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.
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.
A demonstration of a passenger jet flying low and fast:
Without touching upon the myriad number of fallacies in the post, and concentrating on simply this one claim, the plane is CERTAINLY low, but it is also CERTAINLY NOT going "fast". It's at landing speed, not cruising speed, and nowhere close to the speed alleged for the aircraft which struck the Pentagon.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Because obviously they didn't wire the explosives to do so. Do you think that somehow "proves" something?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Hijacking certainly does occur, but not the way it occured on 9/11. For instance, hijackers typically (in fact ALWAYS) force the pilot(s) to fly the aircraft to the desired destination.
Heavy multi-engine aircraft can not be easily flown by individuals who could barely fly a single engine propeller driven plane, if at all.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Extract from Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself:
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
There were so many people that saw the aircraft, the government stopped using their accounts because they all corroborated each other.
I'm curious - why do you want to believe the government did it?
It's not a matter of what I want or don't want, it's a matter of looking over the available evidence and seeing the facts with a clear set of eyes.
If I had more time, which I don't have at the moment, I could provide an essay as to the set of facts which prove the perps included highly placed US government officials, along with domestic and foreign intelligence assets, and certainly US military involvement.
Perhaps if you truly cared about the matter you'd find all the relevent facts and evidence yourself. It's been almost 14 years since the event occured, certainly if you wanted to find the truth you would have done so by now.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Why did they *wire* WTC to fall straight down (even though they did not, in fact, fall straight down)?
Uh, yes they DID fall straight down. In other words, the damaged top portions of the WTC towers did not simply slide off the building as it WOULD have if it were truly a collapse due to weakened sections of the towers failing to support the weight of the upper structure.
All three buildings dropped straight into their own footprints, a physical impossibility without the help of controlled demolitions.
To deny that fact indicates you have no notion of what direction down or sideways truly are.
As far as to WHY they were wired that way, it was to prevent catastrophic destruction to adjacent buildings, and to ensure ALL of the important physical evidence was thoroughly destroyed.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Which they flunked. The Pentagon "pilot", Hani Hanjour, could NOT even rent a Cessna due to failing the flight evalulation test. The flight instructor who went along with him on the evalulation flight before he rented the plane said he "could not fly at all".
As far as the flight similuator school, he was told he was wasting his money, and he would not have passed if he had continued to attend.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Apparently controlled demolition isn't the only way a building with structural damage, and then further weakened by fire can come down.
When metal is heated, it loses strength. (I used to love to watch the horseshoer work when I was a kid)
Other than what happened on 9/11, show where in history any other skyscraper has come crashing down due to fire.
And BTW, the jet fuel burnt out after the first 10 minutes. The remaining fires were simple office fires consisting of furniture, paper, and other low temperature fuel items.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Uh...no...the top of the South tower tilted and landed squarely on the north face of the Banker's Trust Building and took a huge assed scoop put of it. The North Tower fell west and north and damaged 1 WFC, Verizon and, of course, WTC7.
Uh...no...the top of the South tower tilted and landed squarely on the north face of the Banker's Trust Building and took a huge assed scoop put of it. The North Tower fell west and north and damaged 1 WFC, Verizon and, of course, WTC7.
So then, you're saying the remainder of the buildings did not collapse and are still there?
Of course they're not there, and they did NOT lean to any side and topple over, contrary to your spin doctor tactics and comments.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Rivero's point is that "no-planers" are "poisoning the well".
He's wrong on what he claims concerning the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. If it had been a 757 we would have seen videos of it happening over, and over, and over, and over...
That and it would have dove from the sky and hit downwards, it would NOT have flown in at ground level going 500 mph or so without so much as kissing the grass of the Pentagon lawn.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Well the question probably doesn't apply to most people because most people on facebook already use their name, which makes this issue irrelevant. If someone users a monicker or pseudonym facebook apparently has an automated program which detects it and then they demand your real name.
From what I've seen most folks use their real name but in political or activist circles many use monickers. I've got the screenshots of all these demands but I'm sure my descirption suffices. Not a big deal since they deemed my site "dangerous" anyway and forbid links to it.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
Other than what happened on 9/11, show where in history any other skyscraper has come crashing down due to fire.
None of the WTC skyscrapers fell due to *fire*. They fell because some sort of massive impact had compromised their structural integrity. It wasn't a matter of *if*; it was a matter of *when*...
And BTW, the jet fuel burnt out after the first 10 minutes. The remaining fires were simple office fires consisting of furniture, paper
Another outright lie. Were you in the building? And please don't bother posting the *reports* of NYFD 20odd floors below the main impact reporting what it was like on one or two floors as being indicative of the ENTIRE building...
I'm not sure why he chose today to tweet this out, but as you can see he's concerned about the story being hijacked (pun intended).
Don't know either. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
They fell because some sort of massive impact had compromised their structural integrity. It wasn't a matter of *if*; it was a matter of *when*...
You are obviously oblivious to the fact that they were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner. The designer said something like, "it'd be like sticking a pencil into a net", where the immediate area of the entrance hole would be damaged but the net itself would remain intact.
Another outright lie. Were you in the building? And please don't bother posting the *reports* of NYFD 20odd floors below the main impact reporting what it was like on one or two floors as being indicative of the ENTIRE building...
Coming from a pathological troll who twists, distorts, and ignores any REAL facts, that's pretty much a compliment.
The NIST report states that the jet fuel was spent after the first few minutes after the initial impacts. Read it yourself, troll.
In other words, it was IMPOSSIBLE for the office fires to have superheated the structure itself, thus the supporting steel structure did NOT weaken or fail, and the tale of it happening that way is a certifiable LIE.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
That image doesn't show the UNDAMAGED 100 or so floors BELOW it. If ONLY the top of the towers had slid off, then we would not be arguing about it.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
You can clearly see the top part of the building falling to the left,.,,
Before the remaining 100 or so UNDAMAGED floors simply decide to behave as if they're made of pixie dust.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
You are obviously oblivious to the fact that they were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner.
You are obviously oblivious to the fact that it was the *webbing* of the outside of the building that was so constructed. Not the interior core.
The NIST report states that the jet fuel was spent after the first few minutes after the initial impacts. Read it yourself, troll.
Can you point out where I stated otherwise. Anyone who uses charcoal lto barbecue knows that *fuel* burns off.
In other words, it was IMPOSSIBLE for the office fires to have superheated the structure itself, thus the supporting steel structure did NOT weaken or fail...
It was not *impossible*. IN fact, it happened. At 700degrees the trusses become compromised.
Before the remaining 100 or so UNDAMAGED floors simply decide to behave as if they're made of pixie dust.
100 undamaged floors?
The planes took out between 15 and 20 floors of 106 floor buildings essentially detaching the upper floors, which weighed TONS, from the lower floors...
The planes took out between 15 and 20 floors of 106 floor buildings essentially detaching the upper floors, which weighed TONS, from the lower floors...
Ok, lets say the undamaged 75 to 90 floors below.
The undamaged floors had ALWAYS supported the upper structure above them since they were built, and were designed to do so.
And YOU claim the top structures basically toppled over, which they didn't, but if they HAD then there would have been NO weight above the remaining structure at all after the upper structures slid off the undamaged sections.
There's absolutely no reason for the UNDAMAGED 75 to 90 floors below to act as if they weren't there.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
You are obviously oblivious to the fact that it was the *webbing* of the outside of the building that was so constructed. Not the interior core.
Wow. You're trying to say the architects designed only the OUTSIDE of the WTC towers to withstand a direct hit from an airliner, they didn't care what happened to the structure itself?
It was not *impossible*. IN fact, it happened. At 700degrees the trusses become compromised.
Pure BS. The WTC years earlier had office fires raging through them that lasted for HOURS. On 9/11 the towers collapsed in LESS than an hour.
AND, there's no physical way for the steel to fail due to a simple office fire, the heat is not sufficient.
BTW, was yukon your mentor? You have the same tired old arguments he had made.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
The undamaged floors had ALWAYS supported the upper structure above them since they were built, and were designed to do so.
Uh...no...the building was constructed with an outer frame to which vertical trusses were attached and then connected to an inner cement core.
And YOU claim the top structures basically toppled over
No I did not. I stated that they did not fall STRAIGHT DOWN...which is not only clearly shown in the video I provided but is apparent from the damage caused to the surrounding structures.
Wow. You're trying to say the architects designed only the OUTSIDE of the WTC towers to withstand a direct hit from an airliner, they didn't care what happened to the structure itself?
“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”
_Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, January 25, 2001:
But the more important reason is that most of the building did collapse...not just one side of it...
Apparently you have a problem with facts and reality.
The Murrah building certainly did NOT collapse, it was still standing after the bombing.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
It appears they selectively enforce their rules then. Happy gaming! If u ever are critical of israel or the police state on fb maybe they will revoke your very fake gaming name.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”
_Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, January 25, 2001:
So there you go, the man said the building could withstand MULTIPLE impacts from airliners without failing.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
No, slim, there YOU go; he's talking about the *OUTSIDE* of the building...
Are you REALLY that dumb? So you think when the man said the structure could withstand multiple impacts from airliners, he was only talking about the decorative outer sheathing?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
