9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset

9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset

by Susan Lindauer (with Jim Fetzer)

It was my great pleasure to invite Susan Lindauer, a former CIA asset, who had extraordinary experiences conducting back channel talks with Saddam Hussein about resuming UN weapons inspections during negotiations prior to the invasion of Iraq, to speak at The Vancouver Hearings.

She had served as a conduit in communications between the US and Saddam, who had been cooperating with the United States and even offered to purchase 1,000,000 new cars from Detroit per year for the next ten years or, if that were not enough, for the next twenty, if the US would not attack his country.

Imagine what an impact that would have made on our economy if Bush and Cheney had not been dedicated to the invasion of Iraq?

We were told that Saddam had been involved in 9/11, that Iraq and al Qaeda were in cahoots, and that he was out to develop nuclear weapons and had attempted to purchase yellowcake from Niger, a fraud that was exposed by US Ambassador Joe Wilson, in retaliation for which his wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as an undercover CIA agent who was managing the most important intelligence operation in the world at the time to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

Dick Cheney and his minions did not take that kindly and revealed that Valerie was conducting this operation, which not only decimated the task on which it had embarked but no doubt led to the deaths of those who had placed their lives at risk by cooperating covertly with Plame and her associates.

This is only one of many crass and corrupt acts by our own Vice President, who was running an assassination ring out of his office in the White House itself, which appears to have been responsible not only for the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) for opposing the administration on Iraq but also Cpl. Pat Tillman, who had become disillusioned with the war and in a fatal error of judgment appears to have confided in Noam Chomsky, who in turn appears to have advised the White House that they had a problem, which they resolved by taking him out and fabricating a story of his death as a tragic and fateful “accident”.

While Chomsky has been lionized by the left for his courageous and outspoken criticism of one administration after another and has done brilliant work exposing the use of propaganda and disinformation in instances of intermediate significance, when it comes to major events, such as the assassination of JFK and the atrocities of 9/11. He has become an apologist, even dismissing the idea of conspiracy in the case of JFK on the grounds that, even if there had been collusion between parties, it was of no significance, since his death did not involve any major policy issues.

We are left to believe as though not invading Cuba, signing an above ground test ban treaty with the Soviet Union, withdrawing from Vietnam, shattering the CIA into a thousand pieces, cracking down on organized crime, cutting the oil depletion allowance, and abolishing the FED were not major policy issues! Chomsky’s theories of linguistics are as impoverished as his political stance on issues of this magnitude.

Chomsky may be doing the most damage to the 9/11 Truth movement, but others are playing subsidiary roles, even if they may have different reasons for doing so. Dan Rather would prefer the world would forget that, on 9/11, he broadcast a report about the arrest of two suspects in a van with enough explosives to do “great damage to the George Washington Bridge”, which has been confirmed by other sources. See, for example,

BILL HEMMER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thank you. Again, our apologies to our viewers about five minutes ago, but we do have an established connection now with CNN’s Deborah Feverick. The reports we’re getting now, two or three men arrested on the New Jersey Parkway. Deborah, can you hear me now?

DEBORAH FEVERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I can. That is the information that I am getting from two sources, that there was a van either on the New Jersey Turnpike or the Garden State Parkway, and that it was near the George Washington Bridge.

There were two or three men who were in the van that was pulled over. It is not clear why the van was pulled over, but when it was, law enforcers found tons of explosives inside of the van.

That is, right now, all I am hearing. But again, two to three people in custody, and we are trying to get more information on that right now.

HEMMER: Deborah, I don’t mean to put you on the spot here. Do you know where on the Jersey Turnpike this was? How far from New York City?

FEVERICK: We do not know that. We are looking into that. There is one report that it was on the New Jersey Turnpike. There is another report that it was very close to the bridge, if not on the bridge. So again, these details are emerging. We’re trying to piece them together. But that’s what we have so far, two to three people in custody, found with a van filled with explosives.

Even web sites that attempt to debunk these reports inadvertently confirm them, where, although Dan Rather opined that it wasn’t clear whether this van-load of explosives was related to the other events of 9/11, it is not rocket science to appreciate that they were connected. Indeed, we have a great deal of information that links Israel to 9/11 via the transfer of the WTC to Larry Silverstein, “the Dancing Israelis”, Urban Moving Systems, ICTS, and much, much more.

We know that Israel was complicit in the crimes of 9/11. Susan reports that a series of vans was also used to visit the Twin Towers late in the evening to prep the buildings for destruction. Even though some have continued to entertain the possibility US intelligence was incompetent and that 9/11 was simply “allowed to happen”, we now have persuasive information from an informed source, who should enable even the most naive to better understand that 9/11 was “an inside job” and that, as many of us have pieced together from other sources, where the US government attacked the US to promote a political agenda.

For her attempts to expose the truth about 9/11, Susan was arrested and prosecuted under the PATRIOT ACT, only the second US citizen to endure such a fate. She was incarcerated and tortured for five years and denied the right to legal counsel, even though she was innocent of any crime. This is a stunning indictment of what the United States has become, which our Founding Fathers would not recognize: a neo-fascist, militaristic police state, where surveillance is ubiquitous.

The Department of Homeland Security has now acquired more than a million rounds of .40 hollow-point ammunition, which is not even permissible in times of war under the Geneva Conventions. We know there are hundreds of FEMA camps around the country and that Congress has authorized the use of 30,000 drones to track American civilians. What she has to tell us should disturb every American, indeed, every citizen of the world who cares about human rights, due process, and simple decency.



August 13, 2012

My name is Susan Lindauer. I was one of the very few U.S. Intelligence Assets covering Iraq and Libya at the United Nations in New York from 1995 to 2003. As a back channel, I started talks for the Lockerbie Trial with Libya’s senior diplomats. I also conducted preliminary talks to resume weapons inspections with Iraq’s Ambassador Dr. Saeed Hasan, as part of a larger, comprehensive peace framework.

I submit this sworn affidavit as evidence of criminal actions by President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice.

This affidavit will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that those officials in the Bush Administration knowingly and deliberately practiced “command failure” to thwart the 9/11 attack. It will prove that those officials hyped a War with Iraq as a probable outcome of the attack, exciting motive and opportunity for an orphan intelligence team to lay explosives through the Towers to maximize damage and guarantee the outcome.

After the attack, White House officials compounded the crime of mass murder with perjury and obstruction of justice in the Federal Courts and the 9/11 Commission to a degree that would be punishable offenses for ordinary citizens.

I also accuse Larry Silverstein of profiteering from government lies about 9/11 to a degree that qualified as insurance fraud. Together with government officials, Silverstein committed multiple acts of perjury in the Federal Court of Chief Justice Michael B. Mukasey, the Southern District of New York — and obstruction of justice to protect the financial profits of his insurance scam.

This was done with full knowledge of the consequence — that a fellow American was subjected to false arrest, false imprisonment on a military base without trial or hearing, and threats of forcible drugging in prison, as a judicial effort to destroy knowledge of the CIA’s advance knowledge of 9/11 — thus safeguarding Silverstein’s profits. I know, because I was that American.

Any ordinary citizen would face prison for Silverstein’s crimes — and their attorneys would face disbarment —whereas Silverstein and White House officials got off scott free.

Above all, to understand why 9/11 was an “inside job,” it’s critical to understand that its completion resulted from opposing forces colliding against each other — one side working aggressively to stop the attack, and the other undercutting every proactive move.

This affidavit exposes their legacy.

I, Susan Lindauer, hereby swear under oath that I first learned of the 9/11 Conspiracy from my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, in mid-April, 2001.

In April, I received a summons to visit Dr. Fuisz at his office in Great Falls, Virginia. We met weekly anyway. On this occasion, he rang my home and asked me to come straight away. He inquired when I planned my next trip to the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations in New York. He wanted to talk before I left, and he wanted me to go soon.

This does not strike me as unusual. My back channel to Iraq and Libya existed to communicate messages back and forth from Washington, because those countries had no official ties with the United States. Most significantly, my team kept a special line open for intelligence on terrorist activities that Tripoli or Baghdad might need to share with the West. Even under sanctions and global isolation, the importance of intelligence to block terrorism was recognized as a necessary exemption to U.S. foreign policy isolating Iraq.

And so I visited Dr. Fuisz immediately. He instructed me to demand that Libya and Iraq must hand over any intelligence regarding conspiracies involving airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings. He insisted that I must warn Iraqi diplomats Baghdad would suffer a major military offensive— worse than anything Iraq had suffered before— if the U.S. discovered Saddam’s government had possessed such intelligence on airplane hijackings and failed to notify us through my back channel.

Admittedly, I was reluctant to deliver such a harsh message. I have always been an anti-war activist. So on my next trip to New York, I soft pedaled Dr. Fuisz’s message. I asked diplomats to send cables to Baghdad and Tripoli, watching for possible airplane conspiracies. But I made no threats of violent reprisal against Iraq or Libya.

When I got home to Washington, I met with Dr. Fuisz, who demanded to know how Iraqi diplomats (only) had responded to his threat. I admitted that I stopped short of delivering his full message. But I assured him that I had requested Iraq’s cooperation.

At that point, Dr. Fuisz became enraged. In all of our years together, I recall no other time that he lost his temper and shouted at me. He stormed up and down the conference room, letting loose a tirade punctuated with colorful obscenities. Dr. Fuisz demanded that I must return to New York immediately. I must not be polite. I must tell Iraqi diplomats exactly what he said.

“The United States would bomb Baghdad back into the Stone Age, worse than they’ve ever been bombed before, if they discovered a terrorist conspiracy involving airplane hijackings or airplane bombings and failed to notify us. They would lose everything. We would destroy them.”

There was one more point that Dr. Fuisz was adamant I must communicate: “Those threats originated at the highest levels of government,” and I quote, “above the CIA Director and the Secretary of State.”

Those were his exact words. And it was not ambiguous. It could only mean President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

As of that conversation, there was no doubt in my mind that the President’s Office and the CIA were fully cognizant of the existence of the conspiracy. Dr. Fuisz claimed the CIA lacked “actionable intelligence” to stop the attack. (That’s nuts and bolts—who, day, flight #, airport hub). But the conspiracy itself was known.

Dr. Fuisz was not pacified until I promised to deliver his message with all the force that he communicated. He expressed tremendous satisfaction that I would make sure

Iraqi diplomats understood the warning came from above the CIA itself—not from him or me— but from the highest levels of government “above the CIA Director and Secretary of State.”

In early May, 2001, I returned to New York and delivered that message exactly as he dictated.

Tension built throughout the summer of 2001. Practically every week, we discussed the 9/11 strike. By June, our focus turned to the World Trade Center. Our belief in that target was very precise. We believed the attack would finish the cycle started by Ramzi Youssef in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. And we fully expected that airplanes would be seized by hijackers and used as trajectory weapons to strike the Towers. No other target was ever discussed — not the Pentagon or the White House, only the World Trade Center.

We also discussed the possibility that a miniature thermo-nuclear device might raze the buildings. Throughout the summer of 2001, we were convinced the Twin Towers would be demolished, using a combination of explosives with the airplanes. That’s why Dr. Fuisz warned me to stay out of New York in August. Nobody worried that I might get hurt if the Towers collapsed. The CIA worried about exposure to military grade contaminants in the dust or air, including possible radiation.

Throughout June and July of 2001, Dr. Fuisz continued to push hard for any fragment of actionable intelligence from Iraq. After our first conversation in April, he never asked about Libya at all. Over and over again, Dr. Fuisz demanded that I threaten Baghdad — not Libya — if the strike occurred.

Every police officer will tell you a crime requires motive and opportunity. I know from direct conversations with Dr. Fuisz that six (6) months before 9/11, a cabal of pro-War neo-Conservatives at the top of the government was already prepping the Intelligence Community to accept War with Iraq as the inevitable consequence of the strike. That created “motive” and plenty of advance opportunity for any pro-War intelligence team to do the unthinkable — wire the Towers with explosives, to guarantee maximum destruction and secure the desired outcome of War. That’s what I’m convinced happened. The evidence certainly supports that conclusion.

As of May, 2001, Iraqi diplomats proposed an immediate solution to the 9/11 conspiracy. As of February, 2001, Baghdad agreed to allow an FBI Task Force into Iraq — to monitor radical Jihadis who might attempt to exploit Baghdad’s weakened central authority to launch terrorist strikes on its neighbors. The CIA made this demand through my back channel following the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, in October, 2000. From the opening days of the Bush Administration, Iraq agreed to show good will towards Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

When confronted with the 9/11 scenario, Iraq placated the U.S. masterfully: “Perhaps this would be the appropriate moment for the FBI to start its work —” the diplomat suggested. “If the United States is very worried, the FBI should come right away.”

The world knows that never happened. Over the summer, Iraq continued to invite the FBI, as U.S. warnings about 9/11 persisted. And I expressed frustration for the slow learning curve of the Bush Administration, which felt unnatural after eight years of rapid and decisive policy-making by the Clinton White House.

The 1990s have been called the Halycon Years of U.S Intelligence. From my perspective as an Asset, the arrival of George Bush felt like driving a high performance Maserati after some fool pours lower grade oil into the engine— and it starts clunking and sputtering and seizing up. You don’t know if the car will keep running until the mechanic’s ready to work on the problem— or if the car will die on the street.

That was Republican Policy on anti-terrorism before 9/11. Our problem was the CIA had to keep driving that car no matter what. And we had to block terrorist threats against the U.S, regardless of whether the White House was responsive to warnings about those threats— or not.

Before 9/11, the answer was “not.” I was not alone in feeling frustrated Throughout June and July, Dr. Fuisz beseeched me not to filter intelligence on the impending aerial strike on the World Trade Center. During our meetings, he would painstakingly explain how urgently he needed to collect even fragments of actionable intelligence on these airplane hijackings, whether it made sense to me or not. He begged me to hold nothing back. He appeared to be frantically searching for anything to pre-empt the strike. In fairness, a significant faction of CIA and Defense Intelligence urgently tried to stop 9/11.

Tensions accelerated to a head on August 2nd, the day of the Senate hearings on Robert Mueller’s nomination to head the FBI.

My heated conversation with Dr. Fuisz about Mueller’s confirmation accounts for why I recall the timing of events so precisely in the weeks before 9/11. I can pinpoint my actions to the day of the week because of this hearing.

In our opinion, Robert Mueller was such a political animal that we argued he would throw the FBI investigation into this future attack on airplane hijackings used to strike the World Trade Center! He’d do whatever was most helpful to politicians!

“You want me to crash the nomination hearings this afternoon? Lay a little truth on Congress?” I said to Dr. Fuisz.

“No. No, it’s too late for that.”

“Too late for the hearings? Or too late to stop the attack?”

“Both, I think.”

“You think it’s that soon???”

“I think it could be.”

I was aghast. The phone got quiet for a moment.

“We can’t do nothing, Richard.”

“Of course not.”

“I’m going to New York,” I said. “I’ll ask the Iraqis again. I’ll push them hard.”

“What? When are you going?” I recall vividly the alarm saturating his words.

“I’m going this weekend.”

“No, no. This weekend? Don’t go to New York, Susan. Don’t go. It’s too dangerous.”

“It’s just the weekend. The day after tomorrow. I’ll be up and back. I’ll stop by your office on Monday. I understand what you guys want. I’ve been pushing Iraqi diplomats all summer for any fragment of intelligence on this attack. They know what’s up. I will check if something’s come in from Baghdad.”

August 4th would be my last trip to the Iraqi Embassy and the Libya House before that fateful September morning. That’s something I deeply regretted for many years.

As it happens, there were extraordinary reasons for Dr. Fuisz’s concern. The “chatter” between terrorist cells monitored by the National Security Agency reached unprecedented levels by May 2001, which accelerated until September 11, 2001.

George Tenet

The U.S. Intelligence Community buzzed with warnings. On July 10, 2001, CIA Director, George Tenet, was so alarmed by a classified debriefing on the threat from Al Qaeda that he marched straight to the White House.

A top CIA analyst suggested a major attack was coming in the next few weeks. Apparently Tenet wasted no time alerting Condoleezza Rice in writing. He also brought along one of the CIA officers tracking

Bin Laden, who gave Rice an oral debriefing. Former Anti-Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke strongly endorsed the importance of the report. The CIA officer who gave the briefing said the nation had to “go on a war footing now.”

On Friday, Sept. 7, the State Department issued a worldwide alert— “American citizens may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups with links to [Osama bin Laden’s] al Qaeda organization.” That report cited intelligence from May, 2001 as suggesting an attack was imminent. The State Department bulletin warned “Al Qaeda does not distinguish between official and civilian targets.”

As one of the participants in those discussions, I am ready to swear under oath that U.S. Intelligence anticipated the attack in all of its precise detail. Intelligence predicted airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center—not the Pentagon or the White House.

What was missing was actionable intelligence to stop the conspiracy — who were the terrorists, how many, which airport, what airlines, what flight numbers. I was looking for a name. A number. A fragment. All summer Dr. Fuisz pleaded with me exhaustively to bring him anything at all. He swore that if I could get it, the NSA and CIA would bust overtime to flesh it out, and make sense of it, so that we could stop the attack.

I will prove now why action in August, 2001 (to maximize or stall the attack) was so much bigger than ever reported. .


By August, our hunt was becoming frenetic. I have physical proof that a second intelligence team was also ferreting for intelligence on the 9/11 conspiracy the weekend of August 4-5. During a speaking tour through Japan before the release of my book, “Extreme Prejudice,” I spoke extensively about our team’s aggressive actions in the critical week after Robert Mueller’s Senate nomination hearing.

Low and behold,when I returned from Japan, I discovered a copy of the original newsprint edition of the Wall Street Journal dated July 30, 2001— pinned by a rose quartz paper weight on my desk next to my computer, so that it would not get thrown away. The faded 10 year old newspaper was addressed to my boss at the street address of my consulting job in Silver Spring, Maryland during the summer of 2001.

That’s where I was working on August 2nd when I phoned Dr. Fuisz on the day of Robert Mueller’s nomination hearing. The Wall Street Journal proves that several weeks before 9/11 somebody had gone to the trouble of tracking down where my phone call to Dr. Fuisz originated.

That individual “visited” my office, no doubt seeking any scribbles or papers that I might have left around my desk, which might provide clues of what our team had discovered about the conspiracy so far. It’s standard practice to grab a newspaper off a desk in situations like that, as an accurate snapshot with the company’s name, address and date, etc. It’s a “proof of life.”

Rober S. Mueller

The July 30, 2001 edition of the Wall Street Journal would have been tossed in the trash weeks before the official 9/11 investigation kicked off. Ergo, it could only have been grabbed the week of Robert Mueller’s nomination hearing.

Yes, it indicates another intelligence team picked the locks to get into the office — (and tapped our phones). There’s a time when that sort of thing is necessary. And this would be it! I’m grateful for it. Our team urgently desired as much help as we could get.

This was a race to stop massive violence against the United States — not a competition. All of us gravely worried over what we all knew was coming. Intelligence teams are structured to function independently and overlap, but (most of the time) we’re on the same side, with the same shared goals.

On that note, I take umbrage at the lies that were invented by The 9/11 Commission over our so-called intelligence failures. Prior to 9/11, the Intelligence Community was accustomed to functioning on a superior and pro-active footing. U.S. Intelligence had rapid fire reflexes, and a reputation for attracting brilliant case officers. These were creative strategists and problem solvers. They were the best and the brightest.

The Intelligence Community was at the top of its game. It’s just not monolithic, like most civilians imagine. Teams are separate and joined to different factions, with different objectives and motivations.

That’s where 9/11 went to hell.

9/11 was not the result of mistakes. It was a deliberate execution. Though 90 percent of U.S. Intelligence tried to stop the attack, the compartmentalized structure of the intelligence community made it possible for a minority 10 percent to undercut all the good work and proactive planning of the others.

That’s what I believe happened on 9/11.

9/11 was an Inside Job that played a magician’s trick on the American people. All eyes were on the left hand — that would be airplanes crashing into the Towers — But the real action was done by the right hand. The controlled demolition of the Towers using a combination of military grade explosives.

There, I bow to explosives experts on the type of explosive devices and materials. There has been some excellent research on thermatic bombs, which produce such heat intensity as to melt steel, and create dust from a sulfur compound. [More recent research, however, especially by T. Mark Hightower, suggests that thermite / thermate / nanothermite could not have been the principal cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers.] Throughout the summer, we discussed the use of a miniature thermo-nuclear device. It could have been a combination.

The point I must underscore is that our discussions from June, July and August always presumed explosives would be used in combination with the airplane hijackings to destroy the Towers. I recall conversations where and how somebody could locate the necessary explosives inside the United States—even a nuke. How those explosives could be stolen from a military base in driving range to New York City. We always forecast the total destruction of the Towers in the attack, and predicted “mass human casualties.”

9/11 fit our scenario in all detail. And so, I insist, 9/11 was not an intelligence failure. There was active concern. Despite those efforts, it succeeded because a minority decided to smash any progress by the majority to thwart the attack. They were incited to act by wild leadership pronouncements that maximum destruction would provoke War with Iraq. Threats of war created motive for a second team to do the unthinkable.

The leadership egged them on. There are so many fail-safes and trip wires in place to trigger pre-emptive responses that it required a leadership decision to subvert the process.


On my last trip to New York on August 4, 2001, Iraqi diplomats threw up their hands. They’d been warned of the consequences for months if something awful happened. Retribution would be swift and severe. Nevertheless, even with his ear to the ground, Saddam and his vast network of Iraqi Mukhabarat could locate no actionable intelligence to give us. Saddam could not find it!

Instead, diplomats insisted the U.S. was the only source chattering about this airplane hijacking conspiracy. All intelligence reports originated from us, they claimed! Diplomats protested that Washington was demanding cooperation from Baghdad, yet took no action to send the FBI. If the CIA believed the conspiracy was real, we had options. Baghdad locked on to Washington’s failure to act as undercutting our sincerity.

My next face meeting with Dr. Fuisz took place on August 6, 2001. At the same hour of the same day, down at Crawford Ranch in Texas, President Bush was handed a memo from the CIA outlining the severe threat of a terrorist attack by Osama bin Laden’s network on the United States. I’m told President Bush tossed aside the CIA’s Presidential Briefing Memo: “Now you’ve covered your ass. Let’s go shoot some golf balls.”

Unaware that President Bush had just blown off the CIA’s explicit warnings about the airplane hijackings and the planned aerial strike on the World Trade Center, Dr. Fuisz and I decided to request emergency assistance from the Justice Department.

John Ashcroft

At the instructions of Dr. Fuisz, I telephoned the private office of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, consisting of about 20 senior staff. (Having worked in anti-terrorism for almost a decade, our team had all the correct phone numbers to raise the alarms in any terrorist crisis.)

Quickly I identified myself as the chief U.S. Asset covering Libya and Iraq at the United Nations. That way I could make sure the bureaucrat on the other end of the phone recognized my special access to high level intelligence on terrorism as a primary source, which should be weighed before disregarding my call.

Once I had the staffer’s attention, I made a formal request for Attorney General

Ashcroft’s office to “broadcast an emergency alert through all agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence pertaining to possible airplane hijackings or airplane bombings.”

I explained that we believed “a major attack on the United States was imminent, with a high probability of mass casualties.” I expressly stated that we believed “the target was the World Trade Center, which would suffer some sort of aerial strike, using hijacked airplanes.” I provided as many specific details as possible to help focus the investigation.

Given the dangers and timing of the attack, I asked that “our request for emergency cooperation should be given the highest priority.”

Immediately Attorney General Ashcroft’s private staff gave me a phone number at the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department, and urged me to repeat my message. I did so without delay. I repeated the warning in full detail, and requested that any possible information should be submitted immediately to all agencies.

With those phone calls to the Attorney General’s private staff and the Office of Counter-Terrorism, the U.S. government lost its cover of deniability. If I testified before the 9/11 Commission or any congressional inquiry—the Justice Department would have been forced to admit that some of its very own top staff received formal warning about the conspiracy by early August, when there was still time to coordinate a response, and thwart the demolition of the Towers.

I didn’t stop there. Most Americans would be stunned to know that in mid-August, our team was so convinced a 9/11 style attack was “imminent,” that I visited my second cousin, Andy Card, Chief of Staff to President Bush, requesting his intervention at the Justice Department, too.

Andrew Card

I parked on the street outside his house in Arlington, Virginia, chain smoking for almost two hours. (I quit in 2005!) Occasionally, I could see neighbors peering out of their windows and frowning at me.

In my head, I rehearsed what I would tell Virginia State Police or the Secret Service, if they showed up to investigate this strange car parked outside the home of the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.

Unhappily, Andy did not return that afternoon. I finally left without sharing our fears. Driving away, I distinctly recall asking myself if I might be making the greatest mistake of my life. Throughout all these years, it is one of my few regrets.

What I could not know, is that another intelligence faction was working aggressively opposite us—anticipating all of the protocols to stop the strike, and sabotaging our best efforts to activate the warning system.

Like the copy of the Wall Street Journal that appeared on my desk after my Japanese book tour, a trustworthy source revealed this to me after the first edition of my book, Extreme Prejudice had gone to galleys. The new second edition includes this information.


Late on the night of August 23, 2001, at about 3 a.m. security cameras in the parking garage of the World Trade Center captured the arrival of three or four truck vans. Visual examination determined the vans were separate and unique from trucks used by janitorial services, including different colors and markings. More curious, all the janitorial trucks had pulled out of the Towers by about 2:30 a.m — half an hour before the second set of vans arrived.

According to my source, who saw the tapes, no vans matching that description entered the parking garage at that extraordinary hour in any of the weeks or months prior to August 23. It was a unique event.

Security cameras caught the vans leaving the Towers at approximately 5 a.m — before the first wave of Wall Street tycoons arrived to track the Asian markets.

For the next 10 to 12 nights, the same mysterious vans arrived at the World Trade Center at the same mysterious hour — after the janitorial crews had left the building and before the robber barons on Wall Street started their work day. The vans clocked into the parking garage from approximately August 23, 2001 until September 2 or 3, 2001.

After that last night, they never appeared at the Towers again. The vans were never heard of again, either. The 9/11 Commission was never informed of their surprising presence on 10 consecutive nights up to the week before the 9/11 strike.

Were the vans transporting explosives into the Towers — or transporting gold reserves out? Or possible some combination of the two? We cannot be certain.

Video from those security cameras in the parking garage could be the most significant missing evidence of the 9/11 puzzle. My source was convinced those mysterious trucks transported explosives into the Towers, so that this unidentified orphan team could finish wiring the World Trade Center for a controlled demolition.

My source has stayed quiet to protect his government job, his retirement pension and his reputation — knowing that others who spoke up have gotten fired or thrown in prison.

Like me.


Unlike others who could be bullied into silence (or bought off), I was adamant that I wanted to talk. I made one fatal mistake. I requested to testify through proper channels. I declared my intention to show how 9/11 intersected with Pre-War Intelligence. My testimony before a blue ribbon Presidential Commission on Pre-War Intelligence would have disclosed the existence of a comprehensive peace framework — and Baghdad’s eager efforts to cooperate with the 9/11 investigation.

My testimony would have put 9/11 into a larger global perspective — which most Americans still don’t understand to this very day.

It’s greater insight as to why the Pro-War Cabal urgently required a Pearl Harbor Day, in order to overcome international loathing of another War in Iraq.

I should have known better than to trust Congress. Thirty days after I phoned the Offices of Senator John McCain and Senator Trent Lott, I woke to find the FBI pounding on my front door. At that point, I gained a new distinction as the second non-Arab American arrested on the Patriot Act, facing secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony. I was held under indictment for five years without a Trial—and thrown in prison on Carswell Air Force Base in Texas for a year, without a hearing.

To Washington’s greatest shame, the Patriot Act, which Congress proclaimed a key judicial weapon to break up terrorism in the United States, was first used to stop a whistle blower from telling the truth about 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence.

Over my fiercest objections, on Carswell Air Force Base, I was declared “incompetent to stand trial” and threatened with forcible injections of Haldol, a zombie drug that imitates the stone-like effects of Parkinson’s Disease.

That’s an old intelligence tactic from the Cold War, designed to scare into Assets into silence. Believe me, the threat can be very effective.

All the while, the Justice Department aggressively lied to the Court about my team’s 9/11 warnings.

That subterfuge was no accident (as the corporate media would like the public to believe). Chief Justice Michael Mukasey was also hearing the financial lawsuit brought by Larry Silverstein, owner of the World Trade Center, and his insurance claims for 9/11.

I recall distinctly Silverstein’s high-priced New York attorneys strutting into Court, while I got shackled and marched off to my cell, and my public attorney chatted.

Silverstein’s attorneys could not have been ignorant of the ferocity of our debate. The Courtroom was abuzz with my outrage and urgent pleas that my Intelligence team had full knowledge of the 9/11 Conspiracy, and tried to warn the Bush Administration officials about the dangers of the impending attack.

Silverstein’s attorneys heard it all — including my frantic appeals not to be forcibly drugged without a hearing to prove that I had warned about 9/11.

It was a tangled web of deceit from start to finish.

Even the bailiffs looked at me with eyes filled with horror.

The pretense of my “incompetence” was an outrage to protect White House and Congressional leaders.

Unhappily for Silverstein’s attorneys and the Bush Administration, they quickly discovered that I warned civilian friends about the 9/11 style of attack, too — particularly friends with family or professional ties to New York City.

That’s where the Feds got crossed up.

Four years almost to the day before my sworn testimony at the Vancouver Tribunal on 9/11 — on June 17, 2008, a Canadian Resident named Parke Godfrey, who lives in Toronto, was sworn in to testify at the Federal Courthouse of Manhattan. The Courthouse stands 1,000 feet from Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center once graced the New York skyline.

Godfrey’s testimony was a watershed moment for the 9/11 community. For 4 ½ years prior to that day, the U.S.

Phil Berg, Susan Lindauer, and Parke Godfrey

Justice Department had fought savagely to stop his testimony from reaching public ears.

Despite the public’s ignorance, Godfrey’s revelations were already notorious to the U.S. Attorney General’s office, the Office of Counter-Terrorism, the FBI, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons — not to mention top officials at the White House, CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency.

Parke Godfrey was one of my closest friends in Maryland, working on his Ph.D. in computer science at the University of Maryland in College Park.

His family lived in the Connecticut suburbs of New York City. We spoke frequently by phone, socializing a couple of times a week, and shared much of the same political outlook.

Godfrey has a distinguished career as a tenured Professor of Computer Science and Technology at York University in Toronto, Canada. He presents a calm, studied demeanor. He speaks precisely and methodically, choosing his words carefully — what some friends have teasingly compared to Dr. Spock of Star Trek. During difficult courtroom questioning, he would frequently pause and take his time to give an accurate, thoughtful response. He proved a superior witness by any measure.

In shattering testimony, Godfrey told the Court how several times in the spring and summer of 2001 I warned him that we expected a major terrorist strike that would encompass the World Trade Center.

BRIAN SHAUGHNESSY, Attorney for My Defense: “Did there come a time when she was concerned about a possible attack on the United States?”

GODFREY: “She had described that.”

SHAUGHNESSY: “What did she describe?”

GODFREY: “In particular, she warned me when I was job hunting and considering

potential work in New York— because I liked New York City– that New York City was dangerous. In particular she was predicting that there was going to be a massive attack here. In southern Manhattan. This was before 9/11.”

“So when I was looking for the job at William and Mary, which was late 2000 – I was at York University, but looking at other universities [for a sabbatical] – she warned [me] not to consider New York because she thought an attack was imminent here.”

SHAUGHNESSY: “Continue, please.”

GODFREY: “I asked her about the nature of it. She said that she thought it would be something very, very big. I asked her, “Well, what do you mean?” She said that it would involve airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon. She said that what was started in ‘93, she thought was going to come back.”

SHAUGHNESSY: “What was that she referenced as having started in ‘93?”

GODFREY: “Well, the attempt on the World Trade Center at the time.”

SHAUGHNESSY: “Did she believe, or was she telling you that very shortly there was likely to be another attack of that nature?”

GODFREY: “She did. She said that it would complete the cycle of the 1993 attack. And she said that there would be an attack in late summer, early fall.”

“In August, she told me that she thought it was some time imminent.”

SHAUGHNESSY: “Now, did you know any of the things that she was doing that might have given her access to information, that might lead to a prediction of that nature?”

GODFREY: “Well, I had known that she was active in trying to prevent escalation with what turned out to be the war in Iraq.”

At another point, Godfrey detailed the Justice Department’s knowledge of my 9/11 warnings.

GODFREY: “In September, 2004— I was interviewed by the FBI in Mississauga [adjacent to Toronto], in the presence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP insisted on this, as the interview was in Canada, and I was a Canadian resident. I spoke with FBI special agent Suzan LeTourneau.”

“While the interview focused on mundane details of Ms. Lindauer’s life, I told {Special Agent] LeTourneau that Ms. Lindauer had predicted the 9/11 attack throughout the spring and summer of 2001, and that her prediction was very specific. It involved airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center.”


Parke Godfrey’s testimony sworn under oath in the Federal Courthouse in Manhattan provides irrefutable proof that the FBI received confirmations of my 9/11 warnings by September, 2004 — a few months after my arrest —

Michael Mukasey

and before the 9/11 Commission issued its report. In truth, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan had time to alert the 9/11 Commissioners about this shattering revelation.

Instead, they made a decision to withhold exculpatory knowledge from the Court of Chief of Justice Michael B. Mukasey — who was hearing arguments from Larry Silverstein’s attorneys seeking a massive insurance settlement. Twelve months later, I got shipped off to Carswell Prison, while the Justice Department vigorously denied all knowledge of my 9/11 warnings. Once I was in prison on Carswell Air Force Base, the Justice Department argued vigorously that I should be forcibly drugged with Haldol, Ativan and Prozac until I stopped claiming to have warned about the attack.

Godfrey’s testimony proves the Cover-Up Conspiracy was widespread throughout the Justice Department.


GODFREY: “In early December 2005, a few months after Ms. Lindauer had been sent to Carswell Prison, I spoke with the psychologist handling her competence evaluation for the Court. I attempted to confirm that Ms. Lindauer had made predictions of a terrorist attack in Manhattan to me and others prior to the 9/11 attack. He seemed to have no interest in hearing this. Our conversation was brief.”

“While she was still detained in prison, I offered to travel from Toronto and testify

at any hearing on her mental competence, on what I knew of her political activities before her indictment, about warnings of terrorist attacks, and other aspects which might interest the Court.”

“I attended the hearing on forcible drugging in May, 2006. In fact, I arrived at Court, assuming that I was to testify. Her attorney, Sam Talkin, did not call me. In conversation that day, I told him that she made warnings of a terrorist attack to me and others, in advance of 9/11. I told him that I was mortified by what the Court seemed to be doing.”

He expressed concern for the legal competence of my attorney, Mr. Talkin as well.

GODFREY: “I made myself available to speak with the investigator working for her defense attorney. I was prepared for a lengthy conversation, including a discussion of Ms. Lindauer’s 9/11 warning. I was surprised when the investigator cut short the conversation after only five to ten minutes. His questions seemed far inadequate for the scope of the indictment against Ms. Lindauer, and for what I felt I had to share with her Defense Attorney.”

GODFREY: “Several months later, I contacted Ms. Lindauer’s uncle, Ted Lindauer, and spoke with him at greater length about several issues in her case, including her 9/11 warnings. I can verify that Ms. Lindauer felt compelled to seek her uncle’s assistance interviewing witnesses for her case, before she got sent to Carswell.”

Godfrey’s cross-examination with the Prosecutor on 9/11 was aimed at sowing confusion. The Prosecutor tried to dismiss my 9/11 warning as “a premonition.”

Godfrey adamantly corrected him that it was “a prediction— not a premonition.”

And he stuck by it, never deviating from the word.

For the sake of further clarity, he submitted an affidavit on my team’s 9/11 warnings, which cuts through the Prosecutor’s attempts to deflect the impact of my warning.

GODFREY: “Ms. Lindauer’s original warning to me in 2000 was somewhat vague, describing her opinion that a terrorist attack would occur in New York City. I recall that by the spring and summer of 2001, her warning became much more emphatic and explicit. She got much more agitated about the likelihood of the attack.”

“Ms. Lindauer confided on several occasions that the next terrorist attack would involve airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings.”

“In the spring and summer of 2001, she claimed it would reprise the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. She described it as completing the cycle started in that first attack.”

“She definitely tied the threat of airplane hijackings to some sort of strike on the World Trade Center—and the possible use of a miniature nuclear bomb. That’s what she was predicting.”

“In August, 2001, Ms. Lindauer told me the attack was “imminent. She warned me to stay out of New York City. She told me the situation was very dangerous, and that a lot of people would get killed in this attack. She expected heavy casualties.”

Godfrey disputed the notion of my incompetence whole heartedly, and roundly castigated the Justice Department.

GODFREY: “In my opinion, contrary to the Justice Department lawyers, Ms. Lindauer is now, and always was, competent to stand trial. The decision to accuse her of incompetence was baffling to myself and many others. I was forced to conclude that it was likely politically motivated to block her request for a trial.”

“Throughout this entire ordeal, Susan Lindauer suffered harassment. She faced inexcusable delays in setting a trial date, (or dropping the charges). She was repeatedly questioned in court over the reliability of her terrorist warnings, despite that her warnings had been corroborated by me and by many others in affidavits, and under oath in spoken testimony. She was incarcerated in a mental facility, within a federal prison for 7 months,

1,600 miles from her home for supposed observation. And then held in confinement for months afterwards.”

“The FBI and the US Attorneys Office’s behavior in Ms. Lindauer’s case were abhorrent. It is quite clear that much more was going on.”


At the defendant’s table, I recall a grim satisfaction of triumph. My mind flashed back to those terrified nights at Carswell Air Force Base and the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, writing frantic, tearful letters to Judge Mukasey at 2 in the morning.

Everything I said was truthful always. Within a few months of my arrest, the FBI, the US Attorneys Office in Manhattan — even the Royal Canadian Mounted Police — were fully aware that a private citizen outside the Intelligence Community stood ready to authenticate my 9/11 warning in a Court of Law.

Notably, Godfrey’s testimony could not be suppressed by secrecy laws. His revelations would have created serious blowback for Congress. Politicians, pundits and the 9/11 Commission strongly denounced “conspiracy theorists” who believed action should have been possible to prevent the strike, or substantially cripple its impact.

The 9/11 Commission Report would have been exposed as an egregious public fraud on so many levels. The truth would be out in the open. That provided a strong motivation for the Justice Department to fight my demands for a trial, or even a hearing.

This affidavit proves that 9/11 was an Inside Job. There were countless ways to stop the attack, which were defeated systematically. Afterwards, the 9/11 investigation was crafted to hide shocking decisions by White House leaders and Attorney General John Ashcroft, which enabled the attack to go forward as planned. And profits were shoveled out to Larry Silverstein, at the expense of freedom, and the lives of our fellow Americans.

Shame on the White House and Congress! Shame on the Justice Department! Shame on the greed of Larry Silverstein! Shame on the CIA for saving the politicians! They don’t deserve praise for their national security policy!

If you want to know who committed 9/11, turn on the television or look in the mirror!

The enemy is Us. It was always Us.

Sworn by


Susan Lindauer,

Former U.S. Intelligence Asset

This Day of ___________________


Susan Lindauer, a graduate of Smith, sent a letter protesting plans to illegally invade Iraq to President George W. Bush, for which she was harassed, prosecuted, and incarcerated, even though she had been a CIA and DIA asset, which she writen about in Extreme Prejudice (2010).

This entry was posted in Analysis, Middle East, Northern America, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.