Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


wikipedia has become a joke, they are calling everything under the sun "conspiracy theory" even Chem trails which are proven to be real. We have their documents on geo-engineering but its still a "conspiracy theory" imo Anonymous can pull the floorboards out from under wikipedia and i wouldn't give 2 you-know-whats

edit: didn't mean to derail, that video is very interesting, i hope more people come forward but these people will need some form of protection because the government is ruthless when trying to cover up their misdeeds, especially ones of this caliber.
edit on 11/15/2011 by smarterthanyou because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



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.


I completely agree,
if she was telling the truth she would have given the name of said pilot and what he was in prison for.
This information is as good as the OS of 911 there is no evidence. This is what I would expect to happened when circumstantial evidence supports a false flag and was done by a make believe bogyman (Bin Laden.) How many times has Bin Laden died in the past 10 years? Apparently the government cannot keep their fairytales straight.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
I think she could be telling the truth.

But she acts pretty stupid. After all, she agreed to be a CIA asset! That's a really easy way to get yourself killed.

She seems to think that "the military-industrial complex" is the bad guy in this story, and doesn't seem to realize the extent to which the CIA was playing her. She seems very willing to stick with the "compartmentalized" paradigm, even though she isn't working for the CIA any more. Or is she?

She comes across as a very trusting soul. If that is real, then that explains why she was so easily played and why no one sees her as a major threat. What she seems to lack is curiosity.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 



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.

Well, the fact that she is being refered to as "whistleblower" confirms my thesis that there is a rebuttable assumption only withing the "truth movement" that anything that is presented in affirmation of a "inside job" theory is true until proven false.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

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.


Lets face it, even if I had done a 200 page dissertation on her mental condition, if I didn't say her claims were worthy you would have accused me of being "brainwashed".



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
I disagree, but understand what you're saying and I think our disagreement is really just about the definition of whistleblower in this case (replace "whistleblower" with "person" in my earlier post and I think you'll be more comfortable acknowledging that it's a true statement). But I'm glad you're a part of this conversation - your natural assumption that everything indicative of conspiracy is false helps to balance our (my) tendency to assume everything indicative of conspiracy is true, which I'll totally admit to.

The truth is that sometimes you're probably right, sometimes I'm probably right, and most of the time the truth is probably somewhere in the middle ... we should both be looking for and discussing evidence rather than repeating our assumptions, and I do thank you for reminding me of that. I'll have some time to really look into this particular issue this weekend, and I'll post evidence if I can find it, or call hokum if I can't. If you have hard evidence - either supporting or debunking - I hope you'll do the same.

Cheers,



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


Well, if we look at how its being presented in that a "whistleblower" is swearing the Flight 93 was shot down then we have a couple of problems. Unless our person pulled the trigger or witness the event then the person is only swearing to know someone who did witness the event (the pilot) in which case the person's statement is hearsay at best. Not to get all legal or anything, but there is a good common sense reason why courts don't allow hearsay. Its not always reliable and difficult to corroborate. The next problem is the whole concept of covering up a shoot down. Why? Everybody and their brother in the administration openly admits that they would have shot down flight 93 had they had the chance so why the cover up? Who would you be protecting?



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Agreed about the hearsay. That's why I made it clear early on that the only thing she claims to bear witness of was the delivery of the prior warning about a hijacked plane attack on the World Trade Center as being imminent. She also claims to have been held in a prison under the Patriot Act which wasn't publicly labeled as a prison, accused of being a suspected Arab spy.

Not sure how much to believe here. I'm certain that our government knew that 9/11 was coming, but this woman doesn't seem very credible to me.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
I agree about the hearsay too. Without evidence, her statement doesn't hold up.

The second part of your post, though, goes straight to conjecture that has nothing to do with evidence. Why would anyone lie about a shoot-down? I don't know. I can't know. I can make statements based on my assumptions about how the military / government should behave, as you've done, but I don't really know what their motivation may have been, and I can't possibly prove or disprove anything by going down that road. You can't discount hearsay and then build an argument on conjecture.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


Well its not conjecture. That people in the administration admitted that they would have ordered the shoot down of Flight 93 is a matter of open record.

Which of course begs the question, why would you cover up something that you admit you would have done? You can't sweep that question away. It has to be answered. If you can't answer it in any logical or meaningful way then the cover up disappears, if the cover up disappears than that detracts from anything else the source is portraying.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

why would you cover up something that you admit you would have done?

That's a creative writing exercise, not a logical path for argument. None of us can assume we know what anyone's motivation really is.

That said, I like creative writing. Here are a few I can imagine...

1. Those involved, responding appropriately to a terrorist attack, were initially hesitant to acknowledge having given the order, and someone suggested a story of heroism and martyrdom which avoided an uncomfortable truth and served an agenda for going to war

2. Those involved, executing a carefully planned inside job, realized that the passengers had learned what was going on and were about to land the plane, making it necessary to bring the plane down and create a cover story of heroism and martyrdom, which buried the truth and served the agenda for going to war

3. Those involved, responding ineffectively to a terrorist attack, passed along the order outside of the proper chain of command and rather than conducting an investigation, someone suggested a story of heroism and martyrdom, which avoided an uncomfortable truth and served an agenda for going to war

4. Those involved, taking advantage of an unexpected terrorist attack to further their own agenda, tried and failed to rescind the order, and rather than conducting an investigation, created a story of heroism and martyrdom, which avoided the treasonous truth and served an agenda for going to war

5. Those involved, controlling all the day's events via telepathy from Rigel IV, decided not to reveal their presence to humans at this time and instead ordered their shape-shifting emissaries to issue a story which avoided an unbelievable truth and served an agenda for creating a stargate in time for 2012

Of course, I can't prove any of those, and I could keep coming up with more, ranging from the mundane to the ridiculous, and you could too if you wanted ... but there's never going to be a way to divine someone's motives unless they tell us, and even then we can't know for sure. And that's why I argued for looking at evidence instead of assuming. If there's evidence that the plane was shot down (and I think there is; not conclusive, but certainly enough to warrant further investigation), then the plane was shot down, regardless of whether you can imagine someone's motive or not.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


The problem with all those formulations is that the story of heroism is not something invented by the administration from nothing. We have records of the passengers calling loved ones and telling them that the passengers were going to get together and try something.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
Good point. I think there are more problems than that with #5, (
) but that's definitely something to consider for all the scenarios I presented, and makes some of them impossible or unlikely (I know there are people who will debate the calls being fake, but I don't see much evidence for that). Of course, it is possible that the plane was coincidentally shot down by a pilot who didn't know that the passengers were getting ready to do something, making #1-4 possible if I change "created" or "suggested" to "learned of and decided to promote."

Regardless, I appreciate you bringing evidence to bear rather than arguing from assumption, and I concede your point that I didn't take that evidence into account when imagining my scenarios, and I should have.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


I did not reply to #5 because I thought it was pretty obvious that you meant Rigel VII.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
Well played.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien



www.youtube.com...


Excellent video. Thanks for posting.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

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.



Thats right. Who says its impossible to proove a negative? If you know which pilots were on station that day, or even in the air, all you have to do is to see if any of the pilots are the same person this woman talks abou.

Apparently she didnt give a name, so we can only assume either way till we get dizzy. The point is to see if anything she said is an outright lie. One can divulge erroneous information for a variety of reasons, other than an outright lie, such as trusting in a source she believed as reliable. However in that case she had still the intent to put forward correct information at the best of her ablities and sources. However if we can show, that she puts out her lies, it shows her intent and we can disregard the interview.
edit on 17-11-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I thought the presentation was powerful.

I also see there is scepticism regarding proof as her testimony is not cooberated, for the most part.

I believe the ordeal attached for her efforts is telling by the gagging of this and other information and ultimately getting the wars that were planned.

Wow. Just Wow
and a rare S&F



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Human_Alien

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.


Lets face it, even if I had done a 200 page dissertation on her mental condition, if I didn't say her claims were worthy you would have accused me of being "brainwashed".



Mental condition? What proof do you have for that? Do you realize how often that is used to disqualify a person who otherwise is telling the shattering truth?

Oh so if a mental ward, that is funded by the government, assesses a person (with history-changing claims) to be deemed mentally off-balanced then, we're supposed to be okay with that?

Puh-lease.

Somehow and for some reason I bet if some of our politicians were disguised and evaluated by a random 'mental' institution, THEY wouldn't even pass the humanity part of the test.

Calling someone 'mental' is getting so played out that it has the opposite effect on many reader.s So, let them call these people (Bob Lazar, Gary McKinnon, William Cooper, Shirley MacClain etc) mentally challenged because the more they do the more it's likely not true.
edit on 17-11-2011 by Human_Alien because: grammar



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I like how she hints that her superiors were expecting the use of miniature thermonuclear bombs in New York. George Tenet hinted the same. The truth is in the details. No one could prep the twin towers for demolition in 10 days, unless they were deploying such devices. Makes sense to me! Thanks for posting, 911blogger haven't yet.






new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join