You are here

Ian Henshall joins debate over whether there were any 9/11 hijackings

Tuesday, Feb. 1st, 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon – 1 pm Eastern) on, to be archived here a few hours after broadcast…

Ian Henshall of is a leading figure in the UK 9/11 truth movement and the author or co-author of some of the best 9/11 truth books including 9/11: The New Evidence. He recently wrote to ex-CIA asset and 9/11 whistleblower Susan Lindauer and me to comment on our debate about whether there were any hijackings on 9/11.

Hi Kevin, Susan,

I’ve just been reading the debate between you and Susan L on the hijackers or not. My conjecture would be hijackers who could not fly because they were planning on a hostage taking; plus remote control… IMO there is some doubt as to whether there has been a good faith mixup between two Mohammed Atta’s or even whether (Daniel Hopsicker’s) informant Amanda Keller is reliable. (See interview with Atta’s girlfriend Amanda Keller.)

(Leading Mideast journalist) Robert Fisk told me that Ziad Jarrah’s parents believe he is still alive.

The BBC report (“9/11 Hijack Suspects Alive and Well“) has been qualified and when I emailed the reporter he backed off the report saying he had taken it from the Saudi news service and not checked it. The Saudis were at first opposed to the official story hence the stories about the living alleged hijackers but it seems they cut some sort of a deal with the US a few months later.

The problem with the claim that some are still alive is that no-one has produced a picture to refute the official line, which is that others may have the same name but they are different people.

It is my earnest opinion that even one picture like this would go round the world and quite likely break into the mainstream media in the NATO countries. Can’t you use Saudi contacts to dig up the old press reports there?

I’m told by someone with Saudi contacts that it is widely known there that several are still alive. I asked her to try to find a picture of one of the alleged hijackers after 9/11, preferably looking at his FBI mugshot, but she has not got back to me.

Susan: if you are ever in the UK, Reinvestigate 911 could possibly organise a public meeting and possibly a private one with legislators invited, but we don’t have much of a budget.

Ian Henshall
author 911 The New Evidence

2 Thoughts to “Ian Henshall joins debate over whether there were any 9/11 hijackings”

  1. Anonymous

    Glad to see someone calling Lindauer out on whether or not scary moozlems were involved in 911, as she implies. I wouldn't focus on the alleged "alive hijackers" though, unless you/we can produce them, then that's a dead end discussion. Focus instead on D.R.Griffin's article linked below, questioning Muslim involvement whatsoever in 911. I notice Lindauer is on with Rense tonight, and for all the good work Rense does, he still peppers his links with Islamophobic articles from the likes of Devvy Kidd and Frosty Woolridge, so I'm really not optimistic that Rense will seek to smoke Lindauer out on the Muslim involvement question. I posted the following to Phil Tourney's podcast comments after he'd interviewed Lindauer:

    The reason I remain skeptical of Lindauer:

    I’ve heard several of her recent interviews now. She ostensibly puts out a lot of “red meat” for 911 Truth researchers, even putting out some well-deserved Israel criticism, appealing to those who understand who orchestrated 911. Her story of being persecuted for “whistle-blowing” seems to add to her cred.

    But there’s an 800lb gorilla in the room which she continually remains “coy” about, and that is, does she believe scary moozlems conspired to, and did, conduct the “4 plane hijacking” part of the official 911 fairy tale?

    Indeed, Kevin Barrett explicitly proposed to Lindauer that there were no Arab hijackers, that 911 was mossad/zionist top to bottom, and Lindauer responded, “I think that you are– I do believe in the hijackings, but I believe in everything else that you have just said.” — HUH?!? What the heck does that mean? Here’s a partial transcript of that Barrett/Lindauer interview, check it out to get the full context:

    “Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?” (Answer: NO!)

    Lindauer loves to cite USraeli “FOREKNOWLEDGE” of “THE ATTACK” or “THE CONSPIRACY” months beforehand, but how they stayed strategically quiet because of what they figured they had to gain- even conceding that USrael conducted controlled demolitions of the WTC to ensure the desired public outrage. Then she further distracts us by ladling emotional gravy on that steaming “foreknowledge” turd by getting audibly furious at the notion. All the while she remains coy, tacitly leaving intact the BIG LIE that Arab/Muslim Jihadists ultimately hijacked 4 planes and crashed them, out of hate for America– the CORE LIE justifying the “War on Terror” hoax which we’re told won’t end in our lifetimes. This is a fake, LIMITED HANGOUT LIHOP version of 911 Truth, and it don’t fly.

    It’s analogous to “USS Liberty Truth” being co-opted & warped into: Israel had “FOREKNOWLEDGE” that the EGYPTIANS planned to attack the Liberty, but stayed quiet– then it was ultimately THE EGYPTIANS who attacked the Liberty out of hate-filled-hatred, perhaps believing that they had something to gain from the inevitable annihilation of Cairo which would obviously result. Would you be satisfied with a fraudulent Limited Hangout LIHOP version of USS Liberty Truth like that, Phil?

    If Lindauer is on with Mark Glenn Monday as promised, then let’s move the ball forward with her, and fish or cut bait accordingly. Let’s pin her down on what, if any, role she claims to believe scary moozlem jihadists played in the events of 911. Does she believe a global “al-CIAduh network” exists, as it’s defined in the official narrative of the “War on Abstract-Noun” hoax?

    If she insists on continuing to peddle a fraudulent Limited Hangout LIHOP version of 911 Truth, then as far as I’m concerned she’s still a spook.

  2. Anonymous

    Same "anonymous" as above here. I listened to Lindauer's hour on Rense tonight. Just more of the same Limited-Hangout-LIHOP song & dance, more "FOREKNOWLEDGE" of "THE ATTACKS", more distracting emotion-tugger theatrics over how angered she is by "the deceptions" surrounding 911, more reminders of how persecuted she's been for her outspokenness– all combined with continued coyness over the question of whether she pretends to believe scary moozlemists had any significant role in 911 or not (underlying implication throughout remained that she believes moozlemists ultimately perpetrated 911).

    Nearing the end of the hour I'd virtually given up on Rense pinning Lindauer down on the LIHOP vs MIHOP question. But in the last 5 mins, Rense pleasantly surprised me when, noting that there was much evidence of Cheney's active role in the 911 events, he asked Lindauer (paraphrasing): "Forget 'foreknowledge' for a second; to what extent do you think the government played an active role in the attacks of 911?" Lindauer coohed excitedly, remarking what a crucial question that was, and generally building up anticipation for a moment about this next bombshell she was going to share with the audience in answer to Rense's question. She lowered her voice to reflect the explosive revelation she was about to share, and said, "my CIA handler instructed me, to tell Iraq, that IF THE ATTACKS HAPPENED, then we would be attacking Iraq!" PFFFF!! That was her response to the LIHOP/MIHOP question: a useless non-sequitur relative to the question, a "revelation" which everyone already knew. Rense let it go and moved on.

    It's long since time for the authentic 911 Truth movement to dump Lindauer, stop giving her a platform to misdirect & waste everyone's time; she's still a spook, a distraction, a Limited-Hangout-LIHOP artist propping up the CORE 911/WARRENTERRA-HOAX LIE, namely that the "scary moozlemist threat" is real etc, next case.

    FWIW, at another point Lindauer promoted the "mini-nukes at WTC" theory (as shared with her by her CIA handler, of course); whatever, that "debate" is a trivial distraction relative to LIHOP/MIHOP question which is foundational to the validity or lack thereof, of the whole warrenterra hoax.

Leave a Comment