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: 18921
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 # 275.
#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 entire South Face was gone from the ground about half way up. And the collapse started on the east side of the building... 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".. The irony in your response here would overwhelm James Thurber... You weren't there. You spout nonsense. But what I say is questionable. So It Goes.
Uh huh. Have you ever heard of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City? The entire side of the building was destroyed by explosives, yet the building didn't budge. Fires have raged in high rise buildings for a day or more, yet even THOSE buildings didn't fall as if someone kicked the bottom out. So go ahead and find ANY example other than WTC 1, 2, or 7 where such a thing has ever happened. BTW, did you ever play with Legos when you were a kid? Were you ever able to get a stack of them to fall straight down if you took some off one side? No, it would be impossible. If it WERE to fall (after giving it a push), it'd tilt sideways, then break up as hit the ground sideways. You don't even need to study physics to know that, all you need is common sense.
The Murrah Building was constructed differently, IIRC, it was modular. 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.
What's all that debris on the ground? What's the big gouge on the left side from which debris is cascading in the direction of *gravity*?
What's the big gouge on the left side from which debris is cascading in the direction of *gravity*? The structure did not collapse into its own footprint did it. And while the explosion blew an entire slice of the building outwards, the building itself was still standing afterwards.
Do you see any major debris field outside of its *footprint*?
Uh, yep. And remember, the blast was INWARDS, yet falling debris did in act fall outwards. The point is, the structure did NOT collapse, any damage done was caused by explosives, and the buidling itself was still standing afterwards. You're claiming that since WTC7 had some damage on one side, the ENTIRE BUILDING decided to fall down into its own footprint at free fall speed. You are afflicted with "magical thinking" in that impossible events are possible, because to view it differently would destroy your inner security and worldview.
You're missing the part about the fire burning for hours uncontrolled because the building was unstable and expect to collapse. The spray-on fireproofing for structural steel elements was gypsum-based Monokote which had a two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and trusses, and a three-hour rating for columns.[6] Wikipedia The fire burned long past the rating period of the fire proofing. NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[7] Wikipedia Im sure I don't have to tell you that Im not a structural engineer, and I strongly suspect you are not an engineer either; that puts both of us in the position of having to rely on the expertise of others, not only for information, but also for analysis. I am still curious to know why your choose to believe the government blew up the WTC buildings.
And again, buildings don't collapse into their own footprint at free fall speeds unless they've been deliberately demolished with explosives. Go see what Architects and Engineers have to say about the matter, and stop spewing pseudoscience explanations you've picked up from government disinformation sites. And BTW, I AM an engineer.
Good thing that they didn't then.
Contrary to your claims, WTC 7 DID fall at free fall speed, and WTC 1 & 2 dropped at a rate VERY CLOSE to free fall speed. An actual total collapse would have taken MUCH more time. In reality, if a collapse were to have occured without the use of explosives, only the damaged upper section would have either slid off or toppled over, the remaining lower structure would have stayed intact.
No they didn't...
www.debunking911.com/freefall.ht m You're government propaganda doesn't work here.. From above video link;
...which has been debunked because it does not show the entire collapse...
What part of "if it is in FREEFALL DURING ANY PART OF THE COLLAPSE, THEN EXPLOSIVES WERE USED" do you fail to comprehend?
Where were the explosives planted?
WTC7 shows the characteristics of a standard type of controlled demolition where the explosives are placed on structural members of the lower floors to initiate the collapse. WTC 1 and 2 on the other hand were wired for effect, since the world had to believe that the planes hitting the towers and the associated fires were what caused the destruction of each tower. Thus, computer timed detonations had to occur at a precise rate starting from floors immediately below the aress of impact, and sequentially fire downwards to help the upper structure gain velocity at a rate where it'd pick up enough kinetic energy to demolish floors below.
If explosives were placed on lower floors, why was the penthouse on top of bldg 7 the first to go?
idk but heard on pbs that the fire department was ordered to pull building seven.
So? What exactly does that mean? Pull out crew? Pull the building down? (we know that didn't happen)
No, "we" DON'T "know" that. I KNOW they "pulled the building down" due to simple logic and physical laws. That's besides all the means, motive, and opportunity.
There are no replies to Comment # 275. End Trace Mode for Comment # 275.
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...
#98. 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.
#114. To: war (#98)
The entire South Face was gone from the ground about half way up. And the collapse started on the east side of the building...
#149. To: FormerLurker (#114)
(Edited)
Uh huh. Have you ever heard of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City? The entire side of the building was destroyed by explosives, yet the building didn't budge.
#189. To: war (#149)
But the more important reason is that most of the building did collapse...not just one side of it...
#193. To: FormerLurker (#189)
#196. To: war (#193)
What's all that debris on the ground?
#198. To: FormerLurker (#196)
The structure did not collapse into its own footprint did it.
#200. To: war (#198)
Do you see any major debris field outside of its *footprint*?
#213. To: FormerLurker (#200)
You're claiming that since WTC7 had some damage on one side, the ENTIRE BUILDING decided to fall down into its own footprint at free fall speed.
#217. To: lucysmom (#213)
Im sure I don't have to tell you that Im not a structural engineer, and I strongly suspect you are not an engineer either; that puts both of us in the position of having to rely on the expertise of others, not only for information, but also for analysis. I am still curious to know why your choose to believe the government blew up the WTC buildings.
#219. To: FormerLurker (#217)
And again, buildings don't collapse into their own footprint at free fall speeds unless they've been deliberately demolished with explosives.
#221. To: war (#219)
Good thing that they didn't then.
#225. To: FormerLurker (#221)
Contrary to your claims, WTC 7 DID fall at free fall speed, and WTC 1 & 2 dropped at a rate VERY CLOSE to free fall speed.
#228. To: war (#225)
No they didn't...
[This is a reposting of this video which was taken down from the original site, originally posted in August 2008 just after the release of the final draft of the NIST WTC7 Report, prior to the final version which was altered to admit a 2.25 second period of freefall.] This video tracks the motion of the NW corner of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001. The building was in freefall for a period of ~2.5 seconds. This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario. This period of freefall is solid evidence that explosives had to be used to bring the building down. In the final draft for public comment (August 2008) NIST denied that WTC7 fell at freefall. In the final report in Nov 2008 they reversed themselves and admitted freefall, but denied its obvious significance. ----- [The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page: http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7- Measurement-FAQ.pdf ... . I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.]
#232. To: FormerLurker (#228)
From above video link;
#235. To: war (#232)
...which has been debunked because it does not show the entire collapse...
#239. To: FormerLurker (#235)
What part of "if it is in FREEFALL DURING ANY PART OF THE COLLAPSE, THEN EXPLOSIVES WERE USED" do you fail to comprehend?
#241. To: lucysmom (#239)
#260. To: FormerLurker (#241)
WTC7 shows the characteristics of a standard type of controlled demolition where the explosives are placed on structural members of the lower floors to initiate the collapse.
#262. To: lucysmom (#260)
#266. To: titorite (#262)
idk but heard on pbs that the fire department was ordered to pull building seven.
#275. To: lucysmom (#266)
Pull the building down? (we know that didn't happen)
Replies to Comment # 275.