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: 18770
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 254.
#2. To: christine (#0)
Uhhhhh...
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.
I have to say, I've left my phone on and seen other passengers with theirs on during takeoff even, and never an issue.
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.
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!
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
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.
Oh my lord...
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.
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...
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?
The building was supported primarily by its center core.
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
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.
Here's another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8
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...
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."
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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:
_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.
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?
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...
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.
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...
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.
Office fires like this? Also note that the ENTIRE face of exterior support columns have have been wiped ou. Also note that construction steel's load bearing ability is reduced @ 620 degrees Fahrenheit and that's before adding on the concrete slabs of the WTC's flooring...
you are hillarious. you dont know thw.sifferwnce between fascisa and supporting columns. and you speak on distrubetive laods like you think you have understanding of it .... tell me what kind of steel was used in the wtc? a re-enforced tritaniam? b vacumm tempered titatimium? c both? d non of the above. for extra credit you can explain the mesh theory of the outter support structure and how well it has proven itself in other super skyscrapers? now go calculate
Wha...huh?
#257. To: war (#254)
what you referred to in your earlier post about "supporting columns" you were mis-indentifying the outter alluminum facisa.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Cynicom, christine (#2)
Uhhhhh...
#10. To: Obnoxicated, christine (#3)
Wtg, christine. Cyni may well have stroked out on this one.
#11. To: Hmmmmm (#10)
#12. To: Katniss (#11)
how cell phones work in airliners -
#13. To: Lod (#12)
#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.
#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.
#37. To: Dr. Henry Makow's review of Roth's book (#36)
henrymakow.com/
#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.
#50. To: FormerLurker (#48)
WTC attacks were drones, ie. airliners or tankers converted to appear as passenger aircraft yet were remotely controlled.
#52. To: war (#50)
#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?
#57. To: war (#53)
there was nothing left to *demolish*...
#59. To: FormerLurker (#57)
If the towers had NOT collapsed, there would have been intact remains of the aircraft in each tower.
#67. To: war (#59)
There were semi-intact remains of the aircraft outside of the towers. I saw some myself.
#69. To: Esso (#67)
#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...
#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.
#79. To: lucysmom (#77)
#82. To: FormerLurker (#79)
Remember Building 7.org
#84. To: lucysmom (#82)
#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...
#103. To: lucysmom (#95)
Here's another video:
#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...
#117. To: lucysmom (#116)
#139. To: FormerLurker (#117)
Why would ANY structure fall straight down at free fall speed as if there's nothing under it?
#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.
#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.
#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*...
#183. To: FormerLurker (#179)
You are obviously oblivious to the fact that they were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner.
#186. To: war (#183)
#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?
#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.”
#192. To: FormerLurker (#191)
So there you go...
#195. To: war (#192)
No, slim, there YOU go; he's talking about the *OUTSIDE* of the building...
#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?
#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*?
#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.
#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...
#223. To: FormerLurker (#216)
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.
#252. To: war (#223)
Also note that the ENTIRE face of exterior support columns have have been wiped ou. Also note that construction steel's load bearing ability is reduced @ 620 degrees Fahrenheit and that's before adding on the concrete slabs of the WTC's flooring.
#254. To: titorite (#252)
you are hillarious. you dont know thw.sifferwnce between fascisa and supporting columns
Replies to Comment # 254.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 254.