Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Airline whistleblower solves 9/11
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/31/airline911/
Published: Feb 2, 2015
Author: Kevin Barrett
Post Date: 2015-02-02 18:45:43 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 3825
Comments: 84

The truth-seeking community – and the airline industry – are abuzz over Rebekah Roth’s new book Methodical Illusion. It’s poised to break into the top 1,000 worldwide, selling so fast that Amazon may even have tried to stop its rise to bestseller status by falsely claiming “sorry, out of stock.”

We’ve seen this situation before…such as on September 8th, 2013, when the RT documentary 9/11 and Operation Gladio started to go viral and suddenly disappeared from search engines – as emails containing its url began falling into a big black hole in cyberspace.

So what’s all the excitement about? Why would the people whose job is to “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories” try to limit sales of a potboiler novel by a former stewardess?

hqdefaultHint: It isn’t literary quality they’re afraid of. If you want a 9/11 truth novel by a literary genius, read Thomas Pynchon’s Bleeding Edge. Pynchon’s book has lots of great writing and a modest amount of 9/11 truth, packaged in such a way as not to offend the Tribe that dominates American media.

But if you want a rough-hewn page-turner with more 9/11 truth than anything you’re likely to read this side of David Ray Griffin or Christopher Bollyn (or Veterans Today for that matter) check out Methodical Illusion. Roth boldly goes where no stewardess or novelist has gone before, pinning 9/11 squarely on the Israelis and their American assets, and providing a convincing explanation of how the planes were “hijacked,” by whom, where they went, and what happened to the passengers.

Roth’s book has set off a stampede by her former colleagues in the aviation industry, who are rushing to provide details supporting her revelations. They are confirming the installation of FTS (Flight Termination System) equipment on the models “hijacked” on 9/11, which allowed those planes to be taken over remotely and flown from the ground. When FTS takes over a plane, it completely shuts down that plane’s communications with the outside world. That explains why not one of the four pilots on any of the 9/11 planes managed to flip a toggle switch and squawk the hijack code. Had the aircraft been hijacked in a normal manner, the pilots, who are trained to instantly squawk “hijack” in such an emergency, all would have done so.

The failure of any of the 9/11 planes to squawk the “we are hijacked” message is absolute, conclusive proof that the official story of hijackings by Arabs armed with box cutters is false.

According to the author’s hypothesis, the FTS-captured-and-silenced planes landed at a nearby Air Force base with gigantic hangars, which Roth identifies and a colleague who was there confirms happened, less than 20 minutes after takeoff. Once on the ground, selected flight attendants and passengers were guided (or forced) to place cell phone calls, during which they read from scripts prepared by the perpetrators.

This scenario is very similar to one planned by the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962: the infamous Operation Northwoods. And it is entirely plausible. The main counter-argument – that the FAA tracked the two Boston aircraft from takeoff to crashes – has been disproven, since we now know that the 9/11 perpetrators were inserting false blips onto FAA controllers screens and thereby controlling what they saw.

According to this scenario, the Twin Towers would have been hit by military aircraft and/or missiles, not passenger jets.

Roth’s hypothesis is compelling, for several reasons. First, it explains why the perpetrators would invent such a ridiculously implausible scenario as “hijacked suicide attack planes fly all over the Eastern half of the USA before finally hitting their targets or being taken down by heroic passengers.” They needed this palpably absurd scheme to allow for time to covertly land the planes and stage the dramas via scripted cell phone calls. And the dramas – which would brainwash Americans into hating Israel’s Muslim enemies and killing them by the millions – were (alongside the horrific images broadcast from New York) the key part of the psy-op. Without the “cell phone calls,” nobody would have “known” what happened on those planes.

Were there such a thing as al-Qaeda suicide hijackers, they would take over the plane immediately after takeoff and fly straight for their targets, thereby minimizing the possibility of things going wrong, such as FTS being activated by the good guys or NORAD interceptors showing up in around 10 minutes – the normal procedure every time a plane deviates significantly from course.

But since there have been no successful hijackings in the USA since the 1970s, the whole idea that even one plane would be successfully hijacked on 9/11 is ludicrous. The preposterous claim that four planes with military-trained pilots were commandeered by 130 pound “muscle hijackers” with box cutters and flown with consummate skill and impossible speed by pilots who couldn’t even fly Cessnas is one of history’s most bizarre delusions.

Roth’s hypothesis also explains why so many of the people who received phone calls from the “hijacked passengers” insisted that the calls came from the person’s cell phone, positively identified through caller ID. In 2001, cell phones did not work at altitude. The calls must have been made from the ground.

Additionally, this scenario explains why many of the cell phone calls went on so long; were often placed to improbable recipients; had none of the correct background sounds; and were full of bizarre glitches revealing that they were scripted and/or coerced, not actual emergency calls from in-flight aircraft.

Roth’s explanation sheds light on the role of Rabbi Dov Zakheim, a US-Israeli dual citizen who served as Comptroller of the Pentagon on 9/11 and managed to abscond with $2.3 trillion dollars, as Rumsfeld announced the day before.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 76.

#1. To: christine (#0)

Nonsense...

Cynicom  posted on  2015-02-02   18:51:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Cynicom (#1)

Nonsense...

The author may not have the scenario of that day precisely accurate but I'd bet my life it's much closer to the truth than the fabrication offered by Uncle Sambo.

noone222  posted on  2015-02-03   8:05:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: noone222, All (#23)

According to the author’s hypothesis, the FTS-captured-and-silenced planes landed at a nearby Air Force base with gigantic hangars, which Roth identifies and a colleague who was there confirms happened, less than 20 minutes after takeoff. Once on the ground, selected flight attendants and passengers were guided (or forced) to place cell phone calls, during which they read from scripts prepared by the perpetrators.

This scenario is very similar to one planned by the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962: the infamous Operation Northwoods. And it is entirely plausible. The main counter-argument – that the FAA tracked the two Boston aircraft from takeoff to crashes – has been disproven,... since we now know that the 9/11 perpetrators were inserting false blips onto FAA controllers screens and thereby controlling what they saw. .....

... since we now know that the 9/11 perpetrators were inserting false blips onto FAA controllers screens and thereby controlling what they saw. .....

And we KNOW this how?????

There is a transcript available of what was happening in the FAA operations center that day. I have perused it several times, finding nothing but confusion, indecision and lack of command.

In it you will read that in the center they were watching the aircraft approaching Washington, make turns etc etc, with mileage being called out as it nears D.C. All in the room assumed the target was the White House, but it turned away toward the Pentagon.

It is all there, minute by minute.

Primary radar CANNOT be controlled by anyone except the controllers, plus the aircraft was being watched by MULTIPLE radars, not just one.

This work of hype is for the gullible, TO MAKE MONEY.

It is no wonder that the conspirators have gotten away.

By the way, in the past, I and other misfits use to jam American and Russian radars for practice, the sneaky controllers would shift frequency on us and be watching us naked.

It is a shame anyone here on 4um would ever buy into this money making book.

If anyone maintains all the people in the control center in Washington were in on this affair, I quit. Ignorance gets us all, stupidity is terminal.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-02-03   9:10:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Cynicom (#24)

It is a shame anyone here on 4um would ever buy into this money making book.

I do not intend to buy the book ... I do think the planes were likely remote controlled, that Dov Zakheim was involved, and that we have been lied into war wherein innocent people are being slaughtered for the advancement of the global elite.

Gnosis is impossible for the general public regarding 9-11.

noone222  posted on  2015-02-03   9:28:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: noone222 (#25)

Take time to read the transcript of the FAA control center.

Mind you the people in charge and on line were the vice president and his advisers, untold generals at NORAD in CO, untold military and civilian power people, however NO ONE WAS MAKING ANY DECISIONS..IT WAS MASS CONFUSION...THE AIRCRAFT IS FAST APPROACHING WASHINGTON AND WE HAD ONLY INERTIA.

Finally a mid level FAA control manager, takes charge, to stop the insanity, he orders all aircraft to land at once, no aircraft to depart within US air space. Incoming overseas flights were turned back if not at PNR, no exceptions.

There were over 4000 aircraft under control at that time, all were brought down without incidents.

Some political hack said the pilots should have the discretion to continue or not...These are the managers words...FUCK THE PILOTS, all aircraft down now no exceptions.

MIND YOU, ALL OF THIS WHILE THE RADAR SHOWED THE AIRCRAFT NEARING, CLOSER AND CLOSER TO WASHINGTON. A missile does not make turns and all this while the radar was compromised by an unseen hand?

It does make one ill to read the transcript, to see that NO ONE OF POWER WAS IN CHARGE. It took a low level FAA manager to stop the insanity. He made the decision, the power people said and did nothing.

That SOB Cheney was worthless.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-02-03   10:00:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Cynicom (#28)

Why were the fighters scrambled from Langley directed over the ocean instead of towards the approaching aircraft. Did bin Laden hold a gun to Rumsfeld's head?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-02-03   10:03:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: FormerLurker (#29) (Edited)

Why were the fighters scrambled from Langley directed over the ocean instead of towards the approaching aircraft.

At pilotsfor911truth.org Re: "9/11: INTERCEPTED" video, Langley fighters and the Whiskey 386 ocean Military training zone

Here is the full [10 second] audio clip referencing the Langley fighters.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/LangleyW386_0930.mp3

Cross-referencing Posts #131 and #129 at 4um Title: Pilots Analyze the Government Provided Radar Data of the Planes of 9-11, excerpts:

Post #131:

amazon.com: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies over America on 9/11 by Lynn Spencer

2 results for Whiskey 386

Page 149: They appear to be flying to military training area Whiskey 386.

Page 151: They're in [Whiskey] 386 and going up north,

from historycommons.org | Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC VACAPES) was a participant or observer in the following events:

The facility, known by its call sign, “Giant Killer,” is the Navy air traffic control agency that handles all over-water military operations. [New York Times, 2/10/1997; Spencer, 2008, pp. 143] Scoggins says: “We have a large, slow-moving target approaching Cape Cod and heading for Boston. Do you have it? What is it?” The person at Giant Killer only replies, “We’re looking,” and then mentions, “We’ve got a fleet of ships heading toward the northeast and an Aegis cruiser [a high-tech warship] on the way.”

Post #129:

where do British subs test fire their missiles? At a place in the atlantic called… Whiskey 386. So were there any British subs in the region? Records on line that I have seen, submitted by one peace grouop in the UK clearly established that HMS Trafalgar left port in the UK on 1st September 2001 to travel via the Americas to the Far East which would have put it in Whiskey 386 or so on 11th September 2001. This peace group who incidentally have nothing to do with the 9/11 movement, established that when HMS Trafalgar reached port in the Far East, her inventory of cruise missiles were down by EIGHT,, indicating a test firing in Whiskey 386 of 8 Cruise missiles on about 11th September 2001.

Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9-11: The Wall Street Lawyer and the Special Ops Hijack Coordinator - 911Blogger.com

Senator Cohen went on to become the [Clinton] Secretary of Defense from 1997 to 2001 and it was he who led the Quadrennial Defense Review of 1997 that reduced the number of fighters actively protecting the continental US from 100 to 14.[19] Cohen is now chairman of The Cohen group, where he works with his Vice Chairman, Marc Grossman,

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-04   0:15:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: GreyLmist (#71)

Thanks, didn't know that about the British sub and possible naval exercises in the vicinity. Down by eight, well, it would only take one to hit the Pentagon.

However, the aircraft Dulles air traffic controllers tracked approached from high up and from the west, where I would surmise a sub launched cruise missile would approach low and from the east.

If we're tossing theories around, I'd say it's possible that an air launched cruise missile is what approached from the west. There in fact WAS a large military aircraft flying above and behind the alleged Flight 77 as reported by witnesses.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-02-04   0:29:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: GreyLmist, All (#72)

It's claimed that it was a C-130 cargo plane from Andrews that was out for a spin that morning..

Eyewitness Reports of Other Aircraft in Area of Crash, an accounting of C-130 cargo plane, and helicopter

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-02-04   0:47:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: FormerLurker (#73) (Edited)

FL at #72: Thanks, didn't know that about the British sub and possible naval exercises in the vicinity. Down by eight, well, it would only take one to hit the Pentagon.

However, the aircraft Dulles air traffic controllers tracked approached from high up and from the west, where I would surmise a sub launched cruise missile would approach low and from the east.

If we're tossing theories around, I'd say it's possible that an air launched cruise missile is what approached from the west. There in fact WAS a large military aircraft flying above and behind the alleged Flight 77 as reported by witnesses.

FL at #73: It's claimed that it was a C-130 cargo plane from Andrews that was out for a spin that morning..

Eyewitness Reports of Other Aircraft in Area of Crash, an accounting of C-130 cargo plane, and helicopter

You're welcome. Excerpts from the above link:

A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington "at an unusual angle," said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman.

Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane "to let us know where it's going," McClellan said.

But, he said, there was no attempt to intercept the hijacked airliner.

"A C-130 obviously goes slower than a jet," McClellan said. "There was no way he was going to intercept anything."

The C-130 pilot "followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon," he said.

"He saw it crash into the building. He saw the fireball." . . .

In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, the Pentagon spokesman said.

"It was very hard to get any information out," McClellan said.

Hemphill, Albert: The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading.

[Keith Wheelhouse] believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.

? The Pentagon didn't know anything about a C-130 encounter, just the National Guard did. That 9/11 plane started out, we're told now, by being a run-of-the-mill, propeller-powered cargo plane that couldn't keep up with an airliner but, by the time it was all said and done, somehow it got modified into an electronic warfare AWAC or something that could fly at 500 mph to shadow Flight 77 and guide it remotely into the Pentagon. Nevermind how a non-fighter jet like Flight 77 was flying that fast without breaking apart. Possibly, not being content with becoming just a non-combat AWAC or whatnot, the former C-130 then may have turned into a cruise missile launcher too? I dunno, FL, but it seems to me they can't all be telling the truth and maybe none of them are.

Edited spelling.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-04   5:23:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 76.

        There are no replies to Comment # 76.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 76.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest