
Hi, new to the forum, just wanted to check whether this woman's story has been debunked or not?

I've searched the forums without result, so forgive me if her story's already been dealt with.

This is the video that first introduced her story to me:

An appearance on RT's 'Breaking the Set' (Begins at 2:10):

This is what Wiki has to say about her:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

She seems to give off a frantic vibe that would normally set off alarm bells with me, but if her story's true, if the manner and length of her incarceration is accurate, then that's hardly surprising.

I guess I just want to know if anyone's read her book or delved into any of the claims she's made, i.e. has she been debunked yet?

P.S. For perspective, I'm from Rogan's crowd, and this site has gone a long way in convincing me to let go of a lot of the more fanciful aspects of the conspiracy.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You can't really debunk something like that, unless there are claims of evidence. My impression is that she's a somewhat delusional person who had Washington contacts through her work and family, and somehow imagined herself in a far more important position than she was actually in. She attempted to meet with foreign agencies to try to change the world, and managed it (the meeting part) to a degree because of her connections, but it ultimately came crashing down. Essentially, as described, a "misguided peacenik".

The videos are a little long. Is there any actual verifiable evidence in them? Or is it all just her story?
 

CharlieB

New Member
At a guess, I'm assuming the majority of her claims are a case of her word vs those involved.
I haven't read her book though, so I'm not entirely sure of all of the claims and haven't been able to track down more than 'can't comment' comments from the people mentioned by searching online.

I agree she seems a touch delusional, there's a smidge of crazy in her eyes and mannerisms. If there is any truth in what she's saying, and given the ferocious way she was dealt with by those in power, I'd be a little crazy too. I think her partner died during her incarceration, fighting to get her out. I think that's part of the reason why I'm finding it hard to dismiss her.
 

Elfenlied

Member
I remember the Lindauer case mainly for the way the judge dismissed the opinions of the psychiatrists regarding the likelyhood of forced medication making her fit to stand trial, and the risks involved. Instead of a court order for forced medication it looked more like psychiatric practice on trial (or at least the way it was practised by the witnesses in this case).

"
Too much errors to correct after pasting from scribd, so I'll leave it at that, but the transcript is well worth a read.

expert witness testimony starts around page 567: http://www.scribd.com/doc/46046645/US-v-Susan-Lindauer-NYSD-448-F-Supp-2d-558-2006


Regardless of whether you believe her story or not, or think the accusations by the government had merit, it's hard to understand why they want to prosecute someone who they admit is not fit to stand trial and who was in that state of mind when she supposedly acted as a foreign agent...
 

CharlieB

New Member
Thanks for that, quite an interesting read.

I'm not sure how to take the bits in bold.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In her own defense, she says:

 

Attachments

  • lindauerdeclaration.pdf
    97.1 KB · Views: 1,226
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Of course there are enough people in the conspiracy culture who are perfectly fine with psychic gifts being real, so they will naturally see her as being perfectly reasonable.
 

CharlieB

New Member
I wouldn't dismiss psychic abilities out of hand, but when her credibility's on the line, that's enough for me.
 

Elfenlied

Member
Of course there are enough people in the conspiracy culture who are perfectly fine with psychic gifts being real, so they will naturally see her as being perfectly reasonable.

Susan Lindauer obviously has some weird ideas and beliefs, but many others do as well; Bush thinks God speaks to him, some people talk to spirits, remember a previous life, predict the future with Tarot cards. Wouldn't make them unreliable witnesses to an accident (not more than most people anyway). Lindauer seems able to make the distinction between what is real for others and what is real for her. So I wouldn't dismiss a priori the "worldly part" of her story because of her psychic beliefs, although it does of course raises serious doubts about credibility.

Employed by three members of congress and one senator, weekly meetings for seven years with a former Navy Lt. Commander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fuisz) "to discuss her diplomatic contacts in the Middle East, specifically her work related to the lifting of U.S. sanctions against Libya and Iraq" (according to wikipedia).

Two persons claim she warned them in the summer of 2001 about something happening in NY: (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/m...s-mission-to-baghdad.html?pagewanted=7&src=pm)
She claims it was Fuisz who told her they expected an attack on the WTC and ordered her to find out if the Iraqis knew anything about it... Fuisz background is quite interesting. Served in the executive office of the president, had a whole string of companies, including a modelling agency, made trips to Russia looking for models(?); sold his company Medcom to Baxter International and revealed documents showing Baxter violated the anti-boycott against Israel resulting in a 6.5 million fine for Baxter; he testified in 1992 about Terex building scuds in Iraq with the blessing of the CIA, Terex' involvement was proven 13 years later in documents handed to the UN by the new regime.
He broke off contact with Lindauer after 9/11.

There are just three (realistic) possibilities as far as I can see:
- she, her brother and Parke Godfrey are lying.
- she had some vision that summer about a disaster and warned them. That something actually happened is sheer coincidence. (maybe she constantly warned people about disasters striking...)
- Fuisz told her something might happen.
 

CharlieB

New Member
It's a shame really, there seems to be some smoke, but the claims can't overcome who she clearly is.

The truth might be somewhere in-between but I'd be more inclined to believe that she'd be six feet under if her claims were the literal truth.

tbh I'm not 100% sold either way, but the whole psychic, spontaneous prophecising lark means it's a dead end for me.

You can't in good conscience pass on her story to someone minus the warts, and if I'd heard this stuff before seeing the vid, I woudn't have made it a minute in.
 

d floyd

New Member
in the job of hunting bad guyes in IRAQ, as I did,,,, WE DID FIND OUT THAT THE THINGS GOING ON IN OUR GOVT can be stranger than fiction... so susan may not be wrong after all
 

MichaelStox

Member
Susan Lindauer obviously has some weird ideas and beliefs, but many others do as well; Bush thinks God speaks to him, some people talk to spirits, remember a previous life, predict the future with Tarot cards. Wouldn't make them unreliable witnesses to an accident (not more than most people anyway). Lindauer seems able to make the distinction between what is real for others and what is real for her. So I wouldn't dismiss a priori the "worldly part" of her story because of her psychic beliefs, although it does of course raises serious doubts about credibility.

Employed by three members of congress and one senator, weekly meetings for seven years with a former Navy Lt. Commander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fuisz) "to discuss her diplomatic contacts in the Middle East, specifically her work related to the lifting of U.S. sanctions against Libya and Iraq" (according to wikipedia).

Two persons claim she warned them in the summer of 2001 about something happening in NY: (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/m...s-mission-to-baghdad.html?pagewanted=7&src=pm)
I highly doubt that this is just another coincidence.

There is so many "coincidences" to a person subscribing to a conventional viewpoint surrounding this event that it's mindboggling. The biggest ones that stick out besides this one are John 'O Neill's and Richard Andrew Grove's stories.

CFR has been accused of being a shady organization with primary purpose of protecting global corporate & strategic interests. John O' Neil was one of the instrumental heads investigating Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in FBI where he grew very vocal with his complaints about his investigations being thwarted in the months leading up to 9/11. He was removed from his position and lured into a new position at WTC by Kroll, Inc (parent company's chair was the vice president of CFR) where he died on 9/11. Kroll, Inc. was also responsible for WTC's security.

Richard Andrew Grove worked for SilverStream based in WTC where he discovered a security flaw which allowed for financial fraud. He brought this to the attention of his co-workers who started documenting what they saw. After bringing this to the attention of their superiors many times they were finally scheduled a hearing and asked to bring all of their evidence. The meeting was on the 93rd floor of the North Tower in the morning of 9/11 where they all died. Richard Andrew Grove was to be at the meeting as well; but he got stuck in traffic that morning and was forced to watch what happened to his co-workers and friends.

These are just a few of hundreds of bizarre "coincidences" surrounding that day.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What exactly do you think is the odd coincidence there? Pick the most "bizarre". See if it actually holds up to scrutiny.
 

MichaelStox

Member
This is the most "bizarre" to me.

This was one of the top guys investigating Bin Laden/Al Qaeda. He was instrumental in the capture of Ramzi Yousef, who was the leader of the terrorist group who was behind the 1993 WTC bombing. According to his informant, Janet Parker, O'Neil was stopped by the FBI just months prior to 9/11 from getting a wire tap on a major terror cell leader, Shadrack Manyathella, who had ties to Mohammad Atta. He's lured into a position by a corporation headed by the vice chairman of CFR (Nicholas Rockefeller who predicted 9/11 eleven months before it happened to Aaron Russo was also a CFR member) where he's ironically killed by his arch nemesis. You don't find that odd in the least?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This was one of the top guys investigating Bin Laden/Al Qaeda. He was instrumental in the capture of Ramzi Yousef, who was the leader of the terrorist group who was behind the 1993 WTC bombing. According to his informant, Janet Parker, O'Neil was stopped by the FBI just months prior to 9/11 from getting a wire tap on a major terror cell leader, Shadrack Manyathella, who had ties to Mohammad Atta. He's lured into a position by a corporation headed by the vice chairman of CFR (Nicholas Rockefeller who predicted 9/11 eleven months before it happened to Aaron Russo was also a CFR member) where he's ironically killed by his arch nemesis? You don't find that odd in the least?

Not really. Three thousand people were killed. It's inevitable that some of them would have such connections. I imagine there's quite a list.
 

James S.

New Member
The "I have been told" element of the video (starts around 30m) is all over the place. She starts talking about "videos", "my friend", "they", "tracked the janitorial vans", "couple means 3",... it all starts to sound like a lunatic trying to push an angle.

"My friend told me absolutely it was a thermite bomb"
How would they know this? Is she trying to argue that her friend having tracked the vans, went in and found the bombs, confirmed their configuration and left them there?!?

She uses some odd turns of phrase, like claiming "bona fide" was some CIA term instead of the regular phrase that it is.

"I'm sure he did this" and then not happy with the emphasis changes it to "I know he did this". If she knew, she would have said that in the first place.

She seems to be implying that the US government were auto-piloting the planes into the building and then goes on to talk about GPS signals being a 10 and not a 4. That GPS works at a certain altitude. More lunatic ramblings.

"Boosting" to help them fly into the buildings?!?

... and so on and so on.

James
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
She seems to be implying that the US government were auto-piloting the planes into the building...

Verifiable absolutely wrong. ALL of the jets exceeded AutoPilot control authority parameters that day (such as bank angles, airspeed over limits, etc).

...and then goes on to talk about GPS signals being a 10 and not a 4.

Don't have a clue what that is supposed to mean. But in any case, NONE of those jets in the year 2001 were equipped with GPS navigation capabilities. This is also easy enough to validate as true.
 

James S.

New Member
I think she was on a roll, and ruined what little credibility she had by spewing out what she felt the crowd wouuld iappreciate. She went from CIA asset to scientist/conspiracy-theorist. Shame, I thought she did a pretty reasonable job up until around 30m.
 

Maybe?

New Member
I got sucked in to Susan's "You Tube" video by accident. The more I watched the more plausible it become. Then I started checking out the posts on the net. Now I don't know. I saw a post attributed to her yesterday, that "I hate Israel and Zionism."
I can't verify that it was indeed her post but it was a repost from "Twitter." Ok, a lot of people feel that way right now but IF she did post that she certainly has not help her psychological image to the public. I am almost sorry I ordered her book "Extreme Prejudice" and sorry the "Patriot Act" being a law. I have read many of the comments about her on the net and now I am not sure about her. Some of her rant is believable some not.
 

Jason

Senior Member
I got sucked in to Susan's "You Tube" video by accident. The more I watched the more plausible it become. Then I started checking out the posts on the net. Now I don't know. I saw a post attributed to her yesterday, that "I hate Israel and Zionism."
I can't verify that it was indeed her post but it was a repost from "Twitter." Ok, a lot of people feel that way right now but IF she did post that she certainly has not help her psychological image to the public. I am almost sorry I ordered her book "Extreme Prejudice" and sorry the "Patriot Act" being a law. I have read many of the comments about her on the net and now I am not sure about her. Some of her rant is believable some not.
Typical behavior from someone who was a nobody and then became a voice. Now she feels her voice matters, and in an attempt to justify her "position" in society she offers up her true self which was hidden behind false pretenses to push her CT's about 9/11.
 

Maybe?

New Member
I get "The Rest of the Story" Paul Harvey would say, but....I don't think it would be wise to dismiss all of what she said. Unless one has lived all of your life on another planet the rest of us has over time been observers of what our government does outside of the Constitution. If one thinks certain segments of the government is "above board" then pray you never come face to face with those segments. There are people in our government who will "on command" take you out no questions asked. If you don't believe that then there is no point in discussing that. It is a wonder Susan Lindauer has not had a "road accident" or "suicide" or "drowned" or just plain dropped dead with "no apparent cause".
I am not saying I believe her story in total but there are elements that the government would not want to discuss it is easier to write her off as a "nut case."
What I would like to see is someone with unquestioned creditability weigh in on Susan Lindauer. Like maybe Retired General Colin Powell, Bob Woodward or George Mitchell.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
Not really. Three thousand people were killed. It's inevitable that some of them would have such connections. I imagine there's quite a list.
When you add the part he cared, and he was helping people, it becomes more of a, he was helping others, he took responsibility - he could have been safe, but he picked to help.

Her evidence shows how the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Lindauer explains how thermite bomb, “an extraordinary heat-reducing bomb” which “takes steel” and “creates molten steel,” with potential sulphur in it was planted at the buildings.
This debunks Susan Lindauer - no steel was touched by thermite bombs, and no melted steel was found. If she can't get the easy stuff based on real evidence right, how can you believe the rest of her BS? Where is evidence for her claims? The thermite is a bad sign for her credibility - it is like she is using 911 truth claims to manufacture a fantasy.

http://consciouslifenews.com/top-secret-northwoods-rebirth/
This web site uses Susan's fantasy/hearsay to build on thermite, yet includes a reference to FEMA appendix C which proves it was not thermite. The author has no clue the FEMA Appendix C debunks thermite, so he quote mines the report thinking it supports melted steel, he has no clue what a eutectic is, and failed to get the help of a Chemical Engineer.

Susan L's hearsay and BS fuels the 911 truth movement engine of perpetual woo.
 

James S.

New Member
I got sucked in to Susan's "You Tube" video by accident...
Plenty of folks get "sucked in" also. We all desire answers, although sadly the answers are most likely gross incompetence and arrogance.

The idea that some harmless whistle blower brings down a bunch of evil wrong doers is too tempting :)
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
When you add the part he cared, and he was helping people, it becomes more of a, he was helping others, he took responsibility - he could have been safe, but he picked to help.


This debunks Susan Lindauer - no steel was touched by thermite bombs, and no melted steel was found. If she can't get the easy stuff based on real evidence right, how can you believe the rest of her BS? Where is evidence for her claims? The thermite is a bad sign for her credibility - it is like she is using 911 truth claims to manufacture a fantasy.

http://consciouslifenews.com/top-secret-northwoods-rebirth/
This web site uses Susan's fantasy/hearsay to build on thermite, yet includes a reference to FEMA appendix C which proves it was not thermite. The author has no clue the FEMA Appendix C debunks thermite, so he quote mines the report thinking it supports melted steel, he has no clue what a eutectic is, and failed to get the help of a Chemical Engineer.

Susan L's hearsay and BS fuels the 911 truth movement engine of perpetual woo.

What you say isn't true. Thermite residue has been positively identified and there are credible witnesses that saw molten steel running beneath the rubble. Also we have all seen the backhoe claw holding rubble dripping molten metal.

I want to know, not whether SL is "credible" or not but the fact checks, by the numbers, of her statements of fact. Example: She says that Iraq invited the FBI to investigate. The FBI is an organization internal to the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Thermite residue has been positively identified and there are credible witnesses that saw molten steel running beneath the rubble. Also we have all seen the backhoe claw holding rubble dripping molten metal.
please link the evidence you are referring to so that members arent talking about different things. and @Keith Beachy please also provide links when you answer. We dont need a big he said/she said repeat of the molten steel argument which has already been discussed in multiple threads.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
There were reports of molten metal and reports of molten steel.
There is no physical evidence of the later and very little for the former.
Molten aluminum is known to be common in fires, therefore reports of unspecific molten metal are irellevant.
Molten steel is commonly reported in many fires.

Of the reports of molten steel, there are two choices, either it is true that molten steel was present at the Manhattan fires, or they are false/in error. Same goes for the reported molten steel in other fires.
If the reports in other fires where molten steel is reported are true then it is not uncommon and therefore of no consequence in the Manhattan fires.
If the reports in other fires are false/error, then it demonstrates that false reports of molten steel are common and therefore require definitive physical evidence. Such evidence has never been produced.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Molten metal hardens and when it does... unless it was poured into a mold you can pretty much tell how the solidified metal came to have the shape it does. So where are the examples of the cooled solid formerly molten metal from the WTC site? Any photos? Are they stored in a warehouse or displayed in a museum? Wouldn't they have been studied by NIST?
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
"So where are the examples of the cooled solid formerly molten metal from the WTC site?" For those of us who weren't there there are only videos, which are readily available. There is a photo of a short standing remnant of one of the core columns. In the photo it has suffered a diagonal slice, severing it. Around the slice is previously molten metal which has dripped down its side.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
"So where are the examples of the cooled solid formerly molten metal from the WTC site?" For those of us who weren't there there are only videos, which are readily available. There is a photo of a short standing remnant of one of the core columns. In the photo it has suffered a diagonal slice, severing it. Around the slice is previously molten metal which has dripped down its side.

The photo you refer to was falsely promoted by Steven Jones as evidence of the use of thermate to CD the towrers... but was taken post clean up when some remaining columns had to be removed and stood 6 (72') stories tall. I believe the technique for such heavy sections was to rig the standing column to a crane hoist, diagonally cut the column and maneuver it to horizontal where it could be more easily re cut and then loaded on to a truck for removal. The column extended down 7 stories into sub basement and was buried in rubble... so it's length was 10 stories... far too long to be removed from the site.
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
The photo you refer to was falsely promoted by Steven Jones as evidence of the use of thermate to CD the towrers... but was taken post clean up when some remaining columns had to be removed and stood 6 (72') stories tall. I believe the technique for such heavy sections was to rig the standing column to a crane hoist, diagonally cut the column and maneuver it to horizontal where it could be more easily re cut and then loaded on to a truck for removal. The column extended down 7 stories into sub basement and was buried in rubble... so it's length was 10 stories... far too long to be removed from the site.

Whether or not it was promoted by Steven Jones, it does show the solidified drippings of molten metal and that was the purpose of my post, i.e. to debunk the notion that there was no evidence for molten steel. The solidified steel droppings are far larger than what would be created if that column were cut by an oxy-acetylene torch.You provide no corroboration or citations for what you say about the columns. Jones' evidence for thermate was his analysis of dust from samples taken far from ground zero.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member


Whether or not it was promoted by Steven Jones, it does show the solidified drippings of molten metal and that was the purpose of my post, i.e. to debunk the notion that there was no evidence for molten steel. The solidified steel droppings are far larger than what would be created if that column were cut by an oxy-acetylene torch.You provide no corroboration or citations for what you say about the columns. Jones' evidence for thermate was his analysis of dust from samples taken far from ground zero.

Ha? How do you know that the slag "drippings" were not consistent with the column being cut with a lance for site clean up? I believe there are photos of this very column being cut as I described. It is evidence that.... THAT solidified metal was from a clean up process not a demo process. This diagonal cut column has been "dedunked" for years.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
Ha? How do you know that the slag "drippings" were not consistent with the column being cut with a lance for site clean up? I believe there are photos of this very column being cut as I described. It is evidence that.... THAT solidified metal was from a clean up process not a demo process. This diagonal cut column has been "dedunked" for years.

As per this thread for example

https://www.metabunk.org/the-angle-cut-at-ground-zero-clean-up-or-evidence-ofa-cd.t6826/
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member



The grey molten material clearly covers much of the cut surface of the column, as well as dripping down the inner and outer faces. Therefore it must have been produced during the cutting process - otherwise how could it have got onto the freshly cut surface?


And the molten slag certainly looks like the material left behind by a thermic lance:

http://www.krl.com.au/whatisalance.htm

upload_2016-8-4_15-6-21.png
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.

Whether or not it was promoted by Steven Jones, it does show the solidified drippings of molten metal and that was the purpose of my post, i.e. to debunk the notion that there was no evidence for molten steel. The solidified steel droppings are far larger than what would be created if that column were cut by an oxy-acetylene torch.You provide no corroboration or citations for what you say about the columns. Jones' evidence for thermate was his analysis of dust from samples taken far from ground zero.

Charly, I have a couple quick questions for you if you don't mind answering. I keep hearing about all this Controlled Demolition and that Thermite was used etcetc. The ones that I've never seen answered are:

How did the thermite get there in the first place? Were people toting this stuff up in buckets days, weeks or months before the attacks? Were the beams coated with this stuff during the building construction process way back in the day? If not, how was the thermite applied to the beams without anyone noticing? Is there any actual evidence to support answers for ANY of the questions I posed, other than E911T sites... I'm talking documents for people to do work in the building, in those specific areas etc.

I'm an open minded guy, convince me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top