Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Methodical Illusion: The 9/11 Con Begins to Crumble — Rebekah Roth (Flight Attendant)
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://sgtreport.com/2015/03/method ... egins-to-crumble-rebekah-roth/
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Rebekah Roth
Post Date: 2015-03-23 10:33:47 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 12736
Comments: 557

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.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 233.

#2. To: christine (#0)

Uhhhhh...

Cynicom  posted on  2015-03-23   10:46:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Cynicom, christine (#2)

Uhhhhh...

Wtg, christine. Cyni may well have stroked out on this one.

Obnoxicated  posted on  2015-03-23   11:10:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Obnoxicated, christine (#3)

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.

Hmmmmm  posted on  2015-03-23   13:55:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Hmmmmm (#10)

I have to say, I've left my phone on and seen other passengers with theirs on during takeoff even, and never an issue.

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-23   15:38:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Katniss (#11)

how cell phones work in airliners -

computer.howstuffworks.co...obile-phone-services1.htm

Lod  posted on  2015-03-23   16:02:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Lod (#12)

Long article, seems to confirm on the first page that calls near takeoff/landing work, but otherwise not so much.

Keep in mind that we're also talking about 2001 technology here. While it may not seem that relevant, advances have been enormous.

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-23   18:02:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Katniss, Lod (#13)

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.

Hmmmmm  posted on  2015-03-23   18:21:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Hmmmmm (#14)

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.

Yup!

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-24   9:01:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Dr. Henry Makow's review of Roth's book (#36)

henrymakow.com/

Excerpt:

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

christine  posted on  2015-03-24   11:01:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: christine (#37)

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.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-24   14:46:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: FormerLurker (#48)

WTC attacks were drones, ie. airliners or tankers converted to appear as passenger aircraft yet were remotely controlled.

Oh my lord...

war  posted on  2015-03-24   14:51:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: war (#50)

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.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-24   14:55:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: FormerLurker (#52)

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...

war  posted on  2015-03-24   15:01:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: war (#53)

there was nothing left to *demolish*...

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.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-24   15:21:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: FormerLurker (#57)

If the towers had NOT collapsed, there would have been intact remains of the aircraft in each tower.

There were semi-intact remains of the aircraft outside of the towers. I saw some myself.

war  posted on  2015-03-24   15:29:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: war (#59)

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.

Esso  posted on  2015-03-24   15:52:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Esso (#67)

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...

war  posted on  2015-03-24   16:03:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: war (#69) (Edited)

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?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-24   16:24:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: FormerLurker (#72)

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.

The building was supported primarily by its center core.

lucysmom  posted on  2015-03-24   16:52:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: lucysmom (#77)

Remember Building 7.org

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-24   17:00:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: FormerLurker (#79)

Remember Building 7.org

And here's the rebuttal

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage- shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

lucysmom  posted on  2015-03-24   17:07:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: lucysmom (#82)

Oh jeez, do you think a solid building will fall into the path of MOST resistance in a symetrical manner? Even IF one side of the building was TOTALLY destroyed, there is NO POSSIBLE way for it to "fall" straightdown, ESPECIALLY at free fall speed as if there's nothing but air under it...

And THAT is how the perps get away with stuff like this, the majority of Americans have NO understanding of basic physics, as seen by the poor performance in science (as well as a host of other subjects) of US students compared to other nations.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-24   17:10:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: FormerLurker (#84) (Edited)

Oh jeez, do you think a solid building will fall into the path of MOST resistance in a symetrical manner? Even IF one side of the building was TOTALLY destroyed, there is NO POSSIBLE way for it to "fall" straightdown, ESPECIALLY at free fall speed as if there's nothing but air under it...

Here's another video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

lucysmom  posted on  2015-03-24   22:27:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: lucysmom (#95)

Here's another video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

One of the *tricks* of the CTs is to try to pass off the North Face of WTC7 as *proof* that it was undamaged...

It's also ridiculous to claim that this was done to *start* a war...as if they US needed such a violent excuse to do so...

war  posted on  2015-03-25   8:47:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: war (#103)

One of the *tricks* of the CTs is to try to pass off the North Face of WTC7 as *proof* that it was undamaged...

Right. undamaged except for that hole in its side some 20-stories high.

Or that the structure was further weakened by hours of fires let burn because the building was too unstable to send in firemen.

"WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47- story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11."

www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

lucysmom  posted on  2015-03-25   10:56:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: lucysmom (#116)

Why would ANY structure fall straight down at free fall speed as if there's nothing under it?

The ONLY way that can happen is through controlled demolition, no matter HOW you spin it.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-25   10:59:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: FormerLurker (#117)

Why would ANY structure fall straight down at free fall speed as if there's nothing under it?

The ONLY way that can happen is through controlled demolition, no matter HOW you spin it.

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)

lucysmom  posted on  2015-03-25   11:44:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#168. To: lucysmom (#139) (Edited)

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.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-25   14:01:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#175. To: FormerLurker (#168)

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...

and other low temperature fuel items.

Wha...chuckle...huh?

war  posted on  2015-03-25   14:37:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: war (#175)

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.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-25   14:47:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#183. To: FormerLurker (#179)

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.

war  posted on  2015-03-25   14:53:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#186. To: war (#183)

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.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-25   15:11:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#188. To: FormerLurker (#186)

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:

war  posted on  2015-03-25   15:17:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#191. To: war (#188)

“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.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-25   15:20:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#192. To: FormerLurker (#191)

So there you go...

No, slim, there YOU go; he's talking about the *OUTSIDE* of the building...

war  posted on  2015-03-25   15:26:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#195. To: war (#192)

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?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-25   16:06:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#197. To: FormerLurker (#195)

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?

Can you point out which other part of the Twin Towers had *webbing* or *netting* like a *screen* on a screen *door*?

Thanks in advance...

war  posted on  2015-03-25   16:14:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#199. To: war (#197)

Can you point out which other part of the Twin Towers had *webbing* or *netting* like a *screen* on a screen *door*?

Thanks in advance...

The floors were connected to a central steel core, and that is part of the "netting" design in that nothing penetrating the building such as an airliner could or would cause the entire structure to fail.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-25   16:20:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#211. To: FormerLurker (#199) (Edited)

The floors were connected to a central steel core, and that is part of the "netting" design in that nothing penetrating the building such as an airliner could or would cause the entire structure to fail.

Uh...no...the *floors* were built over the trusses.

Steel trusses were connected to the outerframe and the inner core. It was the failure of the trusses, caused by both the hear and the failure of the outer columns, that caused the collapse...this is why the CT theory is absolutely insane...the failure in the Towers was horizontal, not vertical...it's why you can see the tops of both of the buildings tilt over as opposed to falling straight down...

WTC7 was a vertical failure...

war  posted on  2015-03-26   8:16:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#216. To: war (#211)

It was the failure of the trusses, caused by both the hear and the failure of the outer columns, that caused the collapse...

Again, the UNDAMAGED sections of the towers had absolutely NO reason to totally fail as they did. But keep believing the government lies if that's your thing.

And you're being absolutely idiotic if you think office fires can weaken steel to the point of failure used in the construction of skyscrapers.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-26   9:55:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#218. To: FormerLurker (#216)

Again, the UNDAMAGED sections of the towers had absolutely NO reason to totally fail...

The undamaged sections didn't fail.

A non-starter.

war  posted on  2015-03-26   10:08:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#220. To: war (#218)

The undamaged sections didn't fail.

Oh no? So they're still standing there and there was no total collapse?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-26   10:12:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#233. To: FormerLurker (#220)

Oh no? So they're still standing there and there was no total collapse?

Please stay on the topic...the issue is what was damaged by the impact and then further compromised by the fires that resulted in the failure and collapse of the entire building...

war  posted on  2015-03-26   10:41:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 233.

#234. To: war (#233)

Please stay on the topic...the issue is what was damaged by the impact and then further compromised by the fires that resulted in the failure and collapse of the entire building...

So why did the undamaged lower sections of the towers turn to pixie dust?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-26 10:43:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#240. To: war, Former Lurker (#233)

The Most Outrageous 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening.

It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety".

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

[....]

oh and BTW...... at least 7 of the 19 alleged "hijackers" are still alive and well...

Bill D Berger  posted on  2015-03-26 10:50:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 233.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest