Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Methodical Illusion---rebekah Roth
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > General > Latest News
politicstahl
Please investigate Rebekah Roth's discoveries, contained in her book _Methodical Illusion_ http://www.methodicalillusion.com/ and supplemented in her series of 5 2-hour radio interviews beginning at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags...kah-roth-part-1 (et seq.)
excontroller
QUOTE (politicstahl @ Nov 29 2014, 02:49 PM) *
Please investigate Rebekah Roth's discoveries, contained in her book _Methodical Illusion_ http://www.methodicalillusion.com/ and supplemented in her series of 5 2-hour radio interviews beginning at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags...kah-roth-part-1 (et seq.)



I get 404 errors every time I try to run this video............it just won't play.
FirstUsedBooks
Alas, I clicked on "Look inside" and wasn't impressed with the author's writing style. For me, reading it would be a chore.
politicstahl
QUOTE (excontroller @ Nov 29 2014, 05:07 PM) *
I get 404 errors every time I try to run this video............it just won't play.



Boy, that was fast (action on their part).
Try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okk_1mJX6iE and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEEcUjqoc9I for short interview introductions.
Can you get http://www.methodicalillusion.com/ ? The book is available as an ebook also, as well as through Amazon and Barnes and Noble.

I just tried http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags...kah-roth-part-1 again and got it with no problem.
Maybe you should just keep trying or use some computer help. Believe me these radio broadcasts are indispensible. They are are on blogtalkradio.com.
politicstahl
QUOTE (FirstUsedBooks @ Nov 29 2014, 05:33 PM) *
Alas, I clicked on "Look inside" and wasn't impressed with the author's writing style. For me, reading it would be a chore.



Quite understandable. Those who wish to tell people about 9/11 Truth cannot be expected to undertake chores.
Truthissweet
I just listened to the 6:23 interview and she just repeats what has already been researched. I will listen to longer interview. Hopefully she adds something new or different. If she doesn't, then this is just a money grab using someone else's research. Not impressed at all with short interview.
NP1Mike
QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Dec 1 2014, 11:57 AM) *
I just listened to the 6:23 interview and she just repeats what has already been researched. I will listen to longer interview. Hopefully she adds something new or different. If she doesn't, then this is just a money grab using someone else's research. Not impressed at all with short interview.



I've invested more than five (5) hours listening to her interviews now.
She does have (for the most part) an easy-going, friendly personality.

Apart from the odd flight attendant procedure, she didn't really provide me with any new information re:9/11.

However, she states that her book reveals the exact location where all the 9/11 passengers/hijackers were taken to and what was done with them at that location.

She also states that she is the only one who has ever come up with the information that can prove the above.




politicstahl
QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 1 2014, 02:06 PM) *
I've invested more than five (5) hours listening to her interviews now.
She does have (for the most part) an easy-going, friendly personality.

Apart from the odd flight attendant procedure, she didn't really provide me with any new information re:9/11.

However, she states that her book reveals the exact location where all the 9/11 passengers/hijackers were taken to and what was done with them at that location.

She also states that she is the only one who has ever come up with the information that can prove the above.

politicstahl
If you attempt the book, be advised that 9/11 doesn't enter the picture until about 150 pp. in. The solid revelations are in the very last chapters.



mainer
Where were you able to find 5 hours of interviews?

I've ordered the book, and managed to find the first of the 5 interviews on Youtube. But on the logtalkradio pages I can't find any links to mp3 or video files of the interviews -- just the announcements that each will be happening.

Although I started out extremely skeptical of anyone claiming to suddenly have information no one else has turned up, I found her to have an engaging personality and a frame of reference quite different from any previous major figure in the movement. I think there's a credibility attached to someone who has had as much experience as she has, when talking about aspects such as planes going through the towers, or what would be actually happening in the planes (vs. what the "phone calls" said) with respect to the roles of the pilots and the flight attendants.

I think the hardest thing to figure is why she thinks writing what she wanted to say in a fictional format in any way makes it less likely that she would be taken out, and how she thinks talking about a sequel with a lot more to say on what she's discovered wouldn't increase the probability of removing her. "They" might have been blindsided by the appearance of the novel, but not by its announced sequel. This fall into the general area of the problems many of us have with Edward Snowden -- something seems not quite right.
NP1Mike
QUOTE (mainer @ Dec 2 2014, 02:42 PM) *
Where were you able to find 5 hours of interviews?


It's good to see we are on the same page wrt Ms. Roth and her findings.

First off, if you look at CharlesGWright's post above you will find the links to all the radio interviews (around 10 hours worth).

A few more comments about how I feel about Rebekah.

As I stated, I find her to be very personable and friendly during her interviews.

Like you, I found her perspective to be fresh (flight attendant) and knowledgable, detailing the protocols and procedures used on planes during regular flights and also during hijackings.

I disagree with her current position on the plane impacts of the buildings.
She hasn't wrapped her head around the probability that the buildings were prepped to accomodate the planes fully inside, nor that the planes were specially modified military drones.

But that's not too important really.

I agree with you about her flawed thinking that she is safe because she chose to write the book in fictional format rather than non-fiction.

I don't think it's fair to compare her with Ed Snowden, who released his information outside the U.S. and is forced to stay outside the country until such time/if ever that they find him innocent of his charges.

At this point in time I have mixed feelings about R. Roth.

Nothing she said in her interviews was ground-breaking news to me.

There have been many groups who have posited for years that the passengers/hijackers were herded somewhere on the ground and kept there during the 'hijackings' and made their phone calls from this location.

It has also been posited that they were subsequently killed in some manner.

I believe that scenario took place.

The only thing 'new' that Ms. Roth brings to the table is proof she says she has, that shows where exactly the passengers/hijackers were taken and what was done to them there (killings).

I like her overall non-confrontational approach and her call for all truthers to park their egos at the door and work together on this.
Truthissweet
Her book was published by KTYS Media. No way her book would be published by large publisher.

Info on book and you can read reviews and contacts:
http://www.methodicalillusion.com/

Just based on good above posts, I can't tell if she is promoting planes into WTC agenda instead of missile/drone. I am going right now to B&N to see if they have book and will read her take on passengers.

I am very skeptical about her take. I hope I am wrong. Will find out soon. I will post what I find later today.
Truthissweet
At B&N right now. My friend here at counter says you have to prepay for book. It is considered a print on demand book. They never had it in stock. Similar books like Roth's book are prepay.

IMO, all the passengers are still alive. I would like to get Roth's take on passengers.

NP1Mike
QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Dec 3 2014, 09:58 AM) *
Just based on good above posts, I can't tell if she is promoting planes into WTC agenda instead of missile/drone. I am going right now to B&N to see if they have book and will read her take on passengers.

I am very skeptical about her take. I hope I am wrong. Will find out soon. I will post what I find later today.


She is promoting missile/drone into WTC over a plane. She knows the scheduled flights didn't hit the towers.

I must say I also am skeptical about the 'proof' she has that details where the passengers were taken and exactly what happened to them.

I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I can't help feel she has come up with something like
"Oh my gosh, Cee Cee Lyles whispers 'It's a frame' at the end of her message!".

I sincerely hope I'm wrong and that she actually has the real goods.

I know she believes they were taken to a hanger where they made their calls.

QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Dec 3 2014, 11:06 AM) *
At B&N right now. My friend here at counter says you have to prepay for book. It is considered a print on demand book. They never had it in stock...

IMO, all the passengers are still alive. I would like to get Roth's take on passengers.


TruthIs, from all you have written here, the passenger angle is clearly the most important one to you.

QUOTE
It is very important whether Olson is alive or if indeed she is Booth. Same goes for any other 'passengers'. It busts 911 wide open. It is the easiest way to show 911 was an inside job. Some researchers like myself are fixated on passengers being alive. Just one alive passenger or crew and heads start rolling.


We now have a flight attendant (the first one) who says she has proof that the passengers were killed.
It only costs $10 (kindle) and less than $20 (Amazon) to find out what her proof is.
Given your conviction about the passengers, maybe it would be a good investment for you to pick up a copy?



Truthissweet
NP, I am cheap. Being the holidays, her book can wait. Someone somewhere will reveal her secrets. FYI, I am working on something that could be big concerning a certain passenger. Can't say anything right now. On Sunday, I was quite surprised what I found out in my neck of the woods. Hope to have info on this before end of year. I wish I could say something on it, but I will soon enough.
mainer
QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 2 2014, 04:53 PM) *
It's good to see we are on the same page wrt Ms. Roth and her findings.

First off, if you look at CharlesGWright's post above you will find the links to all the radio interviews (around 10 hours worth).

<snip>


OK, I *finally* found the tiny little download link in the upper right corner. They're pretty subtle with their tools :-). I'll look forward to the next 8 hours of listening when I get a chance.

Re: truthissweet's comment, it's too bad you're too "cheap" to buy books. I've found it very useful to buy them (and DVDs) and put them in our local (friendly) library, which makes them available via interlibrary loan all across the state. And relying on other people to spill the beans about the meat of a book is to perhaps get a distorted view of the author's intentions.

As to "Can't say anything right now. On Sunday, I was quite surprised what I found out in my neck of the woods. Hope to have info on this before end of year. I wish I could say something on it, but I will soon enough" -- I think most JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theorists would recognize that as *exactly* what gets someone killed or suicided. Good luck! We'll keep our fingers crossed.
Truthissweet
Mainer, I am kind of nervous about my post. But it is something I feel I gotta do. Too big to pass up. Check the Erie Times obits if you do not see a post from me in a weeks time. I am sort of half joking. This is untested waters for me. I learned a lesson from dealing with Mercyhurst profs and local media. I should have planned it out better. This time it is different. Thanks for your concern.

I hated moving here but it has been kind to me as far as 911 connections.
Truthissweet
This is two posts by 'randomgal' from LRF thread from 12/21/11


Re: Last-Minute Pilots, Passengers, and Flight Attendants: The Unexplained Oddity of

Hi, (this is a first time post by 'randomgal' on LRF 12/21/11)

I'm new here and to be honest, I'm still not sure where I stand regarding 9/11. With all the various "conspiracy theories" floating around, it tends to become overwhelming and can make one revert back to simply believing what we were told just to make sense of it all. With that said, I am very open-minded and tend to be a bit of a skeptic myself. I, like many on these boards, am always looking for that "concrete proof," if you will.

Having been a flight attendant for a large airline for some time, I would like to make a few notes regarding Phil's original post regarding the crew members' schedules.

"........Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Jayhan
REPLACEMENT PILOTS
The pilot at the controls of Flight 11--the first plane to hit the World Trade Center--before it was supposedly hijacked was John Ogonowski. However, as the Georgetown Record reported: "American Airlines Captain Walter Sorenson of Groveland was scheduled to fly Flight #11 on Sept. 11, 2001. He was disappointed when he was replaced by Captain John Ogonowski, who had seniority over Sorenson and requested to fly that day. ... The last-minute change of pilots ... spared Sorenson's wife Sarah the untimely loss of a young husband." [1] On Flight 77, which supposedly hit the Pentagon, the pilot and co-pilot were Charles Burlingame and David Charlebois. But, as the New York Times reported: "Bill Cheng, an American Airlines pilot who normally flies Flight 77, changed his plans in late August [2001] and applied for time off on Tuesday [September 11] so he could go camping. When another pilot signed up for the slot, Mr. Cheng's application was accepted." [2] Whether it was Burlingame or Charlebois that replaced him is unstated. And the pilot of Flight 93 was Jason Dahl. But according to the Denver Post: "Dahl piloted United Flight 93 on Sept. 11 because he asked to. At his request, [his wife] traded for the flight on their home computer. He'd wanted to get back to Ken-Caryl Valley sooner to start celebrating their fifth wedding anniversary. Days after the request, Dahl's terrorist-invaded plane took a nose dive in a Pennsylvania field." [3] Dahl took Flight 93 in exchange for a flight he'd been booked on later that month. [4]......."(end of quote)

('randomgal' continues)
Crew members are given their flight schedules on a calendar monthly basis. We bid for our trips, and depending on our seniority, we either get awarded our bid, get awarded a partial bid, or get reserve status for the month, which means that we're basically on call. If one is assigned a trip but knows in advance he/she cannot make it, they can either attempt to drop it or trip-trade it with another person. However, this must be done prior to the day of the scheduled flight. The only way a crew member can drop a trip on the same day is if they called in sick, in which case a "reserve" would be called to replace that crew member. So I have a hard time believing that Mr. Sorenson was able to drop his trip the morning of 9/11. And, like I said, if he did call in, the system flags the trip as being short a crew member, and at such a late notice would automatically dial out to schedule a reserve. Crew members have no choice in this matter.

".....Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Jayhan
Flight 93: At least three of the five attendants on this flight were not originally booked to be on it. Sandra Bradshaw "liked working first class," but "was in economy because she'd picked up Flight 93 late in the planning." She had "switched flights with another attendant." [15](end of quote)

('randomgal continues)
Flight attendants bid for their position onboard the a/c based on seniority. It does not matter when their trip was assigned. I could be the most senior scheduled FA for a particular trip and decide to bid for the first class position, but if there are last minute changes and someone else senior to me gets scheduled for my trip, we rebid our assignments. It has nothing to do with when a crew member is assigned a trip.

"......Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Jayhan
Wanda Green "had been scheduled to fly Sept. 13, but Green, who also worked as a real estate agent, realized she had to handle the closing of a home sale Sept. 13. She'd phoned her best friend, fellow flight attendant Donita Judge, who opened United's computerized schedule and shifted Green to the Sept. 11 flight..."(end of quote)

(randomgal continues)
One cannot simply "shift" a trip. We have to put in a request, in advance, and if the system accepts it, we would be notified that the request has been approved. Until, and unless that happens, we are still responsible for our original schedule. Turnaround times for schedule change approvals are typically 24-48 hours.

On a side note, one issue I've always had is how relatively light the loads were. The 8am-10am flights are typically full due to passengers originally scheduled for the earliest flights oversleeping, or missing them for whatever reason, so they get bumped to the next flight. Also, airlines have a sort of revenue policy where they will cancel a flight if there are too many open seats. A 767 (one of my a/c's) can hold upwards of 350 passengers. Flight 11, for example was only 25% occupied. In my experience, this flight would cost the airline $$ because it would cost more to fly than the revenue it gained from its' passenger fares. As we all know, airlines hate losing money, so they would look at the loads for upcoming flights that day, and if there are sufficient seats available, they would cancel the light load and bump the passengers to a later flight, filling up the planes and getting the most bang for their buck.

Finally, in my 12 years of flying (for one of the major carriers), I have never, not once, been able to use my cell phone or have witnessed anyone else doing so, in flight. And trust me when I tell you that, especially since 9/11, I've tried many times just to see if it's possible. The only possible communication with the ground is via the ACARS system that the pilots have access to, or with ground control. I guess you could say this is my biggest issue with 9/11, because I just don't understand how they were able to make crystal clear calls from a flying altitude when my phone signal is dead before we've even reached 10,000 feet.
(end of post)

(next post)
Thanks for the welcomes.

I just wanted to provide what little I could from a crew member's prospective.

Oh, and another thing...
Although flight attendants aren't trained in the various aerodynamics and such of our aircraft like pilots are, one of the things we do learn about is what's called "weights and balances." I bring this up for 2 reasons: First, when there is a less-than-full flight load, passenger seating assignments must be scattered throughout the cabin to avoid any overbearing of weight on one side or another.

"......Quote:
One important preflight consideration is the distribution
of the load in the aircraft. Loading the aircraft so the gross
weight is less than the maximum allowable is not enough.
This weight must be distributed to keep the CG within the
limits specified in the POH or AFM.
If the CG is too far forward, a heavy passenger can
be moved to one of the rear seats or baggage can be
shifted from a forward baggage compartment to a rear
compartment. If the CG is too far aft, passenger weight or
baggage can be shifted forward. The fuel load should be
balanced laterally. (www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/faa-h-8083-1a.pdf
(end of quote)

('randomgal' continues)
I haven't researched this, but do we know every passenger's seat assignment on the 3 flights?

Second, if all the passengers on flt 93 were in fact all moved to the back, it would have significantly affected the pitch of the aircraft. I've worked on 757s hundreds of times in my career, and anyone who's been on one can tell you that is one heck of a long a/c, thereby the center of gravity would have been significantly affected. I would imagine the other pilots who had gotten a visual of the plane would have noticed this.

".....Quote:
In the airline industry, load balancing is used to evenly distribute the weight of passengers, cargo, and fuel throughout an aircraft, so as to keep the aircraft's center of gravity close to its center of pressure to avoid losing pitch control. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_distribution)
(end of post)
this was a four page thread


Do you think this could have been Rebekah Roth posting on LRF as 'randomgal'?
mainer
QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Dec 8 2014, 07:19 AM) *
This is two posts by 'randomgal' from LRF thread from 12/21/11

Re: Last-Minute Pilots, Passengers, and Flight Attendants: The Unexplained Oddity of
Hi, (this is a first time post by 'randomgal' on LRF 12/21/11)
<snip>
Do you think this could have been Rebekah Roth posting on LRF as 'randomgal'?


No, it's not RR, because RR had 30 years of experience, not 12. But the perspective RG brings to this is exactly the kind of perspective RR did -- the hard reality of what goes on in an airplane -- though RR takes it way further. I'm including below a message I sent to my list (having not yet received RR's book). Apologies for its length.

-------------------
A week or so ago I ran into a reference to a week-long series of interviews last month with Rebekah Roth, a retired international flight attendant and purser (head flight attendant). She has written a book called "Methodical Illusion"

http://www.methodicalillusion.com/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982757131/

I had a chance, given a sudden load of work related to house-painting, to listen to the interviews (playable or downloadable from the links below). The guys running the show are not what I'd call the highest caliber hosts, and there's a lot of informality, but Ms. Roth is very good, and what she had to say riveted me.

After she retired after 30 years as a flight attendant, she started writing a novel to tell about life in the skies. In the process, she did a web search to come up with a Middle Eastern name for one of the characters, and ran across references to a large proportion of the alleged 9/11 hijackers still being alive. It apparently changed her life, leading her ever deeper into the proverbial 9/11 rabbit hole.

Her perspective is unique in the world of 9/11 research. She comes at it from the point of view of a person intimately familiar with the way the airline industry runs at the level of what goes on in flights.

On 9/11, she'd been grounded along with the other thousands of airline personnel, and spent a lot of time watching the whole thing on TV. She had hit her first level of cognitive dissonance (she seems to call it "cognitive dissidence") when she saw the second plane hit. She thought maybe it was trick photography -- a plane made of thin aluminum shouldn't have pierced the heavy steel perimeter columns. But she suppressed this -- being in the air all the time made thinking about the implications too difficult. And she stayed that way until that fateful web search for a name.

Since then, she has run into all the "usual" information those of us involved in 9/11-related work have become familiar with, and has incorporated it into her novel. But her perspective is radically different from the rest of us.

She knew that cellphone calls couldn't possibly have been made from the planes as described, and knew intimately the practical limitations of on-board seat-back phones, so all the claims about these calls made no sense to her.

Most of us have concluded that the calls were done with some kind of voice-morphing and caller-id-spoofing technology. The calmness of most of the callers and the absence of any cabin noise were always problematic. But while the rest of us couldn't come up with an alternative, she has.

In the interviews, she lays out an excellent detailed analysis of every call -- particularly NY flights 11 & 175 in interview 3 and flights 77 & 93 in interview 4. She looks at the FAA records of the alleged movements of the planes, zeroing in on the times the calls were made, most of which were made when planes were supposedly descending so rapidly all kinds of things would have been going on that weren't happening in the calls. Her knowledge of the layout, procedures and practicality of 767s and 757s -- their length and width, who was sitting where, who could or couldn't have seen what they were describing, how quickly mace or perfumes would fill the entire plane, etc. -- opens up a whole new window into those calls.

She also goes into detail on the "Flight Termination" technology available at the time -- ironically intended to prevent hijackings -- by which a ground controller could take complete control and communication ability away from the crew. She believes that there were no hijackings and that the flight termination mechanism was used.

Her remarkable conclusion is that the calls were made on the ground, that all four planes were on the ground shortly after they took off, and at least one was in a hangar (a caller referred to a man "coming down the stairs"). The final blockbuster for her turned up in a recording of Flight 93 attendant C.C. Lyles. At the very end, a woman's voice says very quietly something like "that was very good." The frequency of certain specific phrases among all the calls imply to her that people were reading from scripts, and she infers from this that they were probably told they were participating in a drill (we all know there were many exercises going on that morning).

From the timing of the calls, she determined how far the planes could have reached from their point of origin, and then figured out where they had to have landed. I haven't yet received my shipment of the book, so I don't know her location proposal yet, but expect it will be interesting.

The inescapable conclusion is that the passengers and flight crew are indeed dead, but were killed in some other way than a plane crash. The thought is extremely disquieting, but pales by comparison with the deliberate murders of all the other people who died on and after 9/11 as a result of the event.*

Also interesting will be getting more detail on something else she claims to have run into -- references to the next big event, which will be taking place in many cities sometime next May.

She also is very well-informed on the financial aspects of 9/11 -- the movement of massive amounts of gold out of the World Trade Center, the destruction of the $240 billion in "Brady Bonds," the insurance fraud. And she provides the evidence that has convinced her that Israel was one of the main players on that day.

If you have the time or interest, the interviews are one of the more interesting ways you might spend time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE INTERVIEWS:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags...kah-roth-part-1
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags...kah-roth-part-2
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags...kah-roth-part-3
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags...kah-roth-part-4
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags...e-wrebekah-roth
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

*A very interesting movie, Operation Terror -- the only "Hollywood thriller" style movie to deal with what might have been behind 9/11 -- specifically addresses this, positing the offloading of passengers in a hangar into a large compartment with a NASA logo, "for their personal safety." It was a huge incinerator.

http://operationterror.com/
Truthissweet
QUOTE
No, it's not RR, because RR had 30 years of experience, not 12. But the perspective RG brings to this is exactly the kind of perspective RR did -- the hard reality of what goes on in an airplane -- though RR takes it way further. I'm including below a message I sent to my list (having not yet received RR's book). Apologies for its length.


If it was Roth on LRF, she would have fudged the number of years worked at airlines so she could not be tracked. Maybe she was testing the waters to see how posters would react to her story before it was officially released. Guess we will never know.

I wonder if the NASA logo in 'Operation Terror' is a cryptic clue to NASA Lewis Research Center at Hopkins Airport in Cleveland. Good info in your post.
NP1Mike
QUOTE (mainer @ Dec 8 2014, 05:22 PM) *
Most of us have concluded that the calls were done with some kind of voice-morphing and caller-id-spoofing technology. The calmness of most of the callers and the absence of any cabin noise were always problematic. But while the rest of us couldn't come up with an alternative, she has.

... Her remarkable conclusion is that the calls were made on the ground, that all four planes were on the ground shortly after they took off, and at least one was in a hangar (a caller referred to a man "coming down the stairs").


Not to take away anything from Ms. Roth's research or info that she has provided, but if you read the archives at this site and others, you will find that "the calls were made from the ground" theory
was alive and well long before she made this declaration to the public.
It is very likely that when she was doing her research she discovered this theory and agreed with it (her further research corroborating with it).

QUOTE
The final blockbuster for her turned up in a recording of Flight 93 attendant C.C. Lyles. At the very end, a woman's voice says very quietly something like "that was very good."


That 'blockbuster' has turned up for many people, with variations on the theme, such as "It's a frame" etc. (read the archives on this site about C.C. Lyles calls).

QUOTE
From the timing of the calls, she determined how far the planes could have reached from their point of origin, and then figured out where they had to have landed.


Sorry, but this makes no sense at all.

On the one hand she is saying that the calls were made from the ground (I agree with this) and on the other hand she is saying she can determine the planes' locations based on the timing of the calls.

If the calls were made from the ground then they are totally divorced from any 'planes in the air'.
If they goofed with the timing of the calls made from the ground you can't figure out anything about where the planes should have been.

Truthissweet
I sent a message thru her website asking if she would review this thread and possibly have a Q&A. I also asked if she was 'randomgal'. Hopefully she replies back.
Truthissweet
Review of Roth Book

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/31/airline911/


QUOTE
. 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.



QUOTE
...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.
Truthissweet
The link above was from Paula at LRF. If anyone listened to Roth interview with Barrett, was it same type of interview that was previously posted back in this thread. I have issues with Fetzer and will not sign up at the above website to listen to interview.
Truthissweet
She will be on CtoC AM this coming Thursday. (3/19)

After a nearly thirty year airline career working as both a flight attendant and an international purser Rebekah Roth has been analyzing many of the well-known facts about the events on 9/11 based on her experiences in the airline industry. She'll discuss how many of the details of the hijacking and financial instruments set up to capitalize on the tragedy do not add up. Hosted by George Noory.
Truthissweet
Rebekah Roth CtoC am 3/19/15:

QUOTE
9-11 Puzzles:

After a nearly thirty year airline career working as both a flight attendant and an international purser Rebekah Roth analyzed many of the well-known facts about the events on 9-11 based on her experiences in the airline industry. On Thursday's show, she shared her conclusion that the official story was a deception, and that the attacks were a kind of "false flag" Pearl Harbor event set up to pull America into wars in the Middle East. One of her most interesting areas of research was looking at the FBI transcripts of phone calls made aboard the hijacked planes. First of all, she found it odd that two flight attendants didn't follow hijacking protocol, and engaged in lengthy phone calls. One of the flight attendants complained of pepper spray affecting the ability to breathe in business class, yet Roth suggested that if such a spray was used it would have affected the entire pressurized plane. This, and other clues, led her to believe that the plane wasn't pressurized at all and was inside a hangar at the time of the calls.

Another comment made by a flight attendant referred to one of the hijackers as standing upstairs, "and there are no stairs in a 767," Roth remarked. One passenger, a 32-year old American, called his father and mentioned that an "airline hostess" had been stabbed. This archaic terminology would not normally be used by a young person, and led Roth to suspect that the people making the calls were being fed specific information to say. Further, the fact that so many calls were made (most phones don't work at high altitudes), and it was very quiet on the callers' end, suggests that they were somewhere on the ground, she said.

Additionally, an ex-military pilot, who was a passenger supposedly on the second plane heading into the Twin Towers, was just three minutes from impact, when in a phone conversation with his mother, conjectured that he was in Ohio, Roth recounted. She has concluded that smaller planes or missiles were used to hit the Towers, while American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were stowed elsewhere, with the passengers being gassed to death.


If this show had been before September, I would have listened to it. However, I am now on a different sleep schedule after 16 years of third shift type hours. If anyone listened to her, can you provide a post. Thanks in advance.
NP1Mike
QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Mar 20 2015, 08:16 AM) *
Rebekah Roth CtoC am 3/19/15:

If this show had been before September, I would have listened to it. However, I am now on a different sleep schedule after 16 years of third shift type hours. If anyone listened to her, can you provide a post. Thanks in advance.


I listened to the first part of the radio broadcast (two parts).
Anyone can download and listen to it now for free. The second part requires a paid membership.

I have now listened to more than 6 hours or Rebekah Roth on various radio shows.
I know her story.

As I mentioned in a previous post, she doesn't bring anything new to the table re: the key points.

She does add some details of what is standard protocol for flight attendant procedures and outlines that the attendants making the calls were not following these procedures.
In addition she notes the background noise during the calls was impossibly quiet for planes that were essentially diving (also no screaming from passengers etc.).

She finally revealed her blockbuster conclusion that comes at the end of her book.
That the planes were sitting in a hanger after being taken control of by remote control and landed.
That selected passengers were removed from the planes, taken into various rooms and forced to read prepared scripts on phones.
That the remaining passengers on the planes were gassed to death.
That those who were removed and read the scripts were likely shot to death.

Once again, I admire the courage of R. Roth for doing what she did and continues to do.
Although she doesn't bring anything new to the table in the grand scheme of things, she is trying to get the word
out there to the greater public, and for this she is to be highly applauded. thumbsup.gif
Truthissweet
(NP, thanks for posting about show)


QUOTE
Once again, I admire the courage of R. Roth for doing what she did and continues to do.
Although she doesn't bring anything new to the table in the grand scheme of things, she is trying to get the word
out there to the greater public, and for this she is to be highly applauded.


Ditto. The one thing I am glad she said was she feels a missile/small plane hit WTC. That was my hopeful reply from her. I differ on the passenger assessment.

Now that she is trying to tell a story different than the official story, when will she be hassled by the IRS; followed online; pension plan 'problems and other stuff known to happen to people who try to spread the real story.
NP1Mike
QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Mar 20 2015, 06:00 PM) *
(NP, thanks for posting about show)



You are welcome.


QUOTE
Now that she is trying to tell a story different than the official story, when will she be hassled by the IRS; followed online; pension plan 'problems and other stuff known to happen to people who try to spread the real story.


Rebekah has joined in on what may become a new trend re: 9/11 books.
She chose to write her story as fiction.
This is a clever move on several levels.
She now has built-in plausible deniability.
Truthissweet
What traffic here concerning Roth. Non-stop for three-four days. Wonder how many fed sites have viewed this thread. Mod, you should post 'who' visits.
wilddaddy
So just finished the book, Methodical Illusions, by Rebekah Roth. I'm curios if this has been discussed here. It was written as a novel and it really didn't get into the 911 stuff until the last quarter or so of the book. Most of the information is known to most people here. She is a retired flight attendant and I thought it was well worth it, just to get her point of view about protocols NOT followed that day, phone calls, flight interruption technology, etc.

She actually names the air base where she thinks the "real" planes were taken.

Regardless, would love to see a discussion here on it.
mainer
This HAS been discussed here before, though I don't have the links to those discussions.

I've heard Rebekah in a number of interviews since last November. She's relatively new to 9/11 Truth, and full of herself, and shows it in some of her comments (such as dissing David Ray Griffin as not having done research), but perhaps that's an advantage in that she comes with new eyes from her perspective as an international master flight attendant.

I found the book a bit rocky to read (she needs a good editor -- Kevin Barrett noted not to expect good literature), and the 9/11 stuff was jammed all together in large chunks that didn't fit the flow of the rest of the novel, and which I have a feeling would put off newcomers. The book was originally written just to describe life as a flight attendant (chick lit?), and she ran into 9/11 truth at the last minute while trying to come up with a name for one of her "Middle Eastern" characters. Hence the patchiness. And the ending is kind of a rose-colored-glasses libertarian dream, though left slightly up in the air.

BUT

She has given us some incredible new insights into those flights because of her experience as a flight attendant. I would call the book a must read. She describes the operational protocols that flight attendants follow, and the realities of the environment in a jetliner, and analyzes the phone calls from that point of view. She rejects the idea of faked calls and voice morphing, which many of us have had to cling to without any good alternatives. She made the jump to assuming they were real calls by real people and went where that led her, particularly

1. They must have been made on the ground (not only the impossibly of cellphone calls from the air, but also the absence of all the things that would have been happening if the described events had been going on in an airplane cabin).

2. If this is true, the timing of the first call in each flight would circumscribe the distance the planes could have flown before being landed again, and assuming they would have all had to be brought to the same place, what were the candidate locations that fell within the 4 flight radii. Westover Air Base in Western MA was the most likely.

3. The people must have been persuaded they were participating in a drill, and since one of the flight attendants had reported a "hijacker" upstairs, that call would have come from a hangar (since 757/767's have no stairs).

4. Since the planes that were supposedly destroyed would have still existed, they'd have to be taken elsewhere. The best candidate was the AFB in Arizona which has been discussed here previously, the one Phil Marshall had nosed around once too often.

This is the first time I know of where someone has come up with an adequate answer to the perennially problematic question asked of all of us -- What happened to the planes and the passengers? I think Methodical Illusions is a must read for all 911 Truth people.
wilddaddy
QUOTE (mainer @ May 20 2015, 11:57 AM) *
This HAS been discussed here before, though I don't have the links to those discussions.

I've heard Rebekah in a number of interviews since last November. She's relatively new to 9/11 Truth, and full of herself, and shows it in some of her comments (such as dissing David Ray Griffin as not having done research), but perhaps that's an advantage in that she comes with new eyes from her perspective as an international master flight attendant.

I found the book a bit rocky to read (she needs a good editor -- Kevin Barrett noted not to expect good literature), and the 9/11 stuff was jammed all together in large chunks that didn't fit the flow of the rest of the novel, and which I have a feeling would put off newcomers. The book was originally written just to describe life as a flight attendant (chick lit?), and she ran into 9/11 truth at the last minute while trying to come up with a name for one of her "Middle Eastern" characters. Hence the patchiness. And the ending is kind of a rose-colored-glasses libertarian dream, though left slightly up in the air.

BUT

She has given us some incredible new insights into those flights because of her experience as a flight attendant. I would call the book a must read. She describes the operational protocols that flight attendants follow, and the realities of the environment in a jetliner, and analyzes the phone calls from that point of view. She rejects the idea of faked calls and voice morphing, which many of us have had to cling to without any good alternatives. She made the jump to assuming they were real calls by real people and went where that led her, particularly

1. They must have been made on the ground (not only the impossibly of cellphone calls from the air, but also the absence of all the things that would have been happening if the described events had been going on in an airplane cabin).

2. If this is true, the timing of the first call in each flight would circumscribe the distance the planes could have flown before being landed again, and assuming they would have all had to be brought to the same place, what were the candidate locations that fell within the 4 flight radii. Westover Air Base in Western MA was the most likely.

3. The people must have been persuaded they were participating in a drill, and since one of the flight attendants had reported a "hijacker" upstairs, that call would have come from a hangar (since 757/767's have no stairs).

4. Since the planes that were supposedly destroyed would have still existed, they'd have to be taken elsewhere. The best candidate was the AFB in Arizona which has been discussed here previously, the one Phil Marshall had nosed around once too often.

This is the first time I know of where someone has come up with an adequate answer to the perennially problematic question asked of all of us -- What happened to the planes and the passengers? I think Methodical Illusions is a must read for all 911 Truth people.



May I use this write up on my facebook? You hit it spot on!!!!
mainer
QUOTE (wilddaddy @ May 20 2015, 12:08 PM) *
May I use this write up on my facebook? You hit it spot on!!!!


Sure.

I hope Ms. Roth doesn't take offense at my frank comments if she see's them (although she has showed sharp defensiveness at questioners in the interviews) -- my appreciation for her analysis goes way beyond any of the criticisms.
NP1Mike
QUOTE (mainer @ May 20 2015, 11:57 AM) *
I've heard Rebekah in a number of interviews since last November. She's relatively new to 9/11 Truth, and full of herself, and shows it in some of her comments (such as dissing David Ray Griffin as not having done research), but perhaps that's an advantage in that she comes with new eyes from her perspective as an international master flight attendant.


... This is the first time I know of where someone has come up with an adequate answer to the perennially problematic question asked of all of us -- What happened to the planes and the passengers? I think Methodical Illusions is a must read for all 911 Truth people.




mainer, you have given an excellent review of Ms. Roth's contribution to research of the 9/11 flights.
I think you were right on the mark with your frank comments about Ms. Roth, I feel exactly the same as you.

As far as "where someone has come up with an adequate answer to the perennially problematic question asked of all of us -- What happened to the planes and the passengers?"

It may have been the first time for you, but in doing my 9/11 research I have come upon the exact scenario Ms. Roth describes several times by several people. Some were written more than a decade ago.

As far as MI being a "must read for all 911 Truth people", I wouldn't go that far.
I have read enough reviews of the book (including yours) already and listened to enough of her interviews (more than 8 hours) to know exactly what the important parts of the book contain.

Having said that, Ms. Roth's contributions to 9/11 research are very important.
Anyone who hasn't put in the time listening to her radio interviews and wants to get all the info 'quickly' will probably be best served
by reading her book (particularly the last third).

I don't buy into all of her 9/11 conclusions, but as far as the phone calls and the technical aspects of what goes on in an airplane cabin during a flight she is spot on.






wilddaddy
QUOTE (mainer @ May 20 2015, 12:22 PM) *
Sure.

I hope Ms. Roth doesn't take offense at my frank comments if she see's them (although she has showed sharp defensiveness at questioners in the interviews) -- my appreciation for her analysis goes way beyond any of the criticisms.



Agree with you mike. I read about Ptech, Mitre, etc long ago....that the calls were made either under duress, or as part of a "drill" was speculated long ago.

I found the first three quarters of the book frustrating to say the least. But her perspective as a flight specialist is appreciated....just wondering what "thing" or "event" will get 911 truth really rolling? Not giving up hope, just a bit frustrated....
wilddaddy
QUOTE (mainer @ May 20 2015, 12:22 PM) *
Sure.

I hope Ms. Roth doesn't take offense at my frank comments if she see's them (although she has showed sharp defensiveness at questioners in the interviews) -- my appreciation for her analysis goes way beyond any of the criticisms.



Maybe I'll take that stuff out....I actually friended her on facebook...LOL
NP1Mike
We have come full circle with the cell phone calls.

We start with the official story that 15-16 cell phone calls were made from the planes.

Then David Griffin and others’ research shows that cell phone calls would have been impossible from the planes at cruising altitude.

Then the FBI changes the official story at the Zach trial in 2006.
They now say that only 2 cell phone calls were made (Flt. 93), that all the rest were seat-back phone calls.

Then Ms. Roth corroborates with others who believe that cell phone calls were made, but
from the ground, rather than from the air.


So the government has been able to have its cake and eat it too.
For the crucial few years following 9/11 when it was important to implant the story in the general public’s minds of passenger calls from the planes giving details of the ‘hijackings’, cell phone calls it was.

Then when backlash came outlining that cell phone calls could not have been made at cruising altitude, the government’s story mutated, to just two cell phone calls (near ground level). When the new story came out only those following the Zach trial even knew about this new revelation. The general public isn’t aware of the government’s new version of the phone calls and the MSM certainly isn't about to broadcast this extremely important 9/11 detail.

So it is understandable why Ms. Roth can be hostile towards Griffin and his research.
In a talk he gave in 2000 he states “we have good reason to believe that these calls never occurred.” (ie. they were fake).

While Griffin is certainly to be commended for the breadth of his 9/11 research, I have found several important errors that he's made (this being one of them).



NP1Mike
As I mentioned in previous posts, I found many others who came up with a 'cell calls from on the ground' theory for the phone calls.

Here is just one of them from Feb 2010 (almost four years before the publication of her book):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2kFQu6Ux0

At best, Ms. Roth can claim her evidence corroborates the 'cell calls from on the ground' theory.
wilddaddy
Thanks Mods for consolidating here.

Mike, great input and absolutely spot on!

I hope, and would like to imagine, that the Massimo Mazucco film "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor" would not only educate "the people" about the cell phone calls ,but would also educate them about ALL of the events surrounding 911...

Sigh

Thanks Again!

PS. She is now talking about making a movie and having her own radio show

PSS. Has David Ray Griffin changed his mind about the voice morphing stuff? I could NEVER swallow that and just gave him a Mulligan on that.
NP1Mike
QUOTE (wilddaddy @ May 20 2015, 04:37 PM) *
Mike, great input and absolutely spot on!

I hope, and would like to imagine, that the Massimo Mazucco film "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor" would not only educate "the people" about the cell phone calls ,but would also educate them about ALL of the events surrounding 911...



Thanks.

Yes it's a great documentary. I wouldn't get your hopes up too much however.
I bought a copy a year or so ago after watching it online.
I made a few copies and recently had the opportunity to give a copy to my Dad in Florida
and watch it with him.

To give you an idea of what we are up against (the general public), I wasn't able to convince him
that 9/11 was a false flag event despite the film being chock full of evidence supporting this.
After watching the entire video (almost 6 hours)!

And he is a civil engineer no less!

QUOTE
PS. She is now talking about making a movie and having her own radio show


All the power to her. Anything to raise 9/11 awareness is good in my books.

QUOTE
PSS. Has David Ray Griffin changed his mind about the voice morphing stuff? I could NEVER swallow that and just gave him a Mulligan on that.


I'm not sure but I would guess not. He hasn't been too visible lately due to declining health I've heard.


wilddaddy
Hey Mike, can you tell me how you copied the CD. I too ordered it but can seem to make copies on my apple....tried several printing places and they couldn't either...thanks yet again.


My Dad was one of the smartest people I knew. VP of a big company, well read, educated and he finally said he wouldn't believe it until someone on TV or in the government said it...LMAO!

He was finally coming around and unfortunately passed away a couple of years ago. Would have loved watching the film with him. Hard to imagine someone watching that and not being convinced.....Cognitive Dissonance is more powerful than I imagined..sigh
NP1Mike
QUOTE (wilddaddy @ May 21 2015, 12:05 AM) *
Hey Mike, can you tell me how you copied the CD. I too ordered it but can seem to make copies on my apple....tried several printing places and they couldn't either...thanks yet again.


I don't remember exactly what I did, I possibly used Nero software. I know I use it to copy CD's. I'm not sure if I used it with DVD's though.
It was over a year ago and I don't recall having problems with it.

QUOTE
My Dad was one of the smartest people I knew. VP of a big company, well read, educated and he finally said he wouldn't believe it until someone on TV or in the government said it...LMAO!

He was finally coming around and unfortunately passed away a couple of years ago. Would have loved watching the film with him. Hard to imagine someone watching that and not being convinced.....Cognitive Dissonance is more powerful than I imagined..sigh



Well my Dad is getting on in his years and I certainly wouldn't categorize him as one of the smartest people I know, but he isn't at the other end of the spectrum either.
Yes it's definitely the 'Cognitive Dissonance' problem at play with him.

No matter how convincing the evidence presented is, he simply can't get past the "How could our government possibly do this to its own people?" mindset.
It was actually a very frustrating experience watching the film with him. sad.gif

I remember asking him many questions.
One that stands out was, "Now with the buildings collapsing, how far away from the buildings would you expect a steel beam to fall?"
He gave the correct answer "About 50 feet or so".
When I told him about and showed him pictures of beams that had "fallen" more than 600 feet away from the towers he simply didn't believe the photos were real !!! sad.gif










23investigator
I remember asking him many questions.
One that stands out was, "Now with the buildings collapsing, how far away from the buildings would you expect a steel beam to fall?"
He gave the correct answer "About 50 feet or so".
When I told him about and showed him pictures of beams that had "fallen" more than 600 feet away from the towers he simply didn't believe the photos were real !!! sad.gif
[/quote]

Dear, 'NP1 Mike'

Yes, that's the problem with us old buggers!
We are very hard to convince.
So many these days don't even have the excuse of thinking about it with old values.
But even back then it has been well proven that everything wasn't always as it appeared to be.

Nobody likes to think their country is deceiving them: young or old: unless of course they are part of it.

Robert D S





amazed!
QUOTE (NP1Mike @ May 21 2015, 01:22 AM) *
I don't remember exactly what I did, I possibly used Nero software. I know I use it to copy CD's. I'm not sure if I used it with DVD's though.
It was over a year ago and I don't recall having problems with it.




Well my Dad is getting on in his years and I certainly wouldn't categorize him as one of the smartest people I know, but he isn't at the other end of the spectrum either.
Yes it's definitely the 'Cognitive Dissonance' problem at play with him.

No matter how convincing the evidence presented is, he simply can't get past the "How could our government possibly do this to its own people?" mindset.
It was actually a very frustrating experience watching the film with him. sad.gif

I remember asking him many questions.
One that stands out was, "Now with the buildings collapsing, how far away from the buildings would you expect a steel beam to fall?"
He gave the correct answer "About 50 feet or so".
When I told him about and showed him pictures of beams that had "fallen" more than 600 feet away from the towers he simply didn't believe the photos were real !!! sad.gif



Great post Mike, about your dad. Truly, it is a demonstration of CD. I think it is much easier to see it in person, obviously. Body language and such.

But it is sad to behold, however common. whistle.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.