Rebekah Roth has, in my opinion, blown the lid off of the lies surrounding the events on 9/11. Facts which are outlined in her recently released book, Methodical Illusion; a book, as of this writing, that is #1 on the Amazon Best Seller List for its category.--NorthWestLibertyNews
Poster Comment:
Roth’s research reveals ALL of the 911 cell phone calls from the passengers to their families and friends were actually made on the ground after the 4 planes landed at a remote military airfield and listen to what her research reveals about passenger 9B. This is a must listen. I agree with NorthWestLibertyNews's opinion that Rebekah has blown the lid off the 9/11 lies.
Wtg, christine. Cyni may well have stroked out on this one.
One can hope! It seems that our super aviator either doesn't know or care that cell phones didn't work on commercial airliners. The last time I tried it was on a flight to christine's, NO SIGNAL ever, and the plane didn't crash, this was part of our discussion on that visit.
It'll take more than facts or science to wake-up that old fool.
Keep in mind that we're also talking about 2001 technology here. While it may not seem that relevant, advances have been enormous.
Exactly! If you could bring a plane down with a cell phone, computer, Ipod, or radio would they really let you take them on the plane, or confiscate them like water bottles and shampoo. Cell phone call circa. 2001- 02 from cruising speed and altitude, I call bullshit.
Exactly! If you could bring a plane down with a cell phone, computer, Ipod, or radio would they really let you take them on the plane, or confiscate them like water bottles and shampoo. Cell phone call circa. 2001- 02 from cruising speed and altitude, I call bullshit.
Rebekah Roth is not a whistle blower. She is a researcher. While very plausible, her hypothesis is just that. It is backed by no references, and she takes forever to get to it.
Her hypothesis is that the planes were commandeered by remote control ("a flight termination system") and landed at nearby airports shortly after takeoff. NORAD and FAA computers were manipulated to show phony flight paths after the jets had actually landed. She calculates that the two jets that left Boston landed at Westover Air Base near Springfield MA. The passengers were told they were participating in a drill and asked to make scripted cell phone calls. One handler is even overheard saying "You did great!" on an answering machine recording. Then the passengers were murdered in cold blood.
After wading through 300 pages of the author walking her dog on Puget Sound and a lame romantic plot, there are some worthwhile scraps. For example, apparently ten of the hijackers are still alive. Mohammed Atta's father said his son worked for Mossad and called him Sept. 12. There are no Arab names on the original passenger manifests; no security camera images; no passenger stubs.
None of the above constitutes "solving 9-11." Roth has a notion that dummy planes were flown into the Trade Center towers. I don't believe any planes crashed into the WTC or the Pentagon. The filmmakers and "eye witnesses" were CIA plants and the planes were dubbed in later. She has nothing about the complicity of the US political elite, media, CIA or military on 9-11.
Roth describes the villains as "the Octopus," Israel and its enablers, consisting of traitors in US government, media and society. Her heroine and a friend alert the President, "Joel Sherman" of an Israeli plot to set off nuclear bombs in US cities and sow deadly viruses. This will be blamed on Iran and result in war. - See more at: henrymakow.com/#sthash.q4rTIMvu.dpuf
Roth has a notion that dummy planes were flown into the Trade Center towers. I don't believe any planes crashed into the WTC or the Pentagon. The filmmakers and "eye witnesses" were CIA plants and the planes were dubbed in later.
WTC attacks were drones, ie. airliners or tankers converted to appear as passenger aircraft yet were remotely controlled. There were at least tens of thousands of witnesses to the WTC attacks; I doubt they were all "CIA assets". Not to mention every single news agency was covering the event as it unfolded, I doubt all of them were reporting on non-existant events being staged from a central control center in real time.
I think those who insist the no-plane tale is absolute fact are in reality actively involved in the obvious coverup, sowing discord amongst the "truthers", and "proving" to others who actually believe the official government lies concerning 9/11 that all "truthers" are stark raving lunatics.
The Pentagon attack was most likely a drone as well, being substantially smaller than an actual airliner, yet painted to appear as one from a distance.
What better way to get rid of pesky evidence at the WTC than totally demolishing the evidence by way of demolition, and removal of any lingering debris to China?
If those buildings HADN'T "fallen down", there'd have been NO way for their plan to have worked.
What better way to get rid of pesky evidence at the WTC than totally demolishing the evidence by way of demolition, and removal of any lingering debris to China?
That was the greedheads at work as they couldn't wait to rebuild...and there was nothing left to *demolish*...I looked down on that hole for three months before I couldn't take it any more...
BTW, the evidence was demolished due to the "collapse" of the towers. If the towers had NOT collapsed, there would have been intact remains of the aircraft in each tower. If they were not the reported aircraft, well, we most likely would be living under a different government by now since the perps would have been hauled off in handcuffs.
There were semi-intact remains of the aircraft outside of the towers. I saw some myself.
I'm just curious, were you NYFD or something? I'd think the site would be restricted after the crash/collapse. I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I don't care what really happened that day one way or another anymore. I guess my interest in this clusterfuck of a thread stems from me being a pilot before "Texting Woman" destroyed my life.
No. I worked at a company whose NY headquarters are at 1 Liberty Plaza (165 Broadway) and I sat right at the Northwest corner of the building...
I do have a dozen or so NYFD friends and one relative as well as a few NYPD who were on site all day. That's why I know the WTC7 BS is just that. They all saw the South face of the building and knew that it was going to collapse...
That's why I know the WTC7 BS is just that. They all saw the South face of the building and knew that it was going to collapse...
Pure BS. A weak south face does NOT cause a total collapse across all four corners of a building resulting in a free fall as if there's nothing in the way.
That's why I question your truthfullness in what you "report". You could well have been in Idaho on the morning of 9/11 and simply CLAIM to have been there in NYC and have all these "friends" who KNEW it was "going to collapse"..
Could you provide a link which reports ANY other building on earth falling at free fall speed due to damage on one side of the building?
I didn't hear any voices either...just the sound of stuff continually falling off of the vanity in the WC...including a plugged in cell phone that somehow became unplugged and fell to the floor...
I didn't hear any voices either...just the sound of stuff continually falling off of the vanity in the WC...including a plugged in cell phone that somehow became unplugged and fell to the floor...
The media cannot ask, let alone answer, those questions, so the propagandists gin up this "No plane" theory and plant it online to give the corporate media an easy handle with which to ridicule and dismiss the whole idea of doubting the official story of 9-11.
This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. And the intensity with which the propagandists are pushing this no-plane nonsense is easily explained by the fact that they have nothing else at all with which to defend the official story. The sheer fury with which this story has been met both here at WRH andover at the radio show betrays a sense of panic within the government that the American people know 9-11 was a war-starting hoax. "No plane" is the last card they have to play.
The "no-plane" propaganda is a trap set to discredit the 9-11 truth movement. Once the propagandists are able ot trick the majority of the 9-11 truth movement into going along with this nonsense (or failing that, create the public illusion that the majority of the 9-11 truth movement are going along with this nonsense), one of the confiscated videos that clearly shows the 757 slamming into the Pentagon will be made public, to discredit the entire 9-11 truth movement in one fell swoop, silencing those questions the government cannot answer. To play this trick, the "no-planers" are promote an incredibly complex conspiracy to hide a missile, while denying the possibility of an equally complex conspiracy to plant the illusion of one.
Let's take an example from history which nobody here is emotionally invested in. After the John F. Kennedy Assassination, New Orleans Prosecutor Jim Garrison placed Clay Shaw (later admitted by Richard Secord to have been a CIA asset) on trial for the conspiracy. The case was going very well until a witness showed up who claimed to be able to link Oswald directly to Shaw. Once on the stand, however, the witness started blabbing about how he fingerprinted his own daughter every night to prevent "them" from replacing her with a duplicate. Although not shown in the Oliver Stone film, "JFK", it was this one planted witness that "poisoned the well" of Garrison's case, resulting in Clay Shaw's acquittal.
During the House Select Committee on Assassinations, a bogus story was planted that the open umbrella seen along the Kennedy motorcade route just prior to the assassination was a dart gun, used to paralyze the President to hold him steady for the head shot. The actual umbrella was produced and shown to be just a normal umbrella while the committee members rolled their eyes and chuckled indulgently at how silly people who doubted the Warren Report were. (Later, acoustical data proved there had indeed been at least two shooters ion Dealey Plaza and the HSCA was forced to conclude there had been a conspiracy.)
In the 1990s, around the time of Ruby Ridge and WACO, the Congress was forced to hold public hearings on the abuses of the BATF, hearings which were notable for one witness showing up wearing full camo, and demanding the government declassify its secret tornado making machine. That provided the sound byte the media used to make anyone who stood up to the BATF look like a nutcase. The "witness" was later outed as an FBI informant.
Another example of "poisoning the well" is in the Killian documents, which documented George Bush's machinations to avoid the Vietnam draft by joining the Texas Air National Guard. Five of the documents were authentic, but the sixth was an obvious forgery planted on CBS in order to cast doubt on the authenticity of the others.
Ever since this "no-plane" theory has been planted on the 9-11 truth movement, the corporate media inevitably seizes on it as a means to ridicule those who do not accept the official story of 9-11. One obvious example is the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, which used the "no-plane" theory to summarily dismiss any and all doubters of the official story as a munch of nuts that all correct-thinking loyal Americans should ever listen to. Which is what the no-plane hoax is intended to do.
I will sign off this discussion by reminding you all once more that while the US Government will not hesitate to lie, cheat, steal, and hoax you, they never do it without a good reason. As I stated before, there is no reason for the government to substitute a missile for the crashing plane at the Pentagon. But there is plenty of reason for the US Government to trick you into thinking that they did!
Lately, in their efforts to plant more bogus information on the web for the media to use to ridicule doubters of the official story, the shills have used over-processed and blurry photos of the 9-11 planes to claim that they carried "pods" on the outside (which the ground crews at all the airports somehow never noticed). For that reason, the government shills have come to be known as the 9-11 "Pod People".
In response to the question of "where is the wreckage of the plane", the answer is that much of the wreckage slid into the ground floor of the Pentagon. It slid INTO the building, into the first floor space, starting a fire in the first floor, whereupon the upper floors later collapsed down onto the remains of the aircraft. Most of the aircraft wreckage is therefore under the collapsed roof section in the photo.
So where is the rest of the wreckage from the passenger plane? Right in plain view, for those who actually look.
The Pentagon is a building mostly made of concrete and wood. Yet here is a pile of crumpled aluminum debris, and clearly seen mixed in with it are pieces of luggage. Since the Pentagon itself does not travel, we can conclude that the luggage (and the aluminum shards mixed with them) are part of the remains of the passenger jet which hit the Pentagon.
In similar crashes, the resulting debris was in small pieces, 6 feet long at most. You don't SEE huge pieces of airplane sitting at crash sites in head on collisions such as slamming into the wall of the Pentagon. Despite their impressive size, aircraft and relatively fragile objects due to weight considerations.
THE WRECKAGE OF THE 757 PHOTOGRAPHED AT THE PENTAGON
The claim by the "no-planers" that there is no identifiable wreckage of a 757 at the Pentagon is contradicted by the photographic evidence.
Only in Warner Brothers cartoons does the Coyote leave a cookie-cutter outline of himself as he crashes into the rock face. In the real world (someplace that the "pod people" need to spend more time in) collisions are more complex. Airplanes do not make clean outline holes in buildings they collide with any more than cars make clean outline holes in walls they collide with. The Pentagon, built mostly of wood and concrete, and in that one section having been recently reinforced, is a heavy and solid object. Jet aircraft, designed to be able to fly, are very thin and lightweight. They are, if you think about it, mostly filled with air, like an aluminum balloon. They are not designed to penetrate other objects or to remain intact while doing so.
"Then I picked [the plane] up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion." [Mike Walter - eyewitness]
Take a glass Christmas ornament and hurl it against a brick wall. Do you get a round opening in the brick wall the size of the ornament? No, of course not. Neither will an aluminum plane leave a clean outline of itself crashing into concrete. In the case of the plane, there are subassemblies which are heavy and solid, such as the engines, the frames supporting the landing gear, cockpit avionics, the potable water tanks, APU, etc. On impact, these would break loose from the aircraft and continuing forward, produce smaller holes. But the fuselage would crumple like aluminum foil.
The "Pod People" will no doubt scream that the above photos are fake, just as they have insisted that all the photos which show debris at the crash site are fakes, and just as they scream that the witnesses to the passenger jet at the Pentagon "have to be" wrong. But witness-smearing is the exact same tactic the government has used to silence contradictory witnesses from JFK to the shoot down of TWA 800 to the 9-11 false flag.
As the "Pod People" use the same tactics, they reveal who they really are.
9/11 BBC TV news broadcast showing a passenger jet approaching Pentagon:
A demonstration of a passenger jet flying low and fast:
"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." [Father Stephen McGraw] estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.
"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car."
"I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said. [mdw.army.mil]
A concrete wall hit by an F-4 fighter jet at 500 MPH:
"The plane atomized with the impact, it just disappeared into dust - only the tips of the wings escaped total destruction. But the wall, designed to move and absorb energy, did its job well."
The above was a test where an F-4 fighter jet (fighters are built more sturdy than passenger jets in order to survive despite combat damage) was slammed into a test wall to evaluate the damage that might be caused if a jet plane was crashed into a reactor containment vessel.
The wall in this test was considerably stronger than the Pentagon wall and suffered little damage. However, that damage was found to be primarily from the engines of the F-4, whereas the rest of the airframe shattered on impact without damaging the wall at all. This test proves that the Pentagon damage would come not from the aircraft as a whole, but from the heavy and dense components such as the engines, landing gear blocks, avionics, potable water bottles, etc.
PICTURES OF THE PENTAGON IMPACT AREA BEFORE THE COLLAPSE.
In the second picture the impact area of the aircraft has been roughly outlined.
Eyewitness Account of Flight 77's Pentagon Impact
Firefighter Alan Wallace was standing outside his fire station when he looked across the nearby interstate and saw a white airplane with orange and blue trim heading almost straight at him. It slammed into the building just a couple hundred feet from him. "When I felt the fire, I hit the ground," he said. [detnews 9/11/2001]
The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.***
at least 45
The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there's no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet.
at least 25
The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.
at least 22
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the the highways.
at least 19
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane went full throttle only at the last seconds.
at least 12
The amount of eye witnesses who stated the plane had it's flaps up (not deployed). Witness 1 saw a 757, witness 2 and 4 both saw an American Airlines, witness 3 saw an American Airlines 757. No known witnesses stated the opposite.
at least 4
The amount of witnesses who reported the plane was pretty quiet. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock. Another one saw it was an American Airlines jet, saw it had its gears up and saw light poles being knocked down. Others were in their cars, all windows up and the radio on)
at least 4
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had its gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)
at least 1
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!
0
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.
0
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.
0
If you want to read all the individual quotes you can start here.
