A novel idea: Rebekah Roth’s Methodical Illusion and what happened to the planes on 9-11

Rebekah Roth signs copies of her book Methodical Illusions.

Rebekah Roth signs copies of her book Methodical Illusion.

By Paul Zarembka (Special to Truth and Shadows)

Rebekah Roth’s 9-11 novel Methodical Illusion is getting a lot of attention.  It claims to provide proof that all four 9-11 planes took off, but did not go to targets and instead were landed in Westover Air Reserve Base in Massachusetts where cell phone calls were set-up to implicate Muslims [sentence added, May 13, 2015. P.Z.].
The author has done many interviews since the book was published in November 2014, with almost all interviewers receiving her novel enthusiastically. Many of the 230+ reviews of the book on Amazon have four- and five-star ratings, and even those who give the book a lower rating rarely contest the substance regarding 9-11.
While Roth’s claims about what may have happened on September 11, 2001 give us a lot to absorb, there are problems with some of them, which I address below. In her interviews, Roth explains how her experience as a flight attendant for almost 30 years gave her the ability to contrast what would happen in a real hijacking to what we have been told for 9-11. The behavior of attendants is particularly important as Roth knows how they are trained for a hijacking eventuality. She also examines how the conversations of attendants and passengers don’t make sense, something that has often been addressed by researchers, including by Elias Davidsson in his book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence (Algora Publishing, New York, 2013, pp. 123-271).
Roth says that the calls that were supposed to have come from the planes really took place … but on the ground, not in the air. Her position is that while all the planes did take off, they were substituted for along the way by drones, and that the AA and UA flights landed at Westover Air Reserve Base in western Massachusetts. She notes that Westover has the runway length needed to accommodate Boeing 757s and 767s, an important ingredient to any determination as to where the planes landed. Roth then claims that each of the four planes could have arrived in time for the calls to be made as reported, but from the ground. This conclusion is in both her novel and her interviews. She doesn’t accept any radar tracking that has been officially reported, scrapping it as evidence.
Roth is quite opposed, even violently so, to David Ray Griffin’s claim that calls could have been faked using voice morphing. Listen to her interview at Quantum Matrix Radio at around 23:30 and 53:10 until right after 1:05:03 when she threatens to leave the interview. In 2011, I also opposed Griffin on voice morphing, but never with her dogmatic tone (“Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes”; an error of mine regarding the Boeing 767 for AA 11 was corrected in a day, but the correction no longer appears on-line). In my case, I did not consider whether the calls came from the ground.
Roth argues that passengers left on planes in Westover were gassed to death and that the Westover military airport had been evacuated beforehand. She claims that a reservist who was to be at the airport confirmed the closure to her. But Roth has not named the person who reported this, and so, in an evidentiary sense, it is simply hearsay. Even if it were fully confirmed, the question of establishing which planes went there would surface.
Before I get into an analysis of Roth’s claims, I want to point out that there is no bio at all in the book. Her Facebook page contains no information. Her publisher has only one other book. The two pilot endorsements for the Kindle second edition are anonymous (initials only). Roth says hundreds of pilots and attendants are behind her, but they are never named (unlike Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth). As far as anyone studying September 11th is concerned, she came out of nowhere, and we have no choice but to await more concrete information about her.
In addition to listening to many interviews, I did have the opportunity to talk to Roth by phone for two and a half hours, and I have messaged her and received responses. When I raised concerns about some of her claims regarding the timing of the calls (particularly in the case of American Airlines Flight 11), she wouldn’t address them but replied that I don’t understand the airline industry. Yet, she allows herself to talk freely about financial factors surrounding September 11th without being in the financial industry. Anyway, I am prepared to be mistaken if my analysis is addressed with an explanation as to any problems.
Call from flight attendant on AA 11, Betty Ong
As a former flight attendant, Roth is naturally drawn to the calls of the attendants on that day. In interviews, but not in her book, Roth reports Betty Ong as saying, “We’re the first” (interview by Susan Lindauer, 49:03; another example is with Quantum Matrix Radio  at 32:45).
Already we have an issue. Davidsson’s book reports two FBI renditions of the same call. The portion that is recorded and offered to the public in a four-minute audio version, labeled Version B, is an agent’s transcript dated September 12, 2001. The version Roth must be referring to – nothing comparable to “We’re the first” appears in Version B – is the prior version dated September 11, 2001 and labeled Version A by  Davidsson. Davidsson reports the sentence quite differently, namely, as “On, on number one” (p. 134 and 138).
The very next sentence that is reported by Roth is “He stood upstairs” and only appears in Version A.
Both sentences are important for Roth. “We’re the first” causes Roth to ask how Ong would know she is on the first hijacked plane of 9-11. But Roth doesn’t report it correctly, and, at least for me, it is hard to come up with a convincing reading of “On, on number one” that isn’t tailored to an interpretation.
The “He stood upstairs” in Version A indicates to Roth that Ong is calling from an airport hangar because hangars do indeed have stairs, while interiors of Boeing 757s and 767s do not. I’m not so sure, as the wording “stood upstairs” is strange when compared to the common phrases such as “went upstairs”, “ran upstairs”, etc. But it led her to the idea that all calls were made in hangar offices upstairs in one location: Westover. Let’s not worry about “stood upstairs” and see how she gets there.
The following is both the heart of her contribution and the area where some serious independent research is needed to confirm or disconfirm Roth’s certainty that she knows what happened on September 11th. It is going to get a bit technical.
Claim of all planes landing in Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts
Roth is convinced that all the calls took place, that they are “real” calls to “real” people. Furthermore, they must be from the ground because cell phone usage is unavailable above 1800 feet (unavailability of cell calling is non-controversial now – indeed, by the time of the Moussaoui trial, the government was careful not to claim otherwise). The main claim of her book is that, starting from the times of these calls, we are able to calculate that each plane had time to arrive in Westover, and that those persons who were to make calls had time to do so after disembarking. Accepted are the official departure times of each of the planes and the reported timings for the calls. And she claims to be able to prove this possibility for Westover for each plane.
Since her book itself is a novel, she does say in interviews that everything in the book about 9-11 is the truth. It is merely presented in a novel format. Indeed, I haven’t heard any interview that corrected even a word about what is in the book regarding 9-11.
The “wheels off” timings for each of the planes leaving the ground are reported by the 9/11 Commission as follows:
AA 11 from Logan, Boston: 7:59 a.m.
UA 175 from Logan, Boston: 8:14 (or 8:23 according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics datum)
AA 77 from Dulles, Washington, D.C.: 8:20
UA 93 from Newark, New Jersey: 8:42
The timings of the first calls for each plane (neatly laid out by Davidsson, pp. 124-127) are as follows:
AA 11, by flight attendant Betty Ong, 8:18:47 to American Airlines reservations in Cary, North Carolina
UA 175, by the Hanson family to C. Lee Hanson, 8:52:00, an unidentified male flight attendant to United Airlines maintenance in San Francisco, 8:52:01, and Garnet “Ace” Bailey claimed to be to his wife but who has failed to confirm ( Davidsson, pp. 171-172), 8:52:07
AA 77, by flight attendant Renee May, 9:12:18 to her parents (while previously unsuccessful at 9:11:24)
UA 93, from passenger Tom Burnett, 9:30:32 to his wife Deena (who has written that it was 9:27), and by flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw to United Airlines StarFix desk in San Francisco, 9:35:40
Roth does not contest these call times in any interview I have heard, and she often says 8:18 or 8:20 for the Ong call, and 9:12 or 9:13 for the May call. Indeed, in her book, a protagonist who is discovering what happened on September 11 says, “‘At this point, about all we have to go on is the time the cell phone calls were made. It’s the only information we can trust,’ Jim added.” [Roth, Rebekah (2014-11-17). Methodical Illusion (Kindle Locations 4045-4049). KTYS media. Kindle Edition.]
Let us observe what she does with the departure times of the planes and these first calls.
AA 11
Let us see exactly how she arrives at her claim. The novel reads:
“Holy, moly! That base was on lock down on 9/11, much like all the other bases, but I recall reading that the Reserves at Westover were not just locked down, they were locked out from even entering that base for days. Now it’s starting to all make sense. Vera, get on your laptop and go to airplane manager dot com.”
“I’m there,” Vera reported.
“Now click on the flight calculator tab,” Jim instructed.
“Gotcha,” Vera replied.
“Type in for aircraft type: heavy jet, winds: type in none, in the departure airport put in B O S and for your arrival C E F.”
“CEF, I don’t know that airport code,” Vera replied.
“CEF is Westover Air Force Base,” Jim informed her just as the results appeared on her screen.
“Twenty-one,” Vera reported.
“Twenty-one minutes, that’s pushback to gate in. Flight time could have been under nineteen minutes easily and this runway would have been a straight in shot. With no traffic on the ground, they could have been taxied into one of these five super-large hangers right here.” Jim pointed to the satellite photo on his computer screen. “See, these planes parked here? They dwarf a 767. These hangars could easily accommodate more than one commercial jet.”
Ibid. (Kindle Locations 3842-3857).
Go to http://airplanemanager.com/FlightCalculator.aspx and do what is described above, namely, enter for a flight from BOS (Logan) to CEF (Westover Air Base), heavy jet, and “none” for winds. Voila. It does report 21 minutes!
However, it is not exactly what is stated in the novel. Airplanemanager.com is not “pushback to gate in”, but rather “wheels off” in Boston to “wheels on” at Westover. It could not be otherwise, because there are many gates at Logan and a generic calculation could not take account of the differing taxi times from different gates. A reader could check this claim of mine by entering a very short route, such as Newark to JFK or La Guardia and see the result (6 minutes to go 18 nautical miles from Newark (EWR) to JFK, or 5 minutes to go 14 NM to LaGuardia (LGA): while accelerating from takeoff and slowing for landing, the average speed is about 3 NM per minute or 180 NM per hour – incidentally, a NM is about 15% longer than a statute mile).
If AA 11 takes 21 minutes after wheels off at Logan to touch down at Westover, it would be 8:20 and still it would be necessary for the plane to taxi and arrive at the hangar, have Ong get off the plane, go to a hangar office and make a call, presumably having received some instructions. Yet, Ong’s call is reported to begin at 8:18:47, re-stated by Roth herself, sometimes mentioning 8:18, sometimes, 8:20.
Could the flight time have been faster? Wind at Boston (BOS) on that day was 12 NW, i.e., somewhat of a headwind for a flight going west (see www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KBOS/2001/9/11/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Boston&req_state=MA&req_statename=Massachusetts&reqdb.zip=02101&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999). This suggests that 21 minutes to CEF could be somewhat of an underestimate. Further, the loss of radio contact with AA 11 was at 8:13 a.m., 24 HM from Westover, which implies a speed of some 250 NM per hour average speed, including descending and slowing down for landing at Westover. This is just for touch down, but no taxiing, etc. In sum, it doesn’t compute. Something has to give, most likely the timing of Ong’s call, if the operation is to be correctly described.
AA 77
The evidence for AA 77 is at least as problematic. Wheels off is at 8:20 and airplanemanager.com reports that it takes 57 minutes to touchdown at Westover, no taxiing, etc. Let us examine Roth’s rendition:
Jim ignored her, “That might take care of the two flights out of Logan, but the other two flights came out of Dulles and Newark. Could it be possible that they were also taken over remotely and flown to this same base? Get back on that flight calculator, Vera, and punch in I A D as the departure and C E F as the arrival. Let’s see if this theory holds true from Dulles. That was Flight 77 that supposedly went into the Pentagon, wasn’t it?”
“According to this flight calculator, that flight would have taken roughly fifty-two minutes,” she announced.
“And the first phone call that was made, who made it and what time was it made?” Jim asked.
“The first phone call was made, oh my, this is really odd. There were two calls made at exactly 9: 12 — one from a flight attendant who phoned her parents and the other from a passenger. And those calls were made exactly fifty-two minutes after their departure from Washington! It was reported that the flight attendant called her parents using her cell phone….
Ibid. (Kindle Locations 3920-3932).
Note carefully. The text reads “fifty-two minutes”, five minutes earlier than I wrote above. How is that possible? There is a sleight of hand occurring in the novel. Without telling the reader, Roth has changed the wind from “none” to “seasonal” and the change provides the required 52 minutes and therefore 9:12. What is seasonal? The prevailing wind is from the southwest. Thus, a gain of five minutes is possible for touchdown. However, on that day the wind was not a tail wind, but a cross wind or very slight headwind, again using www.wunderground.com/history/airport but now for Dulles or Westover.
Renee May’s call to her family is reported to be at 9:12 and is accepted by Roth. Indeed, there are three FBI interviews of her parents who consistently reported to the FBI that the call was 9:12 to 9:13. This is five minutes before touchdown. So, again, Roth’s description does not compute.
This conclusion does not even account for the scenario that AA 77 is to be heading west so that any travel in that direction before drone substitution lengthens the claimed arrival at Westover, as it is north by northeast from Dulles.
UA 175 and UA 93
Both of these flights, from Boston and Newark, respectively, could arrive at Westover in easy time for their first call, as long as the drone substitution is appropriate.
Calls from other flight attendants: 1) AA 11, Madeline Sweeney, 2) UA 175, unidentified, 3) AA 77, Renee May, and 4) UA 93, Sandra Bradshaw and CeeCee Lyles
There are many aspects and problems with all of the calls, which could be an entire study. As we have said Davidson reports extensively on them, while Roth reports for some from a different viewpoint.
Regarding Renee May’s call from AA 77 to her parents, Roth says that an

CeeCee Lyles

CeeCee Lyles

attendant would never call parents as that does not follow protocol and, further, would freak out any mother. Yet she goes ahead with the timing of the call to the parents as if it truly took place.
For CeeCee Lyles’ message left on her husband’s voice mail, I agree that it clearly has an emotional ending. As a former police officer, she may have been the most sensitive of any of the callers as to the possibility (certainty?) of a setup. In any case, the whispered comment after the main call has ended has received a lot of attention. Like Griffin, Roth hears, “You did great!” saying that it comes from a female handler on the ground. I myself had thought it could be a fellow passenger sitting next to her on the plane and soothing her. However, many others believe Lyles is saying, “It’s a frame.” This version is represented in Massimo Mazzucco’s five-hour documentary September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (trailer here); in fact, it is even offered in the trailer for that documentary!
Roth considers the whispered, “You did great!” to be non-debatable and also does not realize, in her attack on voice morphing, that she agrees with Griffin as to the content of the whisper! In her interview with Quantum Matrix Radio we hear her struggling with her interviewers over the whisper, from 21 minutes.
On the novel as a novel
I do not want to conclude without a comment about the context in the novel for her presenting her conclusions about September 11th. Basically, it centers on the arrival into the U.S. Presidency of the head of the Tea Party, who is never described in anything but the best of terms, after the former Democratic Vice-President and President are impeached and convicted in that order – the new President having been Speaker of the House. Toward the end of the book this new President makes a speech to a Joint Session of Congress which sounds like it could have been written by Robert C. Welch, now-deceased founder of the John Birch Society..
Why does she use such a Tea Party President (not an imaginary Eugene Debs, or a MLK, Jr) when she constantly claims she has no political agenda? I asked her about her imaginary President, saying to her that, “You could have made the new President as CIA as Obama is (Wayne Madsen’s book)” — referring to his The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House.  She replied, “Paul, it’s a novel! LOL.”


  1. Thanks for the critique. I have some doubts about Roth’s analysis of the phone calls. If all the calls were made from the ground after the planes had landed and the the calls were scripted or made under duress as Roth claims, why would the first caller say she was not certain but she thought they might be getting hijacked? By putting out her theory as a novel, Roth has left herself some wriggle room. Her political views are very clear in the book.

  2. 9/11 investigation is not a pissing contest. The one thing we can all agree on is that the government’s official version is a pack of lies.
    From there, we can agree to disagree, but we must, as Ben Franklin once said, hand together or we most assuredly will hang separately.
    It doesn’t serve anyone to argue the finer points about 9/11, it only shows the people we need to convince they’ve been lied to is that we come across like some spoiled 6 yo brats, and immediately dismissed as whackos.

    1. “It doesn’t serve anyone to argue the finer points about 9/11, it only shows the people we need to convince they’ve been lied to is that we come across like some spoiled 6 yo brats, and immediately dismissed as whackos.”
      This is a reminder to yourself as well, aye Greg?

    2. I disagree! Zarembka gives here a thorough critique of Rebekah Roth’s message in her novel and interviews, just as a university professor (which he is) would do for any subject under discussion, just as any a judge would do in a legal case, just as a doctor would do in a medical case. I don’t see any “pissing” here. I much appreciate his commentary after reading Roth’s novel and hearing one long interview with her. It is attention to “the finer points” that enable our amazingly complex technological society to function.

  3. Interesting analysis, Paul. I was most intrigued by this: “[T]here is no bio at all in the book. Her Facebook page contains no information. Her publisher has only one other book. The two pilot endorsements for the Kindle second edition are anonymous (initials only). Roth says hundreds of pilots and attendants are behind her, but they are never named (unlike Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth). . .she came out of nowhere.”

    1. That caught my attention right away too Dennis,
      I listened to the first part of a long radio interview with Rebekah Roth, back when Adam Ruff first started raving about her. She sounded pretty plausible for quite awhile, talking about the do’s and don’ts of Flight Attendants.
      But after awhile I started to hear that “squawking” noise in the back of my mind … my bullshit meter was sounding off. I don’t even know what the issue was now; but at one point she started in on something and I just thought to myself -‘that’s enough of this crap..’ & I flicked the switch and she was gone.
      I haven’t given a thought to her or her book since.
      But I am glad that Paul took the time to deconstruct the first part. Seems we have somebody in Ms Roth who has cashed in on a few undeserved $$$ just by good timing and PR.
      Thank you Paul!

      1. Well after reading Paul’s article I am starting to have some questions pop up in my mind as well about the novel. The timing of the calls issues could be resolved in some cases by allowing for the calls to have begun prior to or during landing. Also the planes on the way to the air base could have “put the hammer down” and flown as quickly as possible thereby gaining some time. With flight 77 though, unless it went straight to the airbase and the switch for the drone happened immediately upon takeoff the timing issue becomes more problematic. For me though the timing issues are not the key to this since there are so many possible explanations not the least of which is inaccurate reports on when the calls took place. Roth may have just assumed they were correct when they might not be.
        The issue I have has to do with the interpretation of the calls from different sources “A” version or “B” version. How can we trust either version? So the whole basis for her theory could be based on bad information which is something we need to explore.
        At any rate Paul thanks for doing this research and bringing these issues forward. I would like to invite Rebekah to comment here on these issues so I will send her an e-mail and an invite.

        1. I had just sent of an email stating the same idea…that the timing of the initial cell calls could be just before landing. Additionally, I expect operatives on board the airplanes to prep people into believing that this is either a National Emergency or a drill. These operatives are likely alive today where the others are not.

          1. This is not Rebekah Roth’s statement at all. And her “could have landed in Westover” does not equal “did”. It needs some serious evidence if one wants to run with it.
            Your response would be changing the data she accepts, namely, the times the calls were made, compared to her landing times (which I contest for AA 11 and AA 77).

          2. After thinking about where I was going with this I reviewed the audio recordings of both Betty Ong and CeeCee Lyles. I came away with a different impression than I first expressed, which now null in voids my first comments. Here is what now seems more logical to me.
            1. Probably two assassins, not the accused of the 19, are seated very close to the cabin door. The pilots let them in the cabin once air born because of their Official Ruse claiming to be Air Marshalls, FBI, or even Pilots themselves, etc. They may have setup the pilots by arriving early and chatted them up. These assassins are granted entry wanting to hang out with the Captain and see what they do etc.. These killers take the pilot and co-pilot out without they being able to fight back. Maybe with a lethal volt from a Taser to each of their necks, or a wire to strangle them, or a knife (used later for stabbing the attendants). The “Home Run” firmware is scheduled to take over at a preset time to fly the plane. Possibly that’s when Betty Ong says the plane is flying erratic (which might be a remote command making a course correction).
            2. They make it more real by then stabbing the two forward flight attendants killing each and shouting a few words in Arabic for effect. They then relay a message that the hijackers have locked themselves inside the cabin and then nobody responds (making it even more scary for those imagining that the hijackers don’t speak English very well and are flying the plane).
            3. The remaining attendants would try to contact someone(s), which they did and will be freaked out relaying this hijacking. All that they know is two of theirs had been stabbed (in reality, killed) and they can’t communicate with the cabin and they think the hijackers are locked inside there. (Betty Ong did sound freaked out, where CeeCee Lyles sounded like she was under duress while cooperating reading the script).
            4. The call by Betty seems more likely to be on an Air-phone and not a cell phone. Betty does not hear clearly some of the questions being asked. That seems real in the moment with problems with the quality of phone signal and her attention being split between the chaos on board and the quality of the calls’ signal.
            5. Since Air-phones should work at higher plane altitudes, this scenario could have happened much earlier in the flight, and we’ve also been told it could have occurred near the end before impact, which I have doubts about.
            6. Why the hijacking occurred after take-off and not later than the swap with the drones was to give our puppet masters time to assess the call or calls, edit them if necessary, and select the best for propaganda purposes. I think Betty did a great job sounding freaked out.
            That’s my intuition. Hope it stimulates your thinking.

  4. Just spit balling a quick comment about the timing of Ong’s call. Couldn’t Ong’s call have begun before touchdown, say as they were descending? This would account for the time discrepancy and allow for the plane to taxi to the hanger while she was on the phone. I am not saying that is what happened mind you I am just saying it is a possible solution to the timing issue that still allows for Roth to be correct. I am really interested in your analysis Paul and I will continue reading and see if more thoughts come to me about it. Perhaps Rebekah can join us here for the discussion to hash this out?

    1. IF the aircrafts track was manipulated and actual primary radar return cloaked, calls could be made in flight below 1800′ or lower. It would be prudent for the conspirators to have an overwhelming superiority to overcome the crew if necessary but also possibly to convince/influence them that this is a drill of national importance and read the script. Confusion, Government Credintials, maybe some FAA guys the flight crew knew.
      The wording “we were supposed to go to Los Angles” is the Flight Attendant irritated by the unplanned change of destination?
      Those calls could have been made as Roth describes. Roth may be a little rusty with an E6B but remember she was responsible for international legalities and serving coffee to 200 passengers.

      1. There was no Flight Termination System on commercial airlines as described by Roth. If there were, airline personnel would have been trained and instructed about the consequences of it being “turned on.” You don’t put such a system on a plane, cutting off all communication, without telling the airline personnel. It would have been universally known among airline personnel about this system being installed on commercial airplanes. Yet, no one seems to know about it. There are many airline people involved in the 911 Truth movement. Not one of them has ever come forward to vouch for this silly story from Roth.. It’s bull.

  5. This ‘Truth’ movement absolutely needs a critic like Zarembka. I appreciate his efforts and consider Paul an asset for Quality Control.

  6. Sibel Edmonds wrote a novel as well, ‘The Lone Gladio’. I haven’t read it but I understand it is very good, and it reveals a larger truth about not only 9/11 but a great deal of covert history as well.
    However the distinction between Edmonds and Roth, in my view, is that Edmonds has a long and verified track record proving who and what she is. In other words Edmonds is well vetted in the community of truth seekers. Her novel is an attempt to get around government censorship of a story most who have followed her understand.
    Meanwhile Ms Roth is a total unknown from out of the blue, with no known bonafides that I am aware of.
    Now, I think there is enough information after all these years to show that without a doubt that the official narrative is absurd, and to build a case through logic that tells a much more feasible story based on lack of NORAD response and the obvious controlled demolition of WTC, as a basis for inquiry and solution.

    1. Roth had been among my Facebook friends since January. When I posted this article last night she commented something like, “I guess Paul is jealous in his writings because I won’t share my research with him. LOL” Not verbatim but close enough. I suggested she comment on the blog and she unfriended me and blocked me.

      1. Wow then I suspect she will not be accepting my e-mailed invitation to come here and discuss this. Too bad. That does tend to create doubts in my mind about her. Such a tangled web this 9/11 truth movement has become huh?

          1. Yea Dennis and Craig,
            as Patrick Henry remarked upon hearing of the convention being sequestered in Philadelphia, “I smell a rat.”

      2. She won’t share her writings? Is she kidding. She’s got nothing that she has not taken from other writers. Even about the Flight Termination System. She took that from Joe Vialls, who is not a credible person, and may not even be a person by that name. Anyway, she’s got nothing. She has already spilled her guts on her “daily” videos. She tells the same tired old story, day after day, week after week. I wish she would talk about her job and her personal knowledge about planes, but she does not. Her talks are predominantly about things she has no personal knowledge of, and these things she has simply taken from other writers. Her one story about a Flight Termination System being installed on commercial airlines is pure bull. And she doesn’t even claim to have personal knowledge of it because she says it was not installed on her airline, but on other commercial airlines. Not one pilot from the 911 Movement has vouched for this story, and when Joe Vialls came out with it two weeks after 911, it was immediately shown to be fals.

    2. Good points, Hybrid Rogue! – glad to hear Edmonds wrote a novel. The most entertaining and informative 9/11 novel I’ve seen is the series by a Marine fighter/pilot and Air Guard interceptor (F-16 Viper), Field McConnell, who wields both wit and tons of whistle-blowing weight. Here’s a link to the still- smoking financial angle of Silverstein’s WTC wizardry, for obtaining insurance coverage in record time with a dual occurrence pay-off. http://www.abeldanger.net/2012/02/leveraged-leases-in-new-york-1984.html

  7. Roman à clef (French pronunciation: ​[ʁɔmɑ̃ a kle], Anglicized as … French for novel with a key, is a novel about real life, overlaid with a façade of fiction.

  8. Thanks for comments and let me offer a few reactions.
    Often it gets easier to understand a person in observing how that react to respectful queries. The Quantum Matrix interview that I cite more than once was a lesson for me. Basically, either one agrees with Roth as you knows the truth, or you are out to lunch, my highway or LOL. Craig had that experience with just a simple offer to participate in a dialogue here.
    What is particularly revealing is her dogmatic response about a whispered comment. Hell, it is a whisper, whomever. Actually, my personal experience was that when I learn others tell me “You did great!”, I thought I heard it also. A year or two went by and I learned others say “It’s a frame”. Then I heard that also. I conclude that a reasonable auto-suggestion is very, very powerful and so I am not sure I will ever know who or what was said in that whisper.
    As to “fixing” her analysis, there could be ways to go about it. I tried one with Roth. Paraphrasing what I asked: “Perhaps everybody bordered AA 11 as described, except Ong and Sweeney were pull off, even for nice-sounding ‘drill’ purposes, and other attendants substituted. Then you wouldn’t have to be concerned with the timing of their calls working with actual landing times”. She wouldn’t hear of it, but I don’t know why.
    I am not sure we can ignore her so easily. Somehow or other she has gotten a lot of sales and interviews. It reflects, in part, a thirst for a fuller comprehensive of September 11th, but also in her case, a political symbiosis, similar to accepting the OCT without being prepared to think. The two interviewers at Quantum Matrix were those who don’t just jump on a bandwagon, but the interviews by Kevin Barrett and Susan Lindauer (among the more well-known) were not of that caliber.
    Thanks, hybridrogue1, for the comment about the difference between Sibel Edmonds and Roth; also, for the French “Roman à clef” which will be useful.

    1. Sorry for typos: “Often it gets easier to understand a person in observing how THEY react.”
      Also, “either one agrees with Roth as SHE knows the truth.”
      “boarded” not bordered

      1. Great analysis of Roth’s message, Prof. Zarembka, and your comment on “reactions” to it as well. I read your “Hidden History” when it came out, sat with you at a 9/11 Truth conference at E-5 in Boston, and I’m glad you are still “dogging” 9/11 truth. Veritas–somehow, sometime; the sooner the better!

    2. I just started reading about all of this tonight, I don’t know how it started but it did. As I am jumping from one link on youtube to Roth’s website and in here I did catch a glimpse of the mention of a whisper at the end of Ceecee’s voicemail and to be attentive to it. I did not read or hear what anyone else thought the whisper might be. Therefore I had no expectation of what I would or should hear. After listening repeatedly to it, I heard, it’s a fake. I was about to post that was what I thought I had heard and scrolled down to see other’s comments. I saw it’s a frame, which would make sense and of course you did great. Either is plausible. I went back listened yet again and at that point heck I don’t know anymore what she or they are saying. Neither would contradict Roth’s account of what happened as a whole. If the timing can be explained in regards to Ms. Ong’s call, fast flying or calling in descent of the plane what is left in dispute? And if that engineer’s death was really suspicious ( was there really an engineer insisting and basically proving the towers were taken down with explosives?), would anyone else really want to give their names when agreeing with a writer exposing the whole thing? I don’t know that I would give my name even if I had proof. If there is truth to any or all of this it’s proof these people don’t care who they kill and I sure wouldn’t want to put my family at risk knowing the right people would never be held accountable anyway. The insanity of the world we live in makes me shiver. How anyone could do this. I ALWAYS, thought and I do mean watching live in real time on that day always thought those buildings fell too smooth. No way in hell a plane caused that to happen not once but three times. Are you kidding me with that crap. The odds of every U.S. citizen winning the lotto are better right?

  9. It’s unfortunate this commentary is degenerating into speculations about Mrs. Roth, implying that somehow she is less than genuine and can be readily dismissed because she has declined to dialogue about others’ positions for which she disagrees. Seriously, do you actually think that resolution of any differences would result from such an exercise? I sincerely doubt it, not unless there was iron-clad, irrefutable information and we all know there is nothing of the sort.
    Simply stated, I believe Mrs. Roth’s position is the pieces add up, namely that the planes were taken over by remote control (FTS), flown to a non-public air base, flight crew/passengers were selected to make calls and eliminated once the message was communicated. It’s certainly plausible, even though there are potential time discrepancies with the official time of the calls and the estimated flight times from the flight calculator software.
    I do not pretend to know Mrs. Roth’s full position but I have heard her state in several interviews that she is not willing to discuss ideas that the airline crews were complicit, that the planes never took off, that the flight attendants’ voices were “morphed”, that all crew and passengers were loaded onto one plane, etc. I can only surmise that she is unwilling to discuss these ideas because they reflect poorly on the airline pilots and crews and she has not known anyone in the industry she worked in for 30 years to be less than professional, and by doing so, she would be extremely disrespectful. I can respect such a position and am willing to leave it at that.
    Lastly, I will state that we will never know all the details of how it was done so it is pointless to argue about things that we cannot know for certain. Furthermore, anyone that refuses to engage in such discussions should not be dismissed out of hand. Just because they do not want to debate an issue does not mean they are mistaken, all it may mean is they do not see it accomplishing anything worthwhile.

    1. I for one am not throwing Roth under the bus but I do become very suspicious when a person refuses to discuss something and avoids reasonable questions. I think Paul’s questions are fair and Rebekah could address them. I also think Craig’s invitation to discuss her book here at T+S was cordial and I know my e-mail invitation to her was polite and welcoming. So for the stone wall of silence to be thrown up already and for her to unfriend Craig is a big warning signal to me. I was very positive about her after the first interview I heard and I even posted a link to that interview and said how compelling I thought it was. None of these issues above were discussed in that interview however and now I do have some questions. The stone wall of silence routine though really REALLY turns me off. I hope Rebekah will come in and discuss this but that is up to her.

    2. Your list is correct and I think that all are important points. Thus, I thought she and I were on the same page — e.g., I don’t think the callers had any exact script to say, but were told that we are in a national security exercise that we would like you to cooperate on with certain parameters (no gun at the head and no morphing). It could even better that way from the perp point of view because the callers sound more human than would a script.
      She has cited my edited book “A Hidden History of 9-11” in many interviews, even speaking my name perfectly (never having communicated with me). So, I had every reason to expect a direct answer to the following after we had discussed other things like the Smolensk airline crash five years ago in which many high officials of Poland were killed in Russia and she didn’t know of that crash (it is relative to 9-11 but that is another topic).
      Our long phone call was on April 4 and we communicated thereafter. Here is the last of my four messages, exactly stating what I saw as the problem:
      [4/162015 6:51:08 AM] Paul Zarembka: What is being done is independent verification, using evidence from xxxx’s careful data work. We are working on the following: “Flight 11 took off from Logan field at 7:59, by 8:13 air traffic had lost communications with it and by 8:20, a flight attendant called her supervisor at Logan.” [Roth, Rebekah (2014-11-17). Methodical Illusion (Kindle Locations 3779-3781). KTYS media. Kindle Edition.] I have found that the call must be moved back to a later timing to work with Ong on the ground in a hanger office in Westover and calling. I described how I arrived at my calculations. I trust that this work is welcome, Rebekah, namely, that readers use evidence and reason for ourselves. xxxx copied you in his response, “…” [deleted, but supportive of further work, P.Z.] I’ll be out of town now until Sunday and off Skype. Meanwhile, if you have additional evidence to help move ahead, please let us know it. Keep well. Best, Paul
      [4/16/2015 10:53:46 AM] Rebekah Roth: Paul, I realy hate to break this to you. But 911 how it was done and what happened to the planes, passengers and crew has been figured out. Airline people are all over this and know full well this is where and how the planes were taken….
      Less than a minute later, she added: Please REMEMBER the book is a NOVEL and Betty Ongs phone times are very varied according to the official BS stories, like the crash time on 93.
      So, I listened to an interview AFTER April 16 with Susan Lindauer (it was on April 17, posted April 18 – http://truthfrequencyradio.com/the-covert-report-w-susan-lindauer-51150 ), and she repeated the timing of Ong’s call that she had been saying all along. No hint of pushing it back. And I had already figured out that AA 77 was a greater problem since the timing of Renee May’s call — 5 minutes before touchdown if straight from Dulles to Westover — was confirmed by her parents three times. I knew that these two AA planes didn’t compute and that I would get nothing further by way of explanation.
      Craig was kind enough to be willing to post my article. Thanks, Craig.

    3. “Furthermore, anyone that refuses to engage in such discussions should not be dismissed out of hand. Just because they do not want to debate an issue does not mean they are mistaken, all it may mean is they do not see it accomplishing anything worthwhile.”~dji9424
      It is my opinion that when someone refuses to engage in such discussions, it most likely means is they do not see it accomplishing their agenda.
      In my view it is the responsibility of someone who has enjoyed uncritical promotion, to step forward and address criticisms and questions. I see no reason whatsoever to trust Roth in anyway on anything she has said at this point.

  10. For Roth to reply “LOL” to a serious question from Paul strikes me as rude and childish. It’s shorthand for “what you’re saying is so ridiculous that I’m laughing at you.”
    From Paul’s analysis, it seems clear that all the calls were not made from a hanger at Westover AFB. Roth’s novel is more fictional than she wants to admit.

  11. I respectfully disagree with dji9424 and agree with Sheila. Ms. Roth has apparently altered the parameters that she defines in the book to calculate the flight times and the calls in order to fit the scenario that she offers and believes to be irrefutable. From Paul’s’ analysis, this appears to have been deliberately done on her part based on the her substitution of incorrect calculation terminology rather than using the “wheels off, wheels on” parameter and the recorded known wind factor. We are confronted with a falsehood that upends the central core of her “discovery” of a collective landing site. With this fact in mind, I look forward to a radio or internet interviewer who has the journalistic integrity to challenge her on these facts.

  12. Thank you to those who responded to my comment, I understand your position(s). The most troubling thing for me is this: How does anyone determine what is good (reliable, truthful) information from what is not? Are the FBI reports 100% reliable? I sincerely doubt it given their history for badgering people about what they saw with their own eyes (TWA 800 is just one example). So then, what do you do with their reports? If you trust them to be accurate and then find out after further examination that something does not add up, where does that leave you in your investigation?
    I contend that is exactly what their reports are designed to accomplish, i.e. a coherent picture of what actually happened cannot be put together without throwing out some of the “official” information. But have you disregarded the right information? Without indisputable forensic evidence to support your hypothesis, whatever you postulate can easily be made to look foolish by those in the know.
    When it comes down to it, all we have is evidence of a questionable nature; however, given the manner of the official investigation(s) and their implausible conclusions, we can be safe in saying the official story is a pack of lies. Does that mean we should try to ferret out what is true from what is false? Sad to say, that is what the perpetrators are happy to see us do because they know it will never be fruitful, at least not in the sense of bringing everyone involved to justice. It is quite depressing to think that even with rock solid evidence against anyone involved, who could you count on to fairly try the case? (Look at the farcical trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and what was offered as his “defense”,)
    I certainly don’t want to discourage anyone from trying to expose what happened but realistically the best we can hope for is for widespread public awareness of the corrupt nature of what is purported to be our government.

      1. Thanks for the link. Just so you know, I was confining my thoughts to what Mrs. Roth was primarily investigating, i.e. what happened to the planes and the passengers.
        I believe her explanation is quite plausible, but I caution everyone to be careful about being absolutely adamant about any position because you leave yourself wide open to challenges. Mrs. Roth may have a lot of things right, but if someone can demonstrate that something she thought was absolutely true is not, then her entire explanation may be questioned.
        Unfortunately, the investigative game is not fair, and anyone that steps into the fray will quickly realize that you are on your own when it comes to confirming information.

        1. Oh, I’m sorry dji9424, I am taking Mrs Roth at her word that she has written a novel.
          I’m not interested in fiction at this time.

    1. Also dji9424, there is a huge selection of articles on this very site that you can browse through for solid analysis and information, in particular articles on the event at the Pentagon.

    2. This is a well-stated case, dji9424; but “impossible” is an anticipation of the future which later, in retrospect, becomes “incredible” or “amazing.” We must persevere with “The Impossible Dream.”

  13. @Paul Zarembka Why is the most logical and obvious conclusion being ignored , that planes were hijacked just as the flight attendants and passengers described?

  14. Thanks for this analysis, Paul. I also regard Roth’s behavior as suspect. She’s promoting the material within her book as factual in interviews, yet when called out on the specifics of her research, she has the out: “It’s a novel!”
    I was only barely aware of her name and this book. Aren’t you disappointed that she thinks you’re merely “jealous?” When I critiqued Kevin Ryan’s book, he accused me of being an agent.

  15. If anyone really wants to know what she thinks, ask her directly, via her website. She has offered to answer any questions or provide the information she is using to support her position. I believe she is genuinely offering to do just what she says, regardless of what anyone may infer from her declination to participate in this blog’s discussion.
    I commend Mr. Zarembka for speaking with her directly, although I am saddened to say I cannot unequivocally support him for publishing his points of contention on this blog, not unless he informed her of his intentions to do so when he first spoke with her. Frankly, Mrs. Roth may not have fully appreciated just how seriously 9/11 information and analysis is evaluated by other independent researchers and thus her responses may have been too glib – I’m sure she now knows how high a standard has been set. It’s so ironic that the government does not have to abide by the same standard.
    As I have previously said, her explanation of what happened to the commercial passenger planes is plausible, even though there are pieces that may not perfectly mesh. But given the FBI’s history in (mis)handling evidence in many other significant cases, I am more inclined to believe the circumstantial case that Mrs. Roth has assembled over the veracity of the FBI’s reports. It’s a sad commentary on what masquerades as our federal governmental investigative agency and what makes any re-investigative work so problematic.
    Finally, I’m not so much interested in the “how” as I am in the “who” and given the pathetic whitewash investigation conducted by our(?) government, it’s clear they are determined not to tell us who was actually involved. That is the main contribution of Mrs. Roth’s book as I see it, she is not afraid to name the people and corporations she found in her investigation. Although she may not have been the first to do so and cloaked it behind the historical novel genre, she has not been afraid to state what she believes to be true in all the interviews she has given to date and I commend her for it. Furthermore, if her book is reaching people beyond the typical 9/11 research groups, she will have made a significant contribution.

    1. Well I offered some possible explanations above to resolve some of the time discrepancies so those are not my major issue at this point. I could see those being ironed out in a discussion. In fact if Roth simply said you know the call times and departure arrival times can’t be trusted as accurate because the only source for those times is the government then I would have to say “you know what Rebekah I can’t argue with that” and the issue would be resolved as far as I am concerned.
      My issue now is the gut feeling I get when someone refuses to discuss issues and throws up the stone wall of silence. My gut tells me not to trust that person. My gut is usually right. I did try to contact her by the way and sent a very nice e-mail which she has not replied to. So to suggest that we are not doing enough to reach out to her is not fair. Paul’s article should be enough to prompt a conversation at least. If not that then Craig’s invitation to discuss it should be enough. Added to that is my invitation. So we have reached out to her.
      This scenario is playing out just like others have in the past.
      Kevin Ryan – stone wall of silence
      David Chandler – stone wall of silence
      Barbara Honegger – stone wall of silence
      Consensus panel – stone wall of silence
      911Blogger – stone wall of silence
      Ken Doc – stone wall of silence
      I am just tired of this BS that we have to go begging people to discuss their 9/11 position or research. I feel at this point that if you can’t face questions about your work then maybe there is something wrong with it.

  16. dji9424 (I have a marginal preference for name associated with three letters and four letters, even if an alias),
    I want to respond, without meaning to take away from you your perspective.
    First, as to your opinion that “her explanation of what happened … is plausible”, many of us seem to have reacted similarly, initially.
    Here’s the problem: For AA 77 (AA 11 is a similar problem), Roth says that Renee May’s call was 9:12 or 9:13. If you listen to enough calls you will hear her truly depend upon FBI interviews, in this case, May’s parents who three times reported the FBI reports for 9:12 or 9:13. (Davidsson, by contrast, doesn’t credit the FBI with full reporting accuracy, albeit I think he accepts this one.)
    Roth accepts that the plane had wheels off at Dulles at 8:20. It takes 57 minutes to Westover (as I reported) or to 9:17. This is just for touchdown, not including taxiing, getting off the plane and going upstairs into a hanger office, receiving instruction and making a call.
    May’s call is therefore 4-5 minutes before touchdown and more minutes would be required to call from a hangar office.
    You seem to be saying, “so what?” However, AA 11 and 77 call into serious question everything else she takes as firm, principally, the “wheels off” time for each flight, and/or the beginning of each call, and/or the location from where the calls were made. That’s OK by me, but she is stubborn (to put it mildly), without accepting to even discuss evidence. I TRIED!
    You probably have not listened to as many interviews as I have. They are very repetitious but most often with a nuance. The last interview I have heard (today), she says at 26:45 minutes at http://www.vftb.net/archive/vftb240.mp3 something that is at least two-thirds wrong. She says: “Here’s what happened. Each aircraft of the first three aircraft, and this would be flight 11, 175 United, and flight 77 each aircraft had two people that made phone calls out at the exact same minute”. In fact, only UA 175 had such simultaneity and it was three calls, not two (see Davidsson, pp. 124-126). I could point to a lot of the other slides, but I don’t bother the small stuff. Misreporting “We’re the first” is not small stuff. Changing wheels off, wheels on, to “pushback to gate in” is not small stuff.
    As to my responding to your prior posting by my citing what she wrote me, read what Sheila says “LOL” means and I’ll now mention that Roth used it SEVEN times in communication with me (for myself or others). Please suggest to her to stop using LOL, if you are in communication with her.

    1. Hi Paul,
      Thanks for responding to my comment, it is helpful to know that you have listened to many of her interviews. I can tell you that I have listened to almost every one of her interviews (at least the ones that I can find on YouTube and individual websites with recorded interviews. However, I do not recall her mentioning the name Renee May on AA 77 – I think the only person I have heard her mention from that flight is Barbara Olsen’s call to her husband and I don’t believe she emphasized the time of that call, rather she stated there are no collect cell phone calls and there were actually no air phones on AA 77 since they had removed all such phones from 757’s by 1/31/2011.
      I understand that it is important to be as precise as possible but I don’t know that such precision can be expected with the available information. Second, I am willing to believe that there are multiple sources of information (including other books) and there may be discrepancies between sources. Do I know which one is correct if there is a discrepancy? No, I have no understanding of what is the more reliable source, only if they have documented their source and then I might be able to make a judgment call as to which one is “better” but I still do not know for certain.
      Lastly, I do not know how the flight calculator times were estimated and if they have possibly been adjusted from 9/11/2001 to today. Do they average the flight durations based on actual historical flights? If so, it might make a difference if the number of flights has increased over that span of time (can’t fly a direct line to the destination) or if the number of carriers has significantly changed. And since it is an air force base and no commercial flights would be scheduled to fly to that destination, how would they have estimated the time if they typically used historical information? Like I said, I do not know so I cannot categorically state that it was or was not possible at 9/11/2001. I guess I am willing to say it was possible, as long as the times are within reasonably small margins.
      I do agree with you that using the LOL term is not professional and if I was in contact with her I would tell her so, mainly because she should not allow anything to distract from what she is saying. But if you have listened to her, she does like to laugh so I would try not to let it get to you.
      I do appreciate your work and your dedication to this issue, I’m just asking for your further consideration – is her story believable or are there just too many issues to accept it in total? I think you have been fair in your assessment, I just hope anyone else reading this will do the same. And I also hope that she will reconsider her position and be willing to address any outstanding issues.

    2. @Paul Zarembka Can you tell me why the obvious and most logical explanation for the evidence is being ignored by you, i.e. of planes being hijacked and crashed , as indicated by the flight attendants, pilots, passengers, airtraffic controllers, radar,DNA evidence? Is it because you think it’s too obvious therefore it can’t be true? Is it because it’s the official story? You should ask yourself why it is the official story.

      1. WTC7. I work back from that event. 15th yr. of war in a 3rd world country that produces a 60 billion poppy crop, 93% of the planet’s supply. A gram of heroin in Salem, OR in 2001 was $400, today it is $100 or $83 if you’re a regular buyer (all become regular buyers). And, can you imagine the lives and property destroyed and not a single lawsuit! Where are the lawyers? No, my friend, this was another government operation, history is a continuing stream of these. Were these 19 Arabs to attack America in this suicidal penetration – such a fete is truly an anomaly in the annals of history. Patterns, we examine patterns.

        1. Logical? Arab hyjackers, after spending their nights enjoying dancing, cocaine snorting, alcohol drinking, while keeping company with their cleavage-showing American girlfriends, all in direct violation of every prohibitation found in their religion, are said to leave notes which are produced for the world as evidence that crashing those planes into the WTC was done for their “Allah?” That’s logical? Isn’t that kind of evidence generated for snow-buying Eskimos in Alaska

      2. One reason is that those “hijackers” could not fly those planes. Many pilots with thousands upon thousands of hours said they could not hit those towers ( approximently 204 feet wide) at 500 miles an hours. Do more research….go to pilots for 911. Why not believe the official story? Because our government officially lies to us. If you don’t know that, put your bias aside and research, think and reason, question, weight and consider, question, question and follow the truth where it leads you. Follow the money, who benefits, who profits. And the smoking gun is that no steel frame building has ever collapse from fire, either before or since 911. A.Wright, are you saying you believe a 110 steel frame building can collapse in 10 seconds? Because that is the” official story”.

  17. OK just for the record here is the e-mail I sent to Rebekah:
    An article about your book has been written and posted at the blog I regularly write on, Truth and Shadows. A discussion has just begun about it and I wanted to invite you to join in since you are the best person for obvious reasons to address some of the points being made. This particular blog while you may not know it, is the real cutting edge of the 9/11 truth movement and many extremely intelligent and influential truthers and truth groups respect it and pay close attention to it. I would love to have your input and perspective on this. I know you are very busy but you will find us to be great allies once we understand the details of your research and resolve some of our questions and misunderstandings. (LINK TO THIS ARTICLE)
    Adam Ruff
    (Personal phone number provided)

    1. Hi Adam,
      I agree with you, you have been very fair in your comments and I hope Mrs. Roth will reconsider – hopefully she will realize that she can benefit from alliances with others that are willing to come alongside her. She has stated she is working on a sequel to be released by summer’s end (hopefully) so it’s understandable that her time to engage others may be limited.
      However, she will quickly become a target for disinformation (and worse) if her book continues to resonate with the public so it makes sense to identify others that are willing to help support her work.

        1. I have not read her novel so I can’t speak specifically about it but what I find compelling is her willingness to name names in her interviews. The only thing that I am aware of that she has withheld is the name of the AF reserve base, although she has given enough clues along the way for anyone to figure out if they want to know.
          As I said, I am more interested in knowing the “who” instead of the “how” because if nothing else, by naming names you can easily find yourself in court for defamation, libel, slander, etc. But that might actually be a productive avenue in the sense that people would be deposed (under oath) and any defendant should be able to access information that has been previously withheld from public view. It might actually produce enough information that the American public may demand a new (legitimate) investigation (I can dream can’t I?). Of course, it will be a challenge to find an objective investigative body and/or an objective court but there must be a few venues that are still interested in seeking the truth.
          The whole idea of national security is to protect the American people, not to allow a corrupt government from being seen in a true light. We need to make the public case that protecting a corrupt government from exposure is actually a bigger security threat (and a threat to our liberties) than any created terrorist bogeyman the complicit media serves up to us every night. And if her book can help convince the public who we really need to be concerned about, I don’t want to stand in the way by nitpicking at its edges.

          1. Pardon me Don, if I express the opinion that this whole issue over Mrs Roth’s novel is a tempest in a thimble.
            All the issues you speak of in the rest of your comment here has been gone over ad nauseam on this blog.
            I also don’t think “nitpicking at the edges” of her book, or radio commentary is going to have the slightest effect on the general public, the Amerikan people in mass. They don’t give a shit. They don’t even remember 9/11, except on its anniversary.
            Keep up your passion though, you might find an appropriate channel for it somewhere.

  18. One thing I have been wondering is: If the planes were taken over by the flight termination system then why wouldn’t they just fly those planes into the the buildings? I can’t see why they would have gone to the trouble of landing the planes just to get those phone calls. If the phone calls hadn’t been made nobody would have been asking “why were there no phone calls?”. The idea that the planes were switched seems to be based on Operation Northwoods. But why would they bother changing planes if they were going to kill the passengers anyway? Roth says that the flight termination system cuts off all comunications so nobody on the plane could have comunicated anything to anyone and the planes could have been crashed into the buildings. The phone calls don’t really identify the hijackers other than that they were vaguely middle eastern looking so I really don’t think the official story depends on the phone calls at all.

    1. Why not fly real airplanes “into” the buildings? Because they would crumple and slide down to earth. It ruins the illusion. 🙂

  19. Gavin,
    Your comment: “I really don’t think the official story depends on the phone calls at all.”
    A decisive element for September 11th is that Muslims were responsible. The calls are used officially to establish that and thus are very important. I agree with Roth, on this point. Could it have been done differently? Well, it wasn’t.
    Your query: “I’m just asking for your further consideration – is her story believable or are there just too many issues to accept it in total?”
    Roth runs an extremely tight ship, without ever a hint that anything could be different than she states, even a small point. An obvious example is that she is still reporting for that whisper at the end of Lyles’ call, “You did great!” (even a few days ago at http://alternative-news-network.net/the-richie-allen-show-on-davidicke-com-rebekah-roth-on-methodical-illusion-her-brilliant-new-book-exposing-the-lies-of-911 ). She knows that others say it is “It’s a frame”. Yet, it is only a whisper. Careful researchers would acknowledge the alternative, but she repeats her version over and over and fights against any other hearing of it (as I reported in my piece). That is a clue that something is amiss, that her structured argument is too tight. Either interpretation of those words means that Lyles had a handler, so nothing is at stake in that respect. So, why fight over it?
    She has created a black glass box, in her mind. One piece of light cannot enter because any crack crumbles the entire box. She cannot concede anything, as one concession opens up a can of worms, i.e., crumbles the walls of her Jericho. This is why she cannot touch the simple timing question regarding calls and planes.
    Sure, pick out of her story what you can verify to your own satisfaction. But there are many researchers on 9-11 who offer items to pick out. There is nothing special about her, in spite her presentations and book sales, except her claimed history as a flight attendant (I haven’t even heard for what airlines). Where are the other flight attendants? They could be openly verifying or not such “simple” questions as to whether the Boeing 757s for American did or did not have their air phones pulled out early in 2001 and thus if Renee May on AA 77 had to be calling from the ground, if calling at 9:12 or 9:13 as her parents say. Griffin reports that air phones were removed, but wouldn’t it be useful for attendants to confirm? I understand that 767’s still had them; if so, why is Roth considering only cell phones called from the ground for Ong and Sweeney?
    Roth makes a big deal about cell phones not working at altitudes above 1800′, well, we knew that long ago – even before she retired from her job – and even the government doesn’t claim otherwise for most calls (Moussaoui trial evidence).
    Could all planes have landed in Westover after drone substitution? Yes. So, what? They also “could have” each landed in differing locations with adequate runways. Or not landed, etc. Sure, credit her, if you wish, with introducing the possibility of Westover, then think carefully and attempt to obtain evidence one way or another. Some are doing this.

    1. Thanks Paul for responding to me. Since you have spoken with her, I understand your view of Mrs. Roth’s response to the observations you tried to share with her. It’s unfortunate that she is adamant in her position because there is nothing special about the reserve AF base (in my view), other than it would be sequestered from the general public. If one base was used during 9/11, it’s just as believable that more than one could have used for the same purpose.
      Hopefully others in the industry will be willing to come forward in support of Mrs. Roth’s account and, as long as I am hoping, share additional information that will prove helpful in fleshing out the story.

      1. I spoke to the Public Affairs office at Westhover AFB and was able to speak to a Lt. Col. James Bishop. He is working on getting me a list of every plane that flew in and out of Westhover AFB on 9/11.
        I find the idea of these planes landing at Westhover and it being hid not just from the public but from everyone who works on the base virtually impossible. Westhover AFB is an Air Mobility Command with C5 and C17 cargo type aircraft. These aircraft require a priority C type of security posture.
        Priority C security requires a Mobile Patrol, A two man Security Response Team (SRT), The Security Response Team is responsible for patrol just outside the restricted areas. (The entire flightline is considered a restricted area and all qualified personnel must have a restricted area badge visible at all times.) Then there is an Alarm Response Team (ART) that is responsible for patrolling inside the restricted area and is able to see any plane that takes off and lands.
        There are several problems with Rebekah’s theory. Number one; None of the hangers on the installation are large enough to fit the 4 hijacked aircraft. Not only are they not large enough but you’d have to be able to close the hanger doors to hide all that criminal activity inside. There is no way to actually get an aircraft into a hanger without everyone on the ground knowing. You have to use a tow which requires a tow driver, ground crew who routinely move into action on all aircraft landing. The air traffic controllers having to designate where the plane the goes and parks, but aside from all that.
        Let’s assume the aircraft were to land prior to the first plane hitting the towers so there is no news yet of any attacks. Here you have a situation of hijacked aircraft needing to communicate with Westhover AFB to request landing (which is restricted) Who is making the request? The hijackers? This scenario would be considered what’s called an Unannounced Aircraft Landing. At which point specific security procedures would kick in a 15 man team with a 5 minutes response time may be recalled. Once the aircraft lands it would have been with security at the end of the runway. This is incident gets sent all the way up the chain of command to headquarters Westhover AFB Command Post springs into action. The security police challenges the aircraft to determine status. Once the situation is secure, Westhover Command takes over. For this to happen once is a big deal but to happen four times in a single morning? No way in hell.
        Another scenario is if the planes landed after it was known that aircraft had been hijacked then you have a situation where all aircraft are ordered grounded and those in flight to land at the nearest airport. I’m not aware of any aircraft being allowed to land at any Air Force Bases as that would be a huge security breach, allowing potential aircraft boarded with potential hijackers getting access to our military installations and possibly setting off a bomb once its near military priority resources. Even if they did begin landing at Westhover, the security on the ground is still going to challenge all aircraft and not let anyone the aircraft until they know it’s secure and they run some bomb sniffing dogs on all aircraft. This takes a lot of time.
        When Rebekah talks about the base being closed or locked down. What she is really referring to is the base was in an increased threatcon level. Prior to knowing about any aircraft hijacking the base would have been in threatcon normal. Once its confirmed you have hijacked aircraft, the base would have gone into threatcon bravo. Once the pentagon get hit Westhover more than likely went into Threatcon Delta for a brief period of time and then brought it down to Threatcon Charlie. I know Andrews AFB went into full threatcon Delta when the Pentagon got hit. With each increase in threat condition you have an increase in security posture. All your entry control points start to get manned. The base has a sense of being shut down. With an increase in security posture this makes it even more difficult for unannounced aircraft to be landing without being challenged.
        As a former member of the Travis AFB 60th Security Police Squadron and someone who knows who is trained in anti terroism and anti hijacking, as well as Installation security procedures. The theory that the planes landed at Westhover and the passengers taken off and killed is bullshit.
        Ed Brotherton

        1. Based on my recollection of what I looked into some time ago, I suspect you may be incorrect in saying that none of the hangars at Westover would hold the allegedly hijacked planes.
          You seem to speaking as if there were actually real hijacked planes with real hijackers and a real plane hitting the Pentagon, in which case all of your attempted rationale is downright silly.
          However I in no way support Roth/Gainor/whoever’s claims regarding the use of Westover on 9/11 and have seen nothing to support them.

          1. I’m writing as a response to Rebeka Roth’s claims. So my “rationale” is based on a known understanding of how secuirty procedures work on that type of base. What is silly is Rebek’s claim when looked at with respect to those security procedures. I spent 4 years at Travis and they have the same aircraft that is at Westhover and when I make the claim that the hangers were not big enough. I’m talking about to house all four aircraft at the same time.

        2. To play the devil’s advocate, and in this case, Roth’s advocate, what if this were planned, and key personnel at Westover had their orders beforehand. They then got all their personnel off the base (as Roth indicates) and the base only kept a few personnel with a high security clearance and who were bound to the same kind of confidentiality of a CIA agent, who is bound not to disclose even crimes committed by the government (eg John Kiriakou). You say it could not be done for all four planes because the runway was not large enough. Other than that, if you had this kind of situation with the personnel, are you saying that too many people who could not be controlled in this way would still necessarily know about it?

          1. What I said is that not all four planes could have fit inside any of the hangers. The scenario you provide is not possible. People live on that base. Where are all that personnel and their families go if they got all the personnel off? People go shopping at the BX, They are like small towns. You’re not going to just say “Ok everyone, got to go.” And out the various gates they go. Further, key personnel is a LOT of personnel. This includes the Security. You’re still going to have your ART team and SRT team and your mobile patrol and your entry controllers. All these people know each other they work with each other day in and day out. There is not super upper security clearance. Each one of those security personnel must have a minimum of a secret security clearance and be on the PRP status. When you talk about orders beforehand. What orders could that possibly be?

          2. So much of this operation was done under our noses. Two or Four landings could be unnoticed by the vast majority of personnel occupied with daily life. There are 5 or 6 huge hangers that any two would contain two airliners each and easily. Shut the doors and nothing inside would be heard over the sound of a maintenance run-up. As far as orders, you mean like “Eliminate” and “Incinerate” and “Hybernate?”
            Who knows for sure all four aircraft ended up there, or if only two ended up there. But you seem like a good guy to quietly look into it.

          3. RIck – As someone who spent 4 years at an Air Mobility Command such as Westhover AFB as a Security Specialist. I’m telling with absolute certainty that there is no way those planes landed at an AFB under anyones noses. Security has procedures for challenging such aircraft. Also, you don’t do engines runs inside of a close hanger. The Air traffic Control and Westhover command post would have record of every plane landing and taking off that day along with tail numbers. There is just absolutely no way for the planes to land without being challenged by Security. Especially in an increased threatcon.

          4. Using your driving map, at Westover AFB, the west side of Runway 23, you will notice seven quite large hangars. (Hangar Avenue, how imaginative.) Two of them are adjacent each other, in my program one has a C5 inside with the tail sticking out. (223′ wingspan x 228′) It easily would engulf two 767-200s. (175’w x 160′)

            For this operation, certainly planners would occupy unwanted personnel away from discovery. Training, a drill, leave of absence. Certainly there was months to place an agency Air Traffic Controller in the tower. Do you suppose handlers pushed the pilots discrete call signs? Security would be expecting an AA and UN 767-200 and charged with making certain everything was contained and nobody saw those aircraft.

            September is cool. Anyone on that base would have their windows closed if maintenance was ordered to do run ups all morning.

            September 11, 2001 was far from business as usual. What happened does not fit any one persons theory. Let’s stop beating the crap out of each other and finish the puzzle.

            It’s a tight schedule, but it is not impossible.

            Best Regards,

          5. Part of Roth’s theory about Westover is that there was a woman in Otis who said she saw a very low flying UA plane over her house around 8:30 a.m. – 8:45 a.m. (not sure, but it was not an exact time and the time seemed a bit late for a 911 plane). She said that this woman wrote out an affidavit, and told Roth that she would be willing to testify in open court as to what she said Yet, we are not allowed to see this affidavit, not allowed to know this woman’s name who while willing to testify in open court is not willing to give her name or for us to see her affidavi? . Does this make sense to anyone? How does this get to the court that she wants to testify in if she doesn’t give it to someone willing to take it to court? If I were willing to write out an affidavit about seeing a low-flying plane that day, why is this information something that would concern me about others seeing, especially if I were so willing to testify in open court. Anyway, you had to stretch yourself to the limit in regard to the time she gave.

          6. Rick trust me. It doesn’t work like that. Security doesn’t get advance warning of “Expected” aircraft landings. They do get warning of unannounced aircraft landings. Planners do not get to pick securities schedules or the ATC schedules, maintenance schedules, etc. Regardless commercial airliners landing at military bases rarely if ever happens. In fact my entire 4 years doing flight line security at Travis AFB I’ve never seen it. Not once. It would be a highly unusual event. Also it’s not just the ATC but also the Westhover Command Post and all their personnel would also have records and know everything going on, on that base. You have flightline crew that would have to be involved.
            The bottom line is this, If the landings occurred before the attacks then those aircraft would have been challenged as unannounced aircraft landings and the operation would have been compromised and it would have turned into a hostage situation. In fact once the aircraft came to a stop on the runway vehicles are immediately parked in front of the landing gear to prevent it from going anywhere. There would have been a hostage situation since the hijackers obviously wouldn’t have wanted the dead pilots on board to be discovered. The base Emergency Services Team which is equivalent to civilian SWAT only specially trained to storm aircraft and nuetralize threats would have been recalled. (I was EST member at Travis). If there were no hijackers on board the plane was flown remotely. This too would have been discovered and again the operation compromised.
            If the planes landed after the attacks. The base would have been in threatcon Delta or Charlie at which point every aircraft is challenged as well only this time with bomb dogs etc and there would absolutely no way and I mean no way those aircraft would be allowed to taxi and get close to any other aircraft at the risk of a bomb going off destroying other aircraft or other military resources.
            So trust me Rick when I tell you that Rebekah or Sara or whatever the hell her name is, is completely full of shit and has no idea and no zero understanding of Air Force base security operations. What she is suggesting is utterly IMPOSSIBLE without being compromised.

          7. Sounds like there was alot of personnel working at that airport. Roth says that all of the personnel were “evacuated” from the base and put up in hotels for a few days. She said this was told to her (it had to come in writing) from someone who worked at the base, another anonymous source. She comes up with a theory, and patches it together with two anonymous sources, i.e. the anonymous woman from Otis who is willing to testify in open court, but who is not willing to show her affidavit or her name to anyone (so that we can take it to court); and the military person (sounding like another woman) who contacted her (in writing of course) and told her about the ousting of the personnel from Westover for a few days. This person before that time had no clue, no clue at all why all the personnel from Westover were forced to leave the airport and live in hotels. You know, she could have shown us the written communications without showing us the names, because surely they did not telephone her to give her this information. It had to come in writing either from facebook or through her book’s websites. And if the story of these two witnesss were put into her book, then how did these people get in contact with her before reading her book? Does anyone know if the story of the witnesses were put into the book or is this something she is adding to the book’s story after the book was published to give her theory added credibility? .

          8. Hi Anastanisa – Minor thing but important Westhover isn’t an airport but rather an Air Force base. A reserve base to be exact. The idea that all personnel were evacuated and placed in hotels has several problems. I contacted Military housing at Westhover just a few minutes ago and they havn’t had any on-base housing since the 1960’s. So why would anyone need to be put up in hotels. Why not just evacuate the base and send everyone home. The other problem is that you will never evacuate the security or other mission critical personnel from the base. That security is required at all times no matter what. So the idea of just kicking everyone off the base. Have a bunch of commercial planes land, taken to a hanger, passenger taken off then executed. Then get rid of the bodies and the planes is very problematic.

          9. Am I losing it? Maybe, but didn’t someone on this very site say there was on-base housing, shopping, community centers, etc. at Westover and that there was no way they could get all these people out. I just tried to look it up to answer you. Here is a list of “on-base” and “off base” military housing at Westover. Who did you speak to? I saw a recent article that said they are offering rentals of “off-base” military housing to civilians, but it appears from this that there is both “on base” and off base rentals. Please correct me if I am misreading this. I just left my front door keys in the lock overnight last night, and last week put my paper towels in the refrigerator, so there is no doubt in my mind that I can be wrong about this and many other self-evident matters. https://www.ahrn.com/usmcchicopee.php

          10. I think the questions regarding could security be compromised on Westover for a limited time to enable it to be used for some period of time (which is unclear) for any or all of the senario that’s been discussed here begs the bigger question. Who of you is going to get up and do some real research at this facility and find someone who worked there on that day doing security and the querying of security currently on the base. Geez, isn’t anyone close enough to this facility that they’d go over and ask for help with these questions?

          11. To answer your question. Yes I’ve done some real research regarding Westhover. I’ve spoken with Lt. Col. James Bishop with their public affairs dept. He is currently working on getting me a list of every aircraft that took off and landed that day. I also discovered that there hasn’t been any base housing on the base since the 1960’s so the claim that personnel were evacuated and sent to hotels makes no sense since no one lived on the base to begin with. Further, there is no way for security to be compromised, even for a limited time. There are what’s called AFI’s and SSI’s. These are Air Force Instructions and are literally code sections are how to generally do the job and then there are Special Security Instructions (SSI’s) and these are instructions specific for that particular post. These are followed to the “T” and cover every scenario. When you performing your security functions every is trained NOT TO DEVIATE. As an example I once had a LT. General drive right past our gate gaurd in a staff car. Imagine his surprise when he was chased down by two squad cars. He got trapped at another gate that was closed at that time and he found himself with my gun drawn along with another patrolman initiating a vehicle challenge. He got into a lot of trouble. The procedure is. When a staff car runs the gate we have to assume he is under duress so we initiate a felony stop until we ascertain their status. This guy was just being stupid. Even if our own supervisor gives me an order that would violate one of the AFI’s or SSI’s. That supervisor is getting jacked up. You never know when he may want to pull a flight level exercise just to see if you are going to do your job. So to answer your question. No security isn’t going to get compromised.

          12. OK, I called Westover Air Reserve Base this morning 12/30/15 at 11:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Tiime and I have proof on my cell phone. I called “Military Housing” Office, and I spoke to a person and posed the question about on-base housing. They asked who I was (and I told them), and she put me on the phone with Military Housing Deputy Director, Jim Grandchamp. Deputy Grandchamp told me that he was a marine on active duty on 911 at the Westover Base and was on active duty there from 2000 to 2006. Hee told me that there is no “on base” housing now or since 1972 (there is military housing off base, but none on-base since that time). He was so nice that I asked the second question about evacuation, and he told me that there was “no evacuation of any personnel on 911 and no one was put up in any hotels or anywhere else”. He then gratuitously told me that there was a heightened alert on that date, but no evacuation of any personnel. I asked him if I could use his name and he said he had absolutely no problem with that and spelled his name for me. He gave me his name, rank, etc. and was very amiable.

          13. If and when you get the list of 9/11 flights from Lt Col Bishop it will be interesting to see if the landings of the four A-10 Warthogs mentioned by Lt Col (then Capt.) Wahleithner are listed. In the article Wahleithner doesn’t say exactly what he heard concerning them landing at Westover; they, the A-10 pilots told him this directly; he overhead communication between the A-10s and Westover; Westover told him directly, or something else? I don’t believe Wahleithner said what he and his crew did; could they have flown all the way back to Europe after all this?

          14. You are right. That would settle the matter. However, would it not be difficult after 15 years to find anyone at that base who was there at that time. I did try to find something on the internet about an evacuation at that base. I was not successful. She did say that a person who Roth does not name or describe in any way (job description, rank, etc) communicated with her (that communication would have had to be in writing as Roth does not publish her telephone number) and told her that he/she worked at the base and that the base was evacuated of its personnel (including those that lived there) and put in hotels for a day or days on 911 and after 911. The anonymous person said to Roth, “I could never understand why we were evacuated and put in hotels, and now, (after reading your fiction romance novel) I do understand why.” I don’t know about any of you, but if I were taken out of my home and put in a hotel for a few days, I would be demanding to know why.

          15. One more thing. Being in the Air Force during the mid 1970’s and stationed at a fairly robust base out in the Mojave Desert called Edwards Air Force Base and Flight Research Center, the one thing I never did, was go anywhere near the flight line. It wasn’t part of what I did there, so I never snooped around. I had other interests. I kept away from potential problems. When you are their property (the military), I mean living under the code of military justice, you stay out of trouble. If you don’t, they have jail and prisons too. Anything they decide is unbecoming of a military man is punishable under their code of military justice. I felt so much more freedom after I got out. Maybe I’m not the only one to not take an interest, meaning in the flight line at Westover as well.

          1. anastasia
            December 30, 2015 at 9:01 am
            So, you believe that something like that could have happened on that base?
            Precisely. What does what happens on the flight line have to do with road security in and out of the base?
            I want to speak to disinformation. I have an email from an EXTREMELY well respected 9/11 member who made many illuminating videos about the WTC and thermite and much much more, but now when queried on the plane going into the Pentagon he flipped to the Official Story like some of the other well respected and told me in that email that: 1. A bullet can pass through steel and 2. Kamikazes penetrated the hulls of steel ships. When I responded with the following I did not receive a reply. Kamikazes were flying bombs loaded with explosives, not just planes loaded with jet fuel. I didn’t bother to state the following: I don’t think we can equate a lead bullet with the hollow core like that of an airplane. Nor why we don’t see plane parts all over the place since the plane supposedly struck at an angle, not dead on.
            Another EXTREMELY well respected 9/11 physics person took umbrage when I asked him to compare what would happen to a plane’s wing if we struck it with a 250 pound lamp post going over 500 miles per hour. The lamp post being made of aluminum and the planes wing being mostly aluminum and partially titanium on the leading edge (which reduces fuel cost by having millions of microscopic holes made by lasers). His anger came after he thought he had explained to me scientifically why the poles did not travel but a few feet after being struck. He had no answer for why the Lloyd England’s first pole had a large bend in it and not any of the other four downed poles.
            Anastasia, keep on this, and thanks to all of you for being persistent.

          2. No, I think the story is highly unlikely for many reasons including the calculations that are being made here. I think people here put more time into the calculations than she did. She made some rough calculations, fiddled with the time of the calls, and then puffed it all up in her talk shows with the two lying stories about the woman from Otis and the military person from Westover.
            In regard to Physics, I must tell you, as hybridrogue states, that my physics background is no more extensive than what I learned in grammar school. I was not required to take physics in high school and went no farther than Chemistry, and in college, I tried to stay away from the sciences as much as I could. The few people in my high school class who took physics were the hall monitors and the egg heads, and needless to say, I was neither.
            So, what does a person like me do when trying to solve that problem about plane parts falling before entering the WTC? I did what I could. Even though I knew it was very different, I did take the trouble to look up what happened to the small military jet that crashed into the Empire State Building around the time of the war. I belong to the newspaper archives and got all the old newspaper articles about the matter. Alot or even most of the plane fell to the ground, including the wing or wings, before entering the building. Of course everyone says that this jet was small; that the building was different; that the jet was traveling slowly. OK, I agree. But I am persuaded that those commercial planes could not travel at the speed computed by the officials at that altitude,according to the most reliable sources. This would also tell me that if they are not lying about the speed, then they are lying that it was those commercial planes. In regard to those poles at the Pentagon, can a plane continue to fly into the building so smoothly after hitting all those poles with its wings? It doesn’t seem likely, but people with more knowledge than myself are debating the issue. What can I add to that, except what I saw in the movie, Airport 77, and I think if I urged it upon anyone here, hybridrogue would probably throw himself out the window in despair.

          3. Incidentally, are you referring to Frank Legge? He tried very hard to convince me about the Pentagon, i.e. to accept the official story, but I wasn’t persuaded. I did ask him why it was so important to him that we accept the official story right now, and he said it was because we should maintain credibility and political clout, or words to that effect. I did get a laugh out of that.

          4. anastasia
            December 31, 2015 at 2:20 pm
            So, what does a person like me do when trying to solve that problem about plane parts falling before entering the WTC? I did what I could. Even though I knew it was very different, I did take the trouble to look up what happened to the small military jet that crashed into the Empire State Building around the time of the war. I belong to the newspaper archives and got all the old newspaper articles about the matter. A lot or even most of the plane fell to the ground, including the wing or wings, before entering the building. Of course everyone says that this jet was small; that the building was different; that the jet was traveling slowly. OK, I agree. But I am persuaded that those commercial planes could not travel at the speed computed by the officials at that altitude,according to the most reliable sources. This would also tell me that if they are not lying about the speed, then they are lying that it was those commercial planes. In regard to those poles at the Pentagon, can a plane continue to fly into the building so smoothly after hitting all those poles with its wings? It doesn’t seem likely, but people with more knowledge than myself are debating the issue.
            The planes flying into the two towers should not have gone in effortlessly. Clearly 2 million pounds of floor times 3 or 4 floors =’s about 8 million pounds opposing only 300,000 pounds of plane. Since I don’t subscribe to the no planes theory, I believe that the pod underneath each plane directed a missile ahead of contact that ignited pre-planted explosives that instantly cleared away enough of each floor to allow each plane to go completely within. If you don’t think this is possible, then understand RDX moves at 8700 meters per second and HMX moves at 9000 meters per second. Both of these speeds are more than 5 miles in one second. The spacing of each floor was 10 feet or slightly more. Either of these explosives would have traveled four floors in clearing away the concrete for each plane in just 0.0013675 of a second. Nobody can see this and anyone too close could not distinguish it from the plane crashing through. Since the space between floors was compromised by the Ace Elevator Company working on the elevator system for a long time. It is conceivable that each building was rigged with explosives for different objectives. Maybe some explosives occurred simultaneous and others didn’t matter. Such as to affect below structures and the plane crash at tower 1. With one sound masking the plane crash over other explosions below. Again later the sound may have somewhat masked itself in the demolition synchronization that brought each building down in near free fall and turned the concrete into dust.
            You’re correct about commercial planes flying at those speeds, but since they have an unlimited budget, they can use their own modified engines and strengthened drones to accomplish the deed. They didn’t count on the Internet to keep this story so alive.
            As to plane’s wings hitting stationary objects and continuing unaffected. Not according to Newton. Objects always slow down. This is where David Chandler used an analogy of a fast moving blade under a lawn mover cutting grass. Not possible for lamp posts to fly far away says David, the speed of the plane clips them so they just fall over. Even the blades of grass, David eludes to, will be ejected all over the place if there isn’t a skirt around the mover preventing that. Maybe our icons have been out thinking themselves. It’s high time for David Chandler to prove his theory of wings and poles analogy to the falling pieces of grass from the lawn mower’s fast moving blades. Please David make sure their is nothing to limit how far the grass will fly. Additionally, it’s time for Jonathan Cole to prove any of the planes were like Kamikazes’ only without the normal explosives which can penetrate ship’s hulls or admit he’s distorting the history of the Kamikaze. And please show that Airplanes are as good as bullets in penetrating steel. Why don’t both of these two show us that a plane striking at an angle at the Western wall of the Pentagon would not carom off the building or would carom off leaving plane debris all over the lawn and heliport. They know what to do, they aren’t stupid people. Do the experiment guys!

  20. I would be really concerned if anyone in the airline industry thought what Rebekah was saying made any sense. If they were flight attendants it would be very surprising given the illogical catalogue of conclusions she reaches about things that they ought to be familiar with. If there are pilots who give any credence to what she says that would be really worrying as it would mean pilots, flying planes have lost their grip on reality.

  21. “If there are pilots who give any credence to what she says that would be really worrying as it would mean pilots, flying planes have lost their grip on reality.”~A.Wright
    A. Wright is not one to speak to this issue as he himself as lost his grip on reality.
    Maybe Roth and Wright are two peas from the same pod.

      1. I haven’t the need to worry about pilots Wright, I wouldn’t get close to an airport with their lunatic TSA gestapo bullshit.

  22. Personally I am more inclined to go with the postulation of ‘voice morphing’ and matching voice wave-forms as the way these so-called in-flight phone calls were produced,
    This technology was far from in it’s infancy on 9/11.
    Remember we haven’t only the flight attendant’s calls to take into consideration, but also all the “passenger” calls, including the totally unbelievable phrase, “you believe me don’t ya mom??” from a guy that called his mother stating his whole name as if she wouldn’t recognize him.
    The more I think about Mrs Roth’s novel, the more convinced that is all it is, a novel.

    1. I laid out in my critique of Griffin’s belief in the use of voice morphing on 9-11 — http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html — that it is quite a bit more complicated to execute than the fact that the technology is available. For one thing you need to know who is going to be talking to whom and, also, many of the UA 93 callers were late arrivals for that specific flight.
      Griffin’s response (2 and 1/2 times the length of my own article) included the following: “With regard to the passengers who made last-minute changes: The government could have gotten voice samples from phone calls to the airliners in the previous years, or by hacking into other telephone calls.” Could have? I repeat: could have? It keeps a huge bank of voice samples ever ready for morphing for those who happen to board a plane?
      Roth feels that a claim of voice morphing is an insult to all those people and she rips into Griffin in a very nasty manner in that Quantum Matrix interview. I don’t accept voice morphing, but reject the character of her attack on Griffin.

      1. I can see how you might interpret her remarks about Griffin as being disparaging, but I would say her remarks were made in the context of voice morphing only, she was not casting all of his work aside. More precisely, she said nothing about any other aspects of Mr. Griffin’s work. Her basic statement to the interviewers was if you want to believe a theologian’s speculations about voice morphing over an experienced flight attendant’s simple explanation of how it could have been done, that’s your prerogative. I would interpret her sharp remarks as being directed at the interviewers for believing Mr. Griffin’s speculations, not a direct attack on his work.
        Obviously Mrs. Roth was frustrated by their line of questioning, they seemed to be more interested in having Mrs. Roth respond to their ideas of what happened, not allowing her the opportunity to tell her story in a cohesive manner. More importantly, they were not listening to her answers, if they would have been listening, they would have heard answers to their questions.
        I admit, this was a different type of interview than the many others she has given, but in my view, it was the least helpful because it was not focused on her story; instead, it rambled from one topic to another without any consistent theme. Bottom line, if this was the only interview a person listened to, it would not be that helpful in understanding the story she was trying to tell.

        1. Don,
          These interviewers both clearly asked her about “It’s a frame” for the Lyles’ call. Roth did NOT answer but just reasserted “You did great!” for this whisper.
          Her tone regarding Griffin on morphing was over the top, insulting him as a mere theologian. Please recheck the locations I have indicated. This is the only interview I have heard where the interviewers weren’t fawning over her, or nearly so. To an extent, you are correct that they didn’t just let her do her thing. I fail to understand this fawning behavior of almost all interviewers except perhaps an uncanny ability by Roth or her agent (if she has) to choose which interviews to accept. She rejected Craig and blocked him, as we know (no polite response toward him, either).
          By the way, have you noticed how her presentations are so similar over and over, as if she has been trained what to say and yet appear spontaneous to those who hear her only a time or two?
          Back to Griffin, in another interview, someone called in to ask politely of Roth if she had read Griffin. She answered a simple, “no”. Indeed, she seemed to think that Griffin with his morphing was responsible for “It’s a frame”, not being aware that he agreed with her. Not ever reading Griffin? yet claiming many times to have spent thousands of hours going down every 9-11 rabbit hole? How do you put that together?

          1. P.S. I want to make clear that any deficiencies Roth may have as a novelist, reacting to others such as Griffin, and/or use of “LOL” (to me or to others) are not the main issues for me. Rather, understanding 9-11 is the reason my article focused upon her claims about calls from Westover.
            At first glance her offering was intriguing, but only encouraged me to work through it more carefully. I prefer not to get too sidetracked onto these other issues, except insofar as it helps us know what to expect when we would like questions answered.

          2. Hi Paul,
            First, in that same interview, Roth states she wrote her book for the person that has not done any research into 9/11. She has stated that all of the 9/11 information she included in her book is supported by FBI reports (and possibly other official reports [my impression]). I don’t believe she mentioned any other sources, other than I heard her mention a book you authored, which you have stated previously. As such, her work is not relying on anyone else’s (non-official) investigative work, opinion, or conjecture about what may have happened. Thus to treat it as an investigative work primarily, comparable to what recognized 9/11 researchers have produced, would not be a fair characterization. I think that is why she refuses to discuss it with other researchers that hold differing views because that was not her objective.
            Now, I admit that by refusing to discuss any issues with other researchers, her impact on the established 9/11 community will be limited. However, that misses the point of her book, which I believe was to weave enough official 9/11 information into a novel that people currently outside the 9/11 research community might pick up and read, thus broadening the 9/11 base community.
            I do not know Mrs. Roth so I cannot absolutely say what she intended, but if her book reaches people who still believe the official 9/11 story, causing them to open their eyes to the absurdity of it all, she will have made a significant contribution. In my view, the ultimate goal is to get a true, independent and thorough investigation of 9/11 but that won’t happen until Americans from all walks of life are demanding it be done.
            There is no doubt that qualified researchers such as yourself are a large part of the process of discovering the truth of 9/11, but it is equally important to widen the base of people demanding the truth from their governmental authorities. If her novel can accomplish that goal, it should be welcomed for the contribution it can make.

          3. I have been hesitant to engage in this discussion but feel compelled to do it here. It would be useful for 9/11 truthers to shed, once and for all, the illusion that a “true, independent and thorough investigation of 9/11” could be carried except after a U.S. “regime change”, in other words after a revolution. The U.S. ruling elite is intimately linked to upholding the myth of 9/11 and will never allow such an investigation. THe Nuremberg Trial could only take place after Nazi Germany was defeated.
            Instead, the 9/11 truth movement should – in my opinion – embed itself in the larger movement to weaken and ultimately defeat the criminal regime of the United States. The paradigm should be to think the U.S. as a post-modern version of the Nazi regime and slowly undermine the moral legitimacy of the institutions that maintain that regime. For that purpose, continuing to discuss about “how” the US regime carried out 9/11 is a waste of time. There is more than sufficient data to conclude on US responsibility for the crime.

          4. I agree with you, I’ve never believed that a new investigation would be initiated by the US government or within a US court – that will not happen. But I do reserve some hope for an international investigation, based upon the horrific war crimes the US government has committed in multiple countries, primarily based upon 9/11 lies.
            The real question is can the criminal regime be deposed peacefully? Very, very unlikely, thus those that would pursue the objective to restore our government to its constitutional moorings must be willing to count the cost.

          5. Dear Mr. Daviddson: I bought your book and it was superb! I had to copy your response that you made here and read it several times because I am uncertain about what you are advising us to do. You advise that movement should “embed itself in the larger movement to weaken and ultimately defeat the criminal regime of the United States” – that a “regime change” is needed…..that will come about “after a revolution.” Like “what was done to the Nazi regime” to “slowly undermine the moral legitimacy of the institutions that maintain that regime”
            Could you elaborate upon this a little more. I am truly uncertain as to how you are advising us.
            Can what you are advising be done without keeping silent about what happened on 911, because the “larger movement” you speak of, if it is the one I am thinking of, would always distance themselves from anyone who speaks of 911 as we do.
            What “institutions” in the United States that you speak of should be undermined?

          6. You ask what are my recommendations for the US. It is not for me to tell American citizens what to do. In my experience, if you wish to bring 9/11 into the larger movement, you first have to participate in that movement and gain credibility. You gain credibility not by feigning support, but by wholeheartedly support the movement’s objectives. My work for 9/11 truth has been from the outset part of my struggle against US imperialism and Big Capital. In that respect there was no difficulty for my friends to understand 9/11 as a means to promote imperialism.
            The approach is not through the forensic facts of 9/11 but through the explanation that Western imperial circles needed a new enemy to replace the Red Scare, into order to maintain NATO and the military-industrial complex intact. That enemy had to be fabricated and a huge catalyzing had to be engineered in order to rally the population behind a robust and aggressive foreign policy, as well as accommodating the population to mass surveillance. This line of argumentation is well understood by activists.

          7. I love your blog. Important stuff on it. I stopped my work today to read some of it. The Gatto article is fabulous. If parents haven’t figured out what they are doing to their children yet, there is no hope for them. And you see this particularly today where children are being sent home to indoctrinate their parents, and they are able to do it with more than a modicum of success.

          8. History is replete with stories of this kind of thing. This “criminal regime” is not the first to engage in this kind of tactic to galvanize people to war, or to change the structure of society and government, and I think they wish to do both in our case.
            I think the books written have been vitally important, not for our sake, so much, as I see no realistic hope of stopping what is going to happen to our country, but for the sake of a future mended society. I think that a record must be made for their sake, and the best record can only be made by our struggle to know not only that they did it, but how they did it.

          9. “It’s a frame”, not being aware that he agreed with her. Not ever reading Griffin? yet claiming many times to have spent thousands of hours going down every 9-11 rabbit hole? How do you put that together?
            That’s a thing that bothers me in other cases of more mainstream friendly 9/11 (or take your pick of big conspiracies) “‘experts’. Recently posted Jon Gold interview with Broward Bulldog reporter hot on the trail of the Sarasota Saudis and Gold asks him if he is familiar with shit, my 63 year old mind farting noggin can’t remember who but someone all of us are familiar with like Griffin and the “dogged” reporter says no. What kind of reporter or researcher ignores checking out such easy to get info? If a debunker or 9/11 expert hasn’t read Griffin or watched Loose Change even, fuck ’em. A few hours reading Dave McGowan and watching Massimo Mazzucco would go a long way to make more expert experts.

          10. I have studied a lot of 9/11 material and have yet to read any of Mr. Griffin’s books. Does that make me incapable of understanding what may have happened at 9/11 or that I am utterly unqualified to offer an opinion as to what I think may have happened? There is so much material available on the internet that you could spend thousands of hours researching the subject without reading even one book about the 9/11 subject. There is no shortage of material from which to conduct research so the fact that she has not read any of Mr. Griffin’s books should not disqualify the research she conducted for her book.
            I am not offering a scientific critique of Mrs. Roth’s book, therefore I do not believe I have to read it in order to offer an opinion of what I have heard from the many interviews she has given. All I have said is that her explanation regarding the planes is plausible, I have never stated it is bullet-proof, although I admit she has effectively done so. That is troubling to me, not because I think she is entirely off-base but because she should not make such a statement without offering absolute evidence of those facts and I don’t think she has such evidence. She has corroboration from unnamed reservist(s) that the AF base was evacuated and they could not enter for 2 or 3 days after 9/11 but nothing beyond that is offered as proof. Well, that is not sufficient evidence to eliminate all other possible explanations. But as I said, my purpose is not to pick apart her book; instead I wish to view it as another possible explanation as to what may have happened that day.

          11. “I have studied a lot of 9/11 material and have yet to read any of Mr. Griffin’s books. Does that make me incapable of understanding what may have happened at 9/11 or that I am utterly unqualified to offer an opinion as to what I think may have happened?”~Don
            I don’t have any of Griffin’s books either, but I have read many long articles by him, and have a real good grasp of his information. Some of the best out there, all available on the web.
            Not perfect in every way, but some of the very best.
            As time has gone by I have compiled enough information for my own comprehensive view of 9/11. Most of what Roth says beyond her hostess info in radio interviews sounds jejune and lacking in scientific grounding to me.
            And since I am totally uninterested in romantic novels, I don’t see any reason to consider her trip at all.

          12. The same for me, I have not read his books, but I have watched a number of video presentations by Mr. Griffin and read excerpts from his books. My point is that having not read his books does not mean that someone is unfamiliar with his work; that is all I was saying about Mrs. Roth statement.
            I maintain Mrs. Roth’s statement in the interview Paul cites was primarily directed at the interviewers, not Mr. Griffin, although I admit it was not complimentary of Mr. Griffin. Of all the interviews I have heard given by her, this one was the most challenging – it was not just a recalling of her story, it involved questions that others have proposed. I don’t think Mrs. Roth was prepared for that line of questioning but I believe she is fully aware that is fair game, especially when she makes bold statements about the certainty of what happened to the planes.
            I will state that I too am not interested in reading a novel portrayal of 9/11, even one filled with many facts gleaned from the official record. But not everyone is like me, and if her book can bring others to an awareness that the official 9/11 investigation and report was a complete sham, I will try to be supportive of such work.

          13. DJI9424, it’s true that there is a ton of research about 9/11 Truth by numerous persons; but I am astounded to hear that you have read none of Griffin’s dozen books on the subject. Try to read at least one of them, for example, “9/11 Ten Years Later” (2011). Griffin is a master of logical analysis and of prose exposition.

          14. As I said above, I have read excerpts from his books and viewed several of his lectures on YouTube so it’s not that I am unfamiliar with his work. But as I also said, I am more interested in the “who” instead of the “how” and Mr. Griffin has confined his work to the “how”, at least that is what I heard him say in a Q&A session after one of his lectures. His primary goal was to demonstrate the government’s official story is a lie and he has done that quite well.
            However, as a philosopher of religion and theology and well versed in political thought, I would think that Professor Griffin would be more interested in understanding the thinking of the people that perpetrated the crime; i.e. what was their underlying philosophy and what did they hope to gain by their actions. Hopefully, by looking at this aspect of 9/11 he would be able to identify the characteristics of those who were most likely involved. Obviously, this would be a much riskier endeavor – you can talk about how something was done all you want, as long as you bring no accusations against any specific person(s), you will be allowed to present your findings. In fact, you may even earn public accolades because it will never lead to any indictments, thus it is “safe” to acknowledge your work. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not accusing Mr. Griffin of disinformation or complicity, but I am saying that he knows where he is allowed to tread.
            To shamefully borrow from a GEICO commercial: If you’re the US Government, you lie to the American public, it’s what you do. To expect otherwise, given all the lies we have been told for well over a hundred years, is just not realistic. 9/11 is merely a symptom of a government that does not represent the American people nor is bound by the US Constitution. That is the real issue that needs to be addressed, everything else is but a (monstrous) distraction.

      2. “For one thing you need to know who is going to be talking to whom and, also, many of the UA 93 callers were late arrivals for that specific flight.”
        Yes, I would propose there are ways to manipulate situations such as these, contingent on each situation, and that being a “late arrival” might just be a key to such manipulated situations.
        I am not going to spend a lot of time posing possible scenarios here, but I think with a bit of imagination most of us could figure out a few plausible plot lines. Say a very attractive person of the opposite sex talking a potential passenger into taking a few hours out to chat … or more. And attractive person who happens to be an agent with a recording device for such a chat?
        We can each of us write a novel with such suppositions as a basis, grow rich and drive fast sports cars. Let’s do!!!

  23. And a pretty shitty one, to boot. Particularly irksome is her creepy libertarian angle. After following 9/11 all these years, interestingly, partisan politics have been mostly avoided in our discussions. That may be because at the core of the Truth movement we only want peace. I guess that makes us more pinko hippies than one of the squares. Go read the snippet in Amazon if you don’t believe me. What a square.

    1. Jimbo,
      Thanks for the advice to check out some sample pages of Mrs Roth’s book. You are absolutely right. It reads like a cheeky romance novel. Junk in my opinion. No wonder it’s ‘popular’; same “taste” as the population that buys into stupid commercial TV.
      Even the jingoberry “gawblesmurkah” bullshit of her “President Sherman” [tank?] who didn’t get to go to ROTC because of those dopey PC “Liberals at Stanford had eliminated it in the 60’s”.
      I’ll be frank, I think Roth is a typical TVZombie that hasn’t a clue as to how the world really works. I think she is an opportunist who got aboard the 9/11 bandwagon to pump her ‘novel’ beyond the mediocre range of the standard romantic tripe; that it turned out to be anyway, despite the lame political veneer.
      She should take a job in public relations and forget fiction. She has no talent as far as I’m concerned. But she sure knows how to sell a book!

  24. “That may be because at the core of the Truth movement we only want peace.”
    Oh yeah, and truth. Peace and truth.

  25. A real “novel idea” for the majority of the Amerikan herd would be to study real history rather than the prechewed bubblegum bullshit offered by the mainstream.
    Perhaps then the real crisis of the political situation would be recognized; that is that the struggle is: Collectivism v Individual Rights to Unalienable Liberty.
    A starter course could begin here:
    “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” by Antony Sutton

  26. Dear Mr. President:
    I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited for the Russian people…”
    -Letter to President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William
    Lawrence Saunders, chairman, Ingersoll-Rand Corp.; director, American
    International Corp.; and deputy chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    . . . . . .
    “Modern history possesses such a built-in duality and certainly if too many uncomfortable facts have been rejected and brushed under the rug, it is an inaccurate history.
    On the other hand, it may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J. P. Morgan and J. D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to “go political” and make society go to work for the monopolists — under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist.[1] Howe, by the way, is also a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution.
    Therefore, an alternative conceptual packaging of political ideas and politico-economic systems would be that of ranking the degree of individual freedom versus the degree of centralized political control. Under such an ordering the corporate welfare state and socialism are at the same end of the spectrum. Hence we see that attempts at monopoly control of society can have different labels while owning common features.
    Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians — with a few notable exceptions — have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind:
    monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers.
    Suppose that American monopoly capitalists were able to reduce a planned socialist Russia to the status of a captive technical colony? Would not this be the logical twentieth-century internationalist extension of the Morgan railroad monopolies and the Rockefeller petroleum trust of the late nineteenth century?”
    “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” by Antony Sutton

    1. The problem with Sutton is that he did not really understand Marx himself and projects Soviet history, itself complicated, back onto Marx. Even Marx’s relation to Hegel is misunderstood by Sutton (actually, I published an article on this last year).
      Marx fundamentally was talking about liberating humanity. Being born in 1925, Sutton started and ended with a Stalinist projection onto Marx. He was incapable of rendering another reading. Anyway, this is a huge discussion and seems to me quite beyond the purposes of this blog.

      1. I disagree with you Paul, I think Marx was definitely a totalitarian.
        What is ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’? A non-dictatorship, like a non-police state, like non-newspeak?
        The struggle will always be between the Collectivist & Unalienable Individual Liberty.
        Who decides what is “beyond the purposes of this blog”?
        I would be curious to read your article on Marx/Hegel. Can you post a link?

        1. My piece is published as a book chapter and I could, upon request, forward it from my email address: zarembka@buffalo.edu .
          You misunderstand Marx’s meaning for a phrase Marx used at age 32 then absent for two decades. It is a Stalinist interpretation of Marx.
          For starters, go to https://www.marxists.org/subject/marxmyths/hal-draper/article2.htm . Note, for example, while recalling Marx’s positive commentary on the 1871 Paris Commune: “Since the Paris Commune clearly had no “dictatorial” trappings in the modern sense, it has always represented a problem for those who maintain that Marx’s ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ meant something specially “dictatorial” as compared with a mere workers’ state.”
          Sutton never understand.

  27. I am so glad you took the time to dissect some of the claims put forth by Mrs. Roth. I read the sample of her book and was not interested in purchasing it so I listened to several of her interviews in hopes of finding out her entire theory that way. This blog was very informative.
    I was very curious about the claims she was making about the Amy Sweeney phone call. So I googled what i could find of it to refresh my memory. Roth claims in several interviews that Amy only ever referred to one hijacker sitting in 9B. Where is she getting this information?
    I was not able to find anything that shows Amy referring to one hijacker or her calling back after first claiming the hijacker was sitting in 9B. Where did Amy say this?
    I’ve only read where she had mentioned 9D, 9G and 10B and that 9B had his throat slashed. Could someone please provide a transcript of the call backing up her claim if available?
    Roth also consistently brings up passenger 9B, Daniel Lewin. The first person to have allegedly died on 9/11. She essentially names him as the real hijacker or ‘handler’ of the flight 11. She bases this theory on his past experience as a former member of the Sayeret Matkal and how strange it was that he had been the first person to reportedly die that day.
    I’m interested to see what people here think about Daniel. Do you think that he was likely involved?
    Roth’s theory is ultimately that the planes were grounded remotely, the passengers gassed while dummy planes were flown into the buildings. I was wondering what people on this thread think of this theory overall?
    From what I’ve gathered here Mrs. Roth doesn’t seem to respond well to criticism which is a shame. I think there is always room for improvement.
    This is the only article about her i’ve come by that actually looked at what she claimed carefully and took the time to analyze her work. Most everywhere else they simply praise her. I find it hard to trust a researcher whose theories have not been thoroughly reviewed by their peers.
    Thank you Professor!

    1. Lilian,
      Davidson’s book (pp. 154-161) cites the seat numbers via reference to reports of Sweeney’s call. There are, indeed, no mentions of 9B.
      Where did the reference to Lewin and 9B come from? Not from Sweeney. Perhaps from the official Moussaoui trial, if not earlier (I haven’t checked). In row 9, that trial reports 9A for Edmund Glazer, 9B Daniel Lewin, 9H Peter Gay, and 9J Robert Hayes. I mention all because one of the reports of Sweeney’s calls does refer to an attack on a passenger in row 9.
      On the one hand, it seems that Roth put into Ong’s month something that is not factually correct. On the other hand, Davidson (p. 163) also claims that Sweeney’s reference is to 9B. It seems he is projecting also. (Incidentally, I have tried to contact Davidson, but his earlier email address bounces for me — if anyone has it, I’d welcome a message to my email address of zarembka@buffalo.edu ).
      As to the NUMBER of alleged hijackers, Davidson clearly cites the reports that there was an excess of one, in fact THREE at the seat numbers you mention. This is definitively against any suggestion that there was only one.
      I don’t feel further discussion of Lewin is warranted from Roth’s novel. Roth seems to be constructing evidence to blame Mossad. This intention may be what excites too many interviewers with an agenda, Kevin Barrett and Susan Lindauer being examples.
      The fact that you are checking such details out is excellent. I myself felt I had enough on my hands and didn’t analyze Roth’s rendering of what anyone said, which will be a lot to go through.
      You may want to note that one commentator at Amazon, J. Moore, on April 20 claims to have been a flight attendant and says,
      “I was a flight attendant with United Airlines for ten years from 1997. Neither was there a Methodical code word, nor a hijack switch in the main cabin. Utterly false”
      This comment represents a reminder that Roth’s claims of supporters from the airline industry are HERS and are not even hearsay evidence until they should step forward into the light of day.

    2. Lilian,
      After I replied to you, I saw that the 9/11 Commission Report does refer to seat 9B. But that specificity is not reported in Davidsson’s book and seems to be nothing more than an inference from the claimed record.
      In any case, the much more significant issue you raised is the falsehood of Roth’s claim that there was only ONE hijacker mentioned in flight attendant calls, allegedly from AA11. There were THREE.
      What is happening is that many of those fawning over her story ignore uncomfortable details in order to settle on the conclusion they already want to hear before they ever heard of Rebekah Roth, namely, Mossad, Zionists, Jews done the job.

      1. “..namely, Mossad, Zionists, Jews done the job.”~Paul Zarembka
        Three separate and distinct entities there Paul,
        >Mossad is a Israeli Intelligence organization.
        >Zionists, are a group that maintains a specific view of the maintenance of political power; the principle that “Might is Right” by the strategy “The Means are Justified by the Ends”. This entails no particular theology (religion) nor ideology, The Zionist meme can be held by Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, or Cotton-pickers.
        >Jews, are obviously part of a ethnic-religious heritage, and are just as liable to the PR and manipulation of their leadership as any other ethnic group, As a people they are not to blame.
        Who “done the job”? In the main it was the military industrial complex guided by the Neoconservatives who designed PNAC, and manned important military and political posts at the time of the event. Yes Mossad was involved as much as NORAD, the Administration and the interconnected links to many security services of many nations. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan having key roles along with Mossad.
        Who is at the top of the foodchain in this system? The International Banking Cabal, nothing takes place without the graces of the Money Power.
        All wars are bankers wars. This has been so for hundreds of years.

      2. Sherif,
        I am not sure.
        I have read the article I cite, into Morrissey’s “Looking for the Enemy”, as well as “Transparency Theory” (2006) which is available at ‘Read inside’ at http://www.amazon.com/Transparent-Conspiracy-Essays-Poems-mostly-ebook/dp/B00QNOGKTW/ref=sr_1_5?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1432063251&sr=1-5&keywords=michael+david+morrissey#reader_B00QNOGKTW
        (By the way, Quigley is cited in the third.)
        I was NOT suggesting that Mossad=Zionists=Jews. I was suggesting that those with one or more of those frames of mind as THE enemy latch onto Roth, ignoring the accuracy of Roth’s argument. They simply like her attribution, no need to check carefully.
        I am rather doubt that the “International Banking Cabal” is the deepest explanation of what is going on. Almost 900 years ago Averroes noted that money is a store of purchasing power; a major addition to Aristotle, surely. But, still, serfs then were not controlled by money.
        Today everything (almost) is produced for sale including wage-workers who, unlike serfs, sell their labor power for money. So, money is now really major. But what is the SUBSTANCE of money?

        1. “serfs then were not controlled by money.”~Paul Z
          That is my whole point Paul, according to the New World Order agenda, there will be Lords and Serfs. As you point out the serfs are outside of the system of “money” that the Lords lord over. THAT is the definition of the feudal system, that is what the agenda is, as Quigley plainly lays out in TRAGEDY & HOPE.
          What is “money” in this system, a certificate of debt, it is simply usury, This has been explained over and again by all who have investigated “Fractional Reserve Banking” the template of the FED. It is a Ponzi Scheme, it is nothing but fixed book keeping. It is simple! Perhaps too simple for an “economist”…aye?

  28. @Lillian
    “Roth’s theory is ultimately that the planes were grounded remotely, the passengers gassed while dummy planes were flown into the buildings. I was wondering what people on this thread think of this theory overall?”
    What I think of that theory is what I think of that as a plan. I try to imagine any serious group of people sitting down and listening to Rebekah Roth telling them about the plan she has come up with to make people think muslim extremists have hijacked particular planes with particular passengers and have crashed them into the WTC. The first part of the plan is not to crash those planes into the WTC. That would be the perfect plan. The planes would have crashed into the WTC and the debris from the planes and the bodies of the passengers would be there just as expected. The damage done by the planes would be the damage done by the planes. Apparently though Ms Roth decides that the perfect plan should be replaced by a completely faked version of the perfect plan, involving far more complexity , far more people to be involved before during and after, every one of whom could give away the whole thing at any time , and far, far more things to go wrong. The plan for starters would involve not even having the accused hijackers on the planes! Their names would not even be on the passenger lists and some of them would be just made up people who didn’t exist! Others would be accused of being the hijackers even though they would still be alive -years later! All the debris at the WTC would be from completely different planes and not the planes that were supposed to have crashed and there would be no bodies there of people who were on the planes. For added realism the planes would be equipped with special top secret lasers, to crash into the buildings in a way that actual planes wouldn’t. This would be obvious to anyone who saw it.
    As Ms Roth continued explaining her plan , using the principle ‘how can we make it more complicated and difficult and more likely to fail’ ,I’m sure everyone in the room would be impressed with the brilliance of the plan. That would be because there would be no one in the room, all of them having left to find a barge pole long enough not to touch this inane bizarre plan with.

    1. Of course Agent Wright does not address a single bit of the real evidence of the case here. He just describes a “stupid plan” on his own terms.
      This is of course the classic Straw-Man argument, laid out to defeat itself by generalities.
      You see Lillian, Agent Wright is the “resident” troll for T&S, who will post such anal hurlant as he has just spewed on almost any thread. His is a regurgitation of the official narrative, which anyone with a lick of sense recognizes as utterly absurd. It is Wright’s unfortunate duty to attempt to turn the absurd into a fair representation of reality – a fools errand, but one that must have some sort of benefit attached to it, as he is most persistent with his loony garbage.

      1. @hybridrogue1
        I thought Ms Roth was saying that there was a big elaborate plan carried out on 9/11. Maybe you can tell us what the plan was, according to Ms Roth. You can start with ‘ there won’t be any hijackers on the planes’.

        1. There won’t be any hijackers on the planes.
          There won’t be anyone on the planes. They will be ‘global hawk-like’ remote control drones made from Boeing aircraft. The “official story” is something made up by Mr Wright’s mother.
          I don’t really have a good idea of what Ms Roth’s dog food is made out of, probably no real meat in it, perhaps corn and potatoes with artificial flavoring. Although some say that it is made from the noses of unfaithful Arabian wives. Some say the moon is made out of camel dung, but they all speak in a different tongue and slid down from a higher rung…at least that’s what the Siren’s sung to brave Ulysses.

  29. There is a novel called Vigilant Guardians by David Alan Glynn that addressed the phone calls in an interesting manner. In Glynn’s scenario the phone call passengers never get on the plane but are led to a room inside the airport where a military exercise is taking place.
    In my opinion not enough attention is given to examining the strange MO of operations like 9/11. For example were the plotters of 9/11 sloppy and thus simply failed to realize that high altitude cell phone calls were problematic? Why would Mossad agents incriminate themselves if the whole point was to pin the blame on al Qaeda? Same with all the Saudi links. The Saudis had no problem with potential blackmail for years on end (i.e. the 28 pages in the JI report)?
    Vince Salandria and Michael Morrissey are two JFK researchers who attempted to explain the strange MO of deep state operations. Morrissey concludes that the purpose is to intimidate anyone who refuses to buy the official explanation. Morrissey has a couple of inexpensive Kindle books that delve into the notion of a transparent MO.

    1. Track,
      ‘The Revelation of the Method’ is part of a black op that gives itself away. Intimidation is the goal. It’s message is, “Yea, we did it, and there is nothing you can do about it.”

    2. Thanks for introducing me to Morrissey! He is definitely a clear thinker.
      If I understand him correctly a) we are not likely to learn all that much more about 9-11. Anyway, b) 9-11 is transparent enough to understand. Therefore, the real question/problem and the scary one is
      c) “I have always maintained that the best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is the fact that it happened at all. This is the prima facie case: it could not have happened otherwise. 19 aeronautically-challenged Arabs with box-cutters could not have defeated the US Air Force unless the US Air Force wanted it to happen. By the same simple and transparent logic, if indeed the official fairy tale were true, it would have been proven to everyone’s satisfaction long ago. (The Pentagon videos would have been released, the plane and building debris found and examined, etc., etc.)
      “The thing about being logical is, once you start, you have to finish. You can’t just say the most logical explanation for 9/11, or for Abdulmutallab’s explosive underpants, is that it was an inside job because it is obviously and transparently so. You have to go further. You have to ask why it was obvious and transparent. Webster Tarpley, Wayne Madsen and the other conspiracy theorists should ask themselves this question. It is not the same question as “Why did they do it?” The question is “Why did they make it so obvious that they did it?” ”
      This is from 2010. Intriguing.
      P.S. Sorry, Track, but what does MO refer to?

      1. Paul, MO means Modus Operandi – the way things are known to be done by a certain party, the common mode of operation … etc.

      2. Hi Paul,
        Have you read any other articles by Morrissey?
        I looked into his topics and picked this one:
        Here we find Morrissey’s own biases. He confuses “Zionism” with “Judaism” – a very common error with those afraid of the slur of “Antisemitism”. We have addressed this topic here on T&S at some length. The problem Morrissey has here is in limiting who is at the center of the power structure. You and I have touched on this some as well.
        I am pretty sure our friend Fremo made a prescient comment on the article I linked to above.
        Most of the comments that follow the article by Morrissey correct him in a proper fashion in my personal opinion.

  30. This article and thread have been very illuminating – not least on the credibility of Rebekah Roth.
    I have a question regarding the “It’s a frame” debate: Who first gave this interpretation of what CeeCee Lyles said? Because I just listened to the audio file for the first time, and I can quite easily hear “You need to pray,” and I’m sure I could stretch my ears into hearing any number of other phrases. Besides which, the phrase “It’s a frame” isn’t an idiomatic way of describing a situation that’s a set-up; the verb “to frame” in this context is transitive, and needs to be used with an object, but there’s no indication of who or what’s being framed, which just isn’t the way you’d use this word in this context.
    Apart from this, the whole thing sounds very matter-of-fact for someone who’s making their last phone call, and the phrasing of, for example, “I hope to be able to see your face again” is even clumsy and unnatural when written down, never mind in a spoken context. It’s almost as if someone it were thrown in at the last minute, in order to introduce the impression of doubt as to whether or not the plane would really crash – either that or it was scripted by a third party beforehand.
    Finally, and randomly, the word “able” sounds quite strange. It could just have been interference on the line, but it might be worth pointing out anyway.
    If this is all irrelevant, or if it’s all been considered before, don’t be shy and tell me to read more thoroughly before I start typing. ;o)

    1. @Yuchangi If you were in a desperate situation and thinking you might die in the next few minutes how would you feel about someone parsing your words and analysing what words and phrases you used?

      1. Agent Wright,
        Analyzing every aspect of the events of 9/11 is valid, as the official story is so absurd.
        I think the remarks by Yuchangi are valuable in that the syntax and context of the words spoken seem unnatural and more like a script than someone “in a desperate situation and thinking [they] might die in the next few minutes”…
        And by the way if CeeCee Lyles did die in a plane crash, she isn’t going to “feel” one way or another about anything, she’s dead. And if she is dead for any reason beyond the bullshit official story, I am sure her loved ones would really like to find that out.
        You are plucking at the emotional again Wright, asking to let things lie so no one’s feelings are hurt, it’s an old and cheap trick used from the very start by your group of Authoritarian apologists. It is pathetic.

        1. @hybridrogue1 The old ‘Let’s make up an absurd story’ trick. It works every time , especially on people who don’t realize that a theory involving people trying to fool everyone by making up an absurd story, is therefore an absurd theory.

          1. There ya go Wright, that’s right, you bought an absurd story and you prove yourself absurd by continuing to attempt to defend it with absurd comments like the one above. So anyhow, melumps and mumpos of the hoose uncommons, after that to wind up that longtobechronickled gettogether thanksbetogiving day at Glenfinnisk-en-la-Valle, the anniversary of his finst homy commulion, after that same barbecue bean feast was all over poor old hospitable corn and eggfactor, King Roderick O’Conor, the paramount chief polemarch and last pre-electric king of Ireland, who was anything you say yourself between fiftyodd and fiftyeven years of age at the time after the socalled last supper he greatly gave in his umbrageous house of the hundred bottles with the radio beamer tower and its hangars, chimbneys and equilines or, at least, he was’nt actually the then last king of all Ireland for the time being for the jolly good reason that he was still such as he was the eminent king of all Ireland himself after the last preeminent king of all Ireland, the whilom joky old top that went before him in the Taharan dy-nasty, King Arth Mockmorrow Koughenough of the leathered leggions, now of parts unknown, (God guard his generous comicsongbook soul !) that put a poached fowl in the poor man’s pot before he took to his pallyass with the weeping eczema for better and worse until he went under the grass quilt on us, nevertheless, the year the sugar was scarce, and we to lather and shave and frizzle him, like a bald surging buoy and himself down to three cows that was meat and drink and dogs and washing to him, ’tis good cause we have to remember it, going through summersultryngs of snow and sleet witht the widow Nolan’s goats and the Brownes girls neats anyhow, wait till I tell you, what did he do, poor old Roderick O’Conor Rex, the auspicious waterproof monarch of all Ireland, when he found him- self all alone by himself in his grand old handwedown pile after all of them had all gone off with themselves to their castles of mud, as best they cud, on footback, owing to the leak of the McCarthy’s mare, in extended order, a tree’s length from the longest way out, down the switchbackward slidder of the land-sown route of Hauburnea’s liveliest vinnage on the brain decided 9/11 was attendernoidal by raging ragheadmussiloomers with minisemitars and busynessgarbin! Haha…yuppenzeedooble.

          2. @hybridrogue1 I’d suggest you stay off the drugs but I don’t think there would be a noticeable difference in how much sense your posts make.

      2. May I suggest that you watch some of those true crime shows on television. They often interview the surviving members of the murder victim, and sometimes it is years later. The grief of the survivors is so real, so palpable, so profound that you are brought to tears just listening to them. It touches something that is as deep, as it is true inside of you. Their response to the murder of their loved ones is always varied, but no matter how it varies, it strikes the same cord for it has, to use the vernacular, that “ring of truth”. Whatever that invisible and untouchable thing is that the heart knows so well is not present in the plane victim families of 911 or at Sandy Hook. It is simply not there.

  31. Thank you all for your replies. I had come across that review on Amazon and thought it was interesting that someone else claiming to be a flight attendant has called her out on a few things. I read all of her 1 star reviews and was really quite skeptical of some of her 5 * reviews. The review count is quite incredible for such a book released less than a year ago.
    I also thought it was interesting that she seemed very defensive when asked in a somewhat heated interview(don’t remember which one but its the only one where shes been challenged) if she was seeking to work with Pilots for 9/11 truth and she scoffed at the idea of it and seemed to not think they were worth her time.
    Your point about the Anti-zionist portion of the movement is very true. I recently left a few comments on ‘stopfundingisrael’ youtube interview with Mrs. Roth where this article is actually linked. The owner of the channel was unwilling to listen to criticisms of Rebecca and dismissed it as some kind of jealous rant on your part. It was not a fruitful encounter whatsoever but it was eye opening. It really says something about someone when they aren’t willing to listen to criticisms and only offer insults and nonsense in return.
    May I ask you what you think of Roth’s theory overall? If you don’t agree with it, what theory (in your opinion) better suits the facts as we know them?
    I have always thought the plane swap theory seemed most plausible considering the speed of the aircrafts that crashed that day were so far beyond their capacities. Even skilled pilots couldn’t recreate the crashes on flight simulators at the speeds they were supposed to be traveling that day.
    Cell phones clearly don’t work at altitude either so the calls themselves are incredibly powerful evidence that something else happened to those people. In your opinion, do you think the phone calls were even real (voice technology) or were they real but scripted or something similar?
    I’m not sure about the voice morphing technology but I’m also not sure how one could convince a person to make these distressing calls to loved ones if they thought they were participating in a drill. I for one would refuse to participate in making such a call. One could come up with a number of theories as to the what happened to those people but I suppose we’ll never really know. I think that’s why she focuses so much on these phone calls, there’s so much room for imagination in them.
    Roth claims in a couple of interviews that she’s found at least one of the operations ‘handlers’ who was present during Cee Cees call. She derives this from her interpretation of the whispered ‘you did great’ ending of the Lyles phone call. She cited this as her only proof that at least one female agent was present and even coaching her through the call.
    She mentions this with absolute confidence and doesn’t seem open to debate whether CeeCee might have even said ‘it’s a frame’ or ‘it’s a fake’ which could still potentially fit into her overall theory.
    What If that was CeeCee’s voice trying to tell her loved ones ‘it’s a fake’ thinking she was still participating in a drill and she wanted to relay that ‘its okay, its a fake’ before she hung up. Or she could have said ‘it’s a frame’, they’re (whoever they are) framing some people for hijacking these planes. Either theory would still allow for Lyles to be making the calls in a hangar somewhere but it would not be the ‘proof’ she needs that an agent was present with her.
    I really feel that Roth, whoever she really is, has embellished parts of tired old 9/11 evidence and theories and put a new spin from a flight attendant’s perspective to spark interest around her book and upcoming radio show. She’s not really giving us any new information yet she’s become popular rather quickly.
    Her unwillingness to debate the finer points of her theory, to me indicate that she is not interested in truth but in selling herself. On her website she writes that she is now considered by many in the community to be the foremost researcher on 9/11. She’s even been introduced on radio shows as such. I find that very annoying and concerning.
    I really hope more intelligent and articulate individuals like yourself and others here, break down her claims and expose where shes fudging the facts. Because she seems determined to be a big voice in this movement and it looks like we’ll be hearing a lot more of her here soon.

    1. Lillian, I will not be able to give you a full answer as I leave Friday morning for East Asia. However, let me answer at least partially, as follows:
      –“May I ask you what you think of Roth’s theory overall? If you don’t agree with it, what theory (in your opinion) better suits the facts as we know them?”
      Her point about cell phones not working at higher altitudes is so well known that even the Moussaoui trial didn’t openly claim differently. However, the 9/11 Commission Report says that both the Ong and Sweeney calls were made by airphones. Roth’s ‘theory’ ought to have some evidence that they both used cell phones (I mean evidence, not “hey, it works for my theory”).
      The Renee May call for AA 7 is problem for Roth. She claims that a flight attendant would NEVER call family in an emergency. Then she proceeds to accept that May did, albeit from a cell phone at Westover, as a support for her theory. So, which is it? Is she wrong about May using a cell phone or is she wrong about an attendant calling family? Or both? For myself, I know she is wrong about May even being in a Westover hanger at the time of the claimed call.
      Roth’s ‘theory’ — such as it is — is about all planes landing in Westover. I do think that is new. And if you forget about timing of phone calls, sure, all planes COULD have landed there. But they COULD HAVE landed elsewhere — perhaps each one in a different location. So what is her actual evidence about Westover, other than it makes cute story (which may, by luck, even be true). In a recent interview, she says that Westover was used only on weekends, so then why is she accepting someone saying reservists were locked out for that Tuesday, a claim about evacuation (let’s have a name, please)?
      –I have always thought the plane swap theory seemed most plausible considering the speed of the aircrafts that crashed that day were so far beyond their capacities. Even skilled pilots couldn’t recreate the crashes on flight simulators at the speeds they were supposed to be traveling that day.
      I agree.
      –Cell phones clearly don’t work at altitude either so the calls themselves are incredibly powerful evidence that something else happened to those people. In your opinion, do you think the phone calls were even real (voice technology) or were they real but scripted or something similar?
      I am rather open to this, but tend to think that the calls were made. In this respect, I initially was accepting of Roth’s point of view in this regard. I think voice morphing is much more complicated than the simple existence of that technology could lead one to think. For example, the problem of late arrivals for UA 93 is a very serious impediment to having it even be considered seriously (from my viewpoint).

      1. So what is her actual evidence about Westover, other than it makes cute story (which may, by luck, even be true). In a recent interview, she says that Westover was used only on weekends, so then why is she accepting someone saying reservists were locked out for that Tuesday, a claim about evacuation (let’s have a name, please)?
        Dear Mr. Zerembka: Roth has two pieces of what does not wholly rise to the level of circumstantial evidence of Westover, but does give rise to reasonable suspicion. The first piece of evidence is the affidavit of the woman who lived in Otis, who said that at approximately (forget time – between 8:30 a.m. and no later than 8:45 a.m.) the plane was flying very low over her home, so low she could see the people in the window, and that it was headed what she believed was “north”. This woman lived in Otis, near Westover. . The second piece of evidence she has is the military person (a woman) who told her that she worked at Westover and that on 911 Westover was evacuated and that even military personnel working there were not allowed in and that the military personnel were put up in hotels and forced to stay away for days (I forget how many). The third piece of evidence was the timing of the calls, and the fourth is the the impossibility of making cell phone calls. It is this evidence that caused her to believe Flight 11 and Flight 175, at least, landed at Westover.

    2. “I really hope more intelligent and articulate individuals like yourself and others here, break down her claims and expose where shes fudging the facts. Because she seems determined to be a big voice in this movement and it looks like we’ll be hearing a lot more of her here soon.” ~Lillian
      Lol, perfect name for a critic of Rebekah.I think Roth will end up ensconced because I think she is a corporatist backed mole. She is being financed in the shadows by spooks higher in the food chain. I say this as a long time conspiracy analyst, familiar with the means and ways of intelligence tactics.

  32. Westover appears to be a misdirection away from Stewart Airport (in New York State), that was privatized not long before 9/11.

  33. Craig, I haven’t read this post yet, (will immediately following this reply); but was looking for a place to offer this video. More than likely, you all have seen it; but it seems to offer a lot to my mind as a real possibility for how the problems with the planes can be explained. Rather than video trickery, he offers the possibility that holograms were the trick, that the videos all reconcile with one flight path while another flight path documented may have been a stealth “machine” that projected the images everyone thinks they saw and includes anomalies such as the clear blue skies and the storm issue as possible values to pulling it off. No matter where I go, Judy Woods questions seems to provoke me the most. Controlled demolition doesn’t offer enough. Thanks for your ongoing endeavor to get to the truth. https://youtu.be/9-cRJTkMPNA

    1. Holograms cannot be projected, it is a popular misnomer:
      Many have been fooled by the use of the word “hologram” in PR promoting stage shows at amusement parks, fairs, and concerts. The techniques used at these events all revolve around Musion Eyeliner, which is not in fact a hologram technique, but one based on Peppers Ghost, a process developed for stage over a hundred years ago. In the effect the illusion can only be achieved by a specific POV, or ‘eyeline’ thus the term “eyeliner” in Musion Eyeliner.
      Look up these terms; “Peppers Ghost” & “Musion Eyeliner” on your browser and educate yourself to the facts.
      The term, “Eyeliner” is the key here, it refers to the audience’s POV which must be totally controlled for the trick to by successful.
      Pepper’s Ghost v Holograms

      1. To be absolutely clear here about Musion Eyeliner/Pepper’s Ghost; it is not a “hologram” nor is it a “projection”, it is a “reflection” in an angled clear sheet of glass or plastic.

        1. hybridrogue1: Please permit me a constructive note. (“Even Homer nodded.) You meant “misconception” not “misnomer.” Thanks for your very constructive commentaries.

          1. Hi abubenadhem,
            Actually I do mean “misnomer”, as it is not only a misconception, but a misconception created because the technique is misnamed (a misnomer). More than anything else is the use of the term “projected hologram” that has given the general public the wrong idea about this technology.
            But thank you for the opportunity to more fully explain this.

          2. Here is a very recent example of a Peppers Ghost/Musion Eyeliner display unit “called” a “holographic display”. Watch the video in this ad, you will see clearly the 45 degree angled glass with the overhang where a video clip is played and reflected in that glass.
            there is nothing in that case at all, even the ‘Phone’ is a reflected image. The hand setting the phone in the case is a reflected image on a video screen in the overhang beyond the angled glass plane.
            It gets more deceptive when you watch videos that purportedly show “projected hologram” workstations where special effects make it appear that the artist is working in air. These are not real representations, the artist actually works on a sophisticated Wacom tablet, with a digital pen. These are tablets that lay on the workplace table and can be worked rather line touch screens.
            How far beyond “truth in advertising” this has all gone, is a matter of powerful corporate forces.

            Eyeliner is the core of our technology, with its imagery often referred to as a hologram. A 21st century twist on a Victorian theatre trick, the Eyeliner utilises a technique called Pepper’s Ghost. The visual effect is created through our holographic projection system.

      2. Let’s just do as Judy Woods does and make up a new term for an as yet unidentified technology. Let’s call them “illusions of planes” for the sake of going forward with the fact that no plane could have done what is claimed they did.

        1. “..for the sake of going forward with the fact that no plane could have done what is claimed they did.”~Ms. SpoolTeacher
          Not only is it impossible to project a hologram, not only is it preposterous to make up a new term for a made-up technology (unless your are writing science fiction) BUT as well; it is in fact possible for the planes to crash into the towers, exactly as seen on countless videos.
          Newton’s Laws of Mechanics:
          > First law: Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it.
          This first law has to do with inertia or momentum, depending on the original states of the bodies in question.
          As per the event we speak to, the first body is the building. In the frame, ie planet Earth; this body is at rest, an inert state, which has only one property: Mass.
          >Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.
          A state of Momentum has three components: Mass – Velocity – *Specific Direction. [*vector] -Velocity is described as mass-times-velocity squared in the energy equation.
          In our frame, ONLY the plane has a state of momentum.
          Moment and Point of Impact are both necessary integers in formulating impact physics. At that point and moment the kinetic energy of the mass in movement is transferred into the building AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT – the impact zone.
          It is at this point that we come to the third law; that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And this does certainly depend on the speed of an impact, as the first two laws clearly state that they are of first and second account before the third proposition can manifest.
          Again it is at the point and moment of impact that the third law comes into effect and must be translated as per the laws of kinetics incorporating the maxim of equal and opposite reaction:
          Kinetic Energy is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity.
          KINETICS 9/11:
          The energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared: ( E = 1/2 m v^2)
          The plane has a Mass of 120 tons – traveling at a Velocity of 540 MPH:
          The kinetic energy resulting would be equal to 0.75812 ton TNT
          OR: 3.1720e+9 joules (watt second)
          So, let’s put together what we now know about the crash physics for this event:
          This explosive energy, equivalent to about ¾ ton of TNT is applied as a directed force – vector quality – against the structure of the façade at the points on the structure corresponding to the shapes of the entering jet {the shapes change because of original contours meeting at different moments, plus deformations from impact.
          We also have verification that the energy was applied externally from a video analysis shows a measurable rocking back of the building in reaction to the impact. This movement is imperceptible to the human eye until seen in a grid.
          An interior explosion would create a radial blast lacking vector.
          This is overwhelming evidence that real jets impacted and penetrated the towers.

          1. We also have verification that the energy was applied externally from a video analysis shows a measurable rocking back of the building in reaction to the impact. This movement is imperceptible to the human eye until seen in a grid:

          2. Very interesting, Willy. I had not seen this demonstration before of the sway of the South Tower. Do folks like Fetzer, etc. ignore this evidence, or offer a response? If a response, what is it?

          3. Hi Paul,
            I have never had a response from Fetzer that was in any way rational on any subject. I suppose you could consider that “ignoring this evidence” — rather the same reaction as our little Spoolteacher here…who wants to tell me the proper spelling of “blah blah blah” grin
            Did I get that right this time Spoolie?
            Are you back from your trip Paul? Hope it went well for you.

          4. Paul, they set of previously planted explosives in the Twin Towers to simulate the effects of a plane having completely entered those buildings before they exploded. But that was not even physically possible! Don’t allow yourself to be played. There are those here who pretend to be critics but they are working to sabotage what we know about the planes and the passengers, such as Rebekah is attempting to restore them, Not only is Rebekah also Monika, but her side kicks Michael and Ram Jet are one and the same as well. She has not taken her outing kindly and has been doing her best to savage everyone–and I mean EVERYONE–who questions her about her identity. Her role appears to be to restore the planes and the passengers to the story, defect responsibility from the CIA and the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense, and offer an explanation for the faked phone calls. We now have testimony from a Marine who was stationed there Westover remained operating all day with enhanced security. Her story is fiction–but what would you expect? As Allan Powell observes, she is a fiction producing fiction about a fiction.

          5. The story of the Marine who was at Westhover AFB only confirms what I’ve been saying all along. For some reason no one wants to listen. I was a security specialist in the Air Force stationed at an Air Mobility base just like Westhover. Even though it wasn’t a reserve base the security procedures for priority C resources is the same none-the-less. I actually mentioned that once the attacks occurred the base would have gone into a threatcon Charlie or Threatcon Delta heightened security posture. This is exactly what the Marine is eluding to when he says “enhanced security”.

          6. Ms. SpoolTeacher, I have seen all this bullshit before. As you say “bla bla bla”

          7. No, I said, “Blah, blah, blah”. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/79439/is-blah-blah-blah-the-most-common-spelling: “The phrase “blah blah blah” is so informal as to not warrant an official, correct spelling by any authority. So only practice defines (circularly) what is the most common. And that seems to me ‘blah blah blah’. – Mitch Aug 24 ’12 at 15:23 ” Seems to me you don’t have a very open mind and have drawn your own conclusions based on your vast super intelligence. It seems to me that you want to be right more than want the truth. How do you explain the second, Military radar?

          8. Richard Hall doesn’t have any idea how to read radar. If you watch closely – the official path [red] matches every single time. In his presentation Richard Hall shows a 767 impacting the WTC on video, verified by radar.
            The [ASR] radar is the most accurate. A radar path is not some pencil sharp line, it is a block, equal to 2 times the estimated or known accuracy in width. The plane can be anywhere inside that path. Radar reception and reflection is dependent on the power and distance of the station. Just as a seismograph will have varying readings and times for the same earthquake will depend on the distance, terrain and technical capabilities of the equipment used to register the quake.
            Hall has however shown that all of he videos show the same flight path and angle of attack.
            Hall claims that Andrew Johnson claims that only 21 people reported seeing a plane. However Hall has just shown you 53 videos by people who saw the plane!
            . . . . . .
            As for Judy Woowoo, the images of the impact area clearly show that the wing tips did not cut the columns but did mar the outer aluminum facade. Also you can indeed walk on these aircraft’s wings; doors open right out onto them, there are in fact escape protocols using the wings as escape paths for emergency unboarding.
            . . . . . . . .
            I have already shown you the crash physics of the planes hitting the towers, using Newton’s laws themselves.
            Now let’s see about the rest of the garbage that Hall is spewing in his presentations:

          9. “Bla” or “Blah” … what a stupid question.
            My so-judged “arrogance” is merely the balance of your ignorance. Rather than being ‘insulted’ why don’t you learn something!!???

          10. “Seems to me you don’t have a very open mind and have drawn your own conclusions based on your vast super intelligence.”~Ms. SpoolTeacher
            Yes indeed I draw my own conclusions.
            I have an open mind to reasonable propositions, to ideas that have some rational foundation.
            As far as my “vast super intelligence,”… Yes just so, it is obvious that the percentage of idiots in the so-called ‘Truth Movement’ is about par to the general population. Take yourself for example, falling for these stupid ideas that have no basis in reality. You have to be particularly ignorant to buy this bullshit.
            It is no use replacing one false story with another. You have bought into some really transparent and flaky disinformation. It is as stupid to buy the nonsense you have offered as to buy the official narrative, or the fraudulent NIST studies.

          11. “The video you gave me was riddled with holes.”~Ms. SpoolTeacher
            Really? Care to elaborate beyond ad hominem?

          12. Ms. SpoolTeacher, For my understanding what is wrong with that video of the South Tower shaking after the plane hit (allegedly in your opinion)? Thanks, Paul

          13. This forum seems to be intended to try to make any responders who aren’t in the ‘click’ to feel small and stupid. There is just too much bullying. I’m not interested in any interaction with any of you after this last display of intolerance of anyone without self-aggrandized intellectual capabilities. I will keep my studies to myself. Happy? That requires no reply, and I will not further respond.

          14. Ms. SpoolTeacher, I asked for myself; no more, no less. I didn’t ask to “nail” you about anything. I am not in the 9-11 discussion to “win” anything.
            I simply would like someone who has seen the evidence of the South Tower shaking but who does not find that evidence convincing to explain why.
            Of course, you need not answer, nor even tell us that you are not answering (kind of a strange, though, in my opinion).
            Perhaps someone else will answer. Perhaps not. In any case, non-answers seem similar to the government’s behavior around 9-11. For an clear example, view
            “Zelikow at Chautauqua”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XQWBQKsqBU

          15. “What credibility does that video have?”~Ms. SpoolTeacher
            The video has total credibility beyond reasonable doubt. The key word here is REASONABLE.
            And it is obvious that ‘reasonable’ doesn’t fit in your fantasy world.
            Your question is disingenuous because you think all the videos are fake. Why pick this one out to ask what credibility it has? I’ll tell you why, because you are just making meaningless symbols here from your keyboard, wasting space with nonsense.
            On top of that you lied. You said and I quote: “I will not further respond.”
            As far as the video of the tower being knocked to the side, the significance of that has already been explained. It means the impact happened from outside of the building. It proves the building was rocked from a force hitting it from a particular vector. If the explosion originated from inside the building the resulting force would have been radial–meaning it has no specific vector. Do you even understand these terms SpoolTeacher? Do you have the slightest clue when it comes to physics?
            How do you and these jokers you believe in expect to be taken seriously when you deny basic physics? When you give us these fantasy stories? It’s not even science fiction! At least science fiction can make a plausible story using scientific concepts. The bullshit you are laying on us here is dreamland Wizard of Oz cartoon yankwad.

          16. So now we have “No-Planes” bullshit blended with Judy Woo-woo. Wow have you chosen a group of wankaroo’s.

          17. It is relentless, this bullshit pseudoscience from the “No-Plane”, “Holograms”, “Video Fakery” and “DEW” cultists.
            No matter how many times this lunacy is proven to be junk, they come back with the same old crap based on circular arguments and rhetorical garbage.
            Whoever is stupid enough to buy this bullshit is welcome to it…. fuck it.

  34. “America is ruled by a parallel system of power that operates above and in some ways below our system of democratic governance,” says David Talbot in this engaging conversation with University of California-Berkeley professor/poet/diplomat Peter Dale Scott.

    1. Well, just to be clear what this in response to…
      Given that Trump is a partisan conspiracy theorist who gives credence to climate change denial and the Obama birther issue (no thread derails please!!!) but staunchly defends the official story of 9/11, and in particular his desire to bomb Iraq’s oil fields…
      …I’d say we should call Roth’s response to me a “methodical delusion.” That is, if she thinks that her literature will even reach, let alone convince, the Donald.

      1. Anyone who is concerned about partisan politics, as is Rebekah Roth obviously, is utterly clueless to the true architecture of modern political power, and thus lost in a false paradigm.
        Roth is suffering from deeper delusions than she will ever realize.

        1. How do we know the departure times of the planes that you and Paul can make arguments about few minutes here or there in the arrival times?
          In my opinion Mrs. R. R. is most likekly a harmless opportunist but if she is a disinfo agent then what does she want to misinform us about? The real location of the base? Or Cleveland? Then it also would be interesting that the public persona of the disinfo agent is anti-zionist and probably anti-semitic. Rather peculiar and counter-intuitive choice.

          1. utu,
            The “red herring” aspect of leading researchers on trivial wild goose chases is one aspect of disinformation.

          2. She wants to confirm in our minds that the passengers and airplane personnel were “real” and that she has done very effectively.

  35. The fact that three of the four flights arrived within the time window and the fourth flight depended on the wind speed and direction tells me that the odds of her being wrong are about ZERO.

    1. @Colinzo Almost nothing Rebekah Roth says makes any sense. She is deluded fantasist with no clue of what she is talking about. What I find bizarre is how anyone could take her seriously but yet she does all these interviews and and not one of those interviewing her challenges anything she says. On the contrary they talk to her as if she is the Oracle, lavishing praise on her and inflating her already absurdly inflated ego. If there is one thing a deluded fantasist doesn’t need it’s people other people feeding her delusions.

      1. Agent Wright can always be counted upon to slather some hypocritical on these pages.
        Wright is as much a deluded fantasist with no clue of what he is talking about as Rebekah Roth. Wright is merely the dialectical opposite to Roth.

      2. You are so right and it is a very astute observation you have made. Frankly, I don’t get that either. I listened to about 20 interviews. Not one person asks her any pointed questions about the matters she claims to have personal knowledge of (1) the stewardesses; (2) the pilots (3) the Flight Termination System; (4) the protocols and training of the pilots and stewardesses. NOT ONE QUESTION FROM ANY OF THEM, AND THERE ARE ALMOST ONE HUNDRED INTERVIEWS BY ‘TRUTHERS” In my opinion, one thing they show they are not interested in – the truth.

    2. Larry Silverstein admitted in a PBS interview Building 7 was ” PULLED”. He even said the building was pulled in “English”. Why is that so hard to understand? If one building was pulled, all three were pulled. Three buildings and three thousand people destroyed in broad daylight with extreme prejudice. To murderer innocent citizens should be a crime. Mrs. Roth and others have shown us the truth and even suggested a way to confront the BEAST.
      There must be leadership. Senators, Representatives, CIA, FBI, ATF and military that are loyal only to the people of the United States of America. Leaders who would be willing to take the country back. The roll of the people is to recognize new leadership and stand at that time. Don’t expect any of the candidates for President to confront the elephant in the room. They have all pledged allegiance to the elephant.

      1. “There must be leadership.”~Colinzo
        I disagree with you here on this proposition. At the core of it you are saying we must have mommy and daddy. It is that concept which is the the elephant in the room. One that your yourself have pledged allegiance to.
        Government is a racket.

  36. Larry Silverstein admitted that Building 7 was destroyed on his command with the agreement of the fire department. So they sat back and watched it come down. He used the term pulled, a term used by professionals in the demolition industry. The building was purposely destroyed. Larry Silverstein admitted that on Public Broadcasting System. By late afternoon on Sept 11 Larry must have felt like a real demolition professional. Thats why he used the word pulled. Forget mom and dad just listen to Larry.

  37. Ok, let me have it. Tell me all about our government racket. I promise to read every word you write and I am sure I will need a dictionary on some of the longer words. You have to understand, I have at best average intelligence and as you (most brilliantly) pointed out I do use training- wheels. Just so you know, there won’t be any discussion from me, because of this lack of intelligence thing, just an occasional, Wow!! or, Really???? or you must be F-in kidding me. To be really honest, you make me feel like the Scarecrow ( who was lacking a brain) in the Wizard of Oz. Ok, I am ready, humiliate me. Tell me why Rebekah Roth is “utterly clueless” about this Government is a Racket. If you do not choose to reply, I totally get it. Oh, I can’t wait for your reply to long because I really have to clean out the glove box in my car.

    1. Rather and instead Colinzo, let me apologize for hurting your feelings. If you keep up your training I am sure you’ll figure it all out for yourself in good time.

      1. Ok I accept your apology. hybridrogue1 while cleaning my glove box I realized how rude I was in not addressing you by your name. Please let ME apologize. Maybe by the time the wheels come off I will have learned proper etiquette. You know, you post here a lot. In Roth’s book the final chapters were about The Federal Reserve and Dual Citizenship. Did that offend you?

        1. “In Roth’s book the final chapters were about The Federal Reserve and Dual Citizenship. Did that offend you?” ~Colinzo
          No I was not, am not offended. It is just that both issues are extensively and more expertly covered elsewhere.
          I might suggest you reading some of my blog. But really, there is much here on T&S worthy of investigation and study. Go through the pages here, the original posts and the commentaries that follow. It is a treasure trove of issues and views on those issues.
          One more thing, try to learn not to be so effected by harsh criticism. You need a thick skin to navigate today’s pathological culture, both in person and on the web.
          Good luck!
          ~Willy Whitten – \\][//

        2. Colinzo,
          I urge you to remember and ponder these things deeply:
          No “government”, no ‘majority’, no power of this Earth can revoke or grant the Rights of Liberty. Liberty is not an invention of revolution – Liberty is the discovery of enlightened reason.
          The greatest sin against ones own self interests is obedience to authority.

    1. So this is the first time you heard about B-Thing and the Gelatin? The first time you have seen the photo’s of their hold up in the tower? This is very old news.
      You wonder how She came across this information…Lol… It has been on the Internet for ten years or more.

        1. Sherif,
          The question of whether the dots are connected accurately by Roth is like any other matter, more complex than a simple “yes” or “no”. I suggest you follow the trail yourself and come to your own conclusions.
          >Gelatin Art Group Living in WTC
          >Book title; Gelatin ‘The B Thing”
          >Art Students in WTC Connected to Israeli Intelligence Service
          Good luck, \\][//

          1. I do the best I can, but simply do not have the near time nor the expertise that someone like you apparently has. For the past 9 years, I have read blogs like this one as often as I can, continue to watch relevant videos on an almost daily basis, have bought and read dozens of books on the subject. Still the subject is simply too vast for me to become an expert in it, and thus choose to solicit the conclusions of trustworthy sources. I apologize if my sensibilities offend more experienced truth seekers as yourself and others here. It is not for a lack of sincere interest. I thought the part about those cartons being filled with fuses was “new” information.

          2. Hi Serif, I am not offended by sincere questions, which yours surely are. I to have limited time to expand on these topics, even though it is my major activity most of my days.
            You say, ” I thought the part about those cartons being filled with fuses was “new” information.”
            Well just because it isn’t new information doesn’t mean it isn’t important information. I think it is exceedingly critical information. I am glad that it has been brought forward here and now.
            Perhaps you could make it your “specialty” to concentrate on the Gelatin Art Group. and put together your own compilation of data and facts as a coherent whole? I agree more can be said about this as it seems to have slipped through the cracks in these intervening years.

          3. Specialty? No thanks. Life is too short. I’m a musician and audio/video editor with graphic design experience . . . I have no desire to become a forensic criminologist myself.

  38. I did not read either of her books, but I did listen to many talks she gave. What she effectively does is vouch for the veracity of the stewardesses on the plane, saying that she knows many of their friends and that they are “real” passengers on that plane and that they truly died. Because she is a stewardess for 30 years, one would tend to trust her statements about what she knew about these people on the plane. Be that as it may. What my problem is is about the the Flight Termination System. She says that the Flight Termination System was put in some planes and suggests or indicates or states that this device was put in American Airlines planes, but not the planes of her airline. She states that some airlines resisted putting in such a device because of the lack of control by the pilots, but some airlines did put it in. She states that this device when “on” would cut off communication between theplane and the ground, and within the plane, between the cockpit and the stewardesses (confirming Ong and Sweeney’s statement that they cannot communicate with the cockpit and confirming the inability of ground to communicate with the cockpit). She also states that this device, when “on”, would effective turn off the transponder because of something about it being the same frequency). So, we have a device which Roth says is used to land planes when there is a hyjacking and when the pilots lose consciousness for ANY reason, that effectively cuts off all communication within the plane and between the plane and the ground and cuts off the transponder. I would think that if such a device were installed in American Airlines and United planes for this legitimate reason, that all plane personnel would receive training and instruction on its use and would be told during this training what would happen to communications and what would happen to the transponder when in use. The information about the transponder being turned off and the loss of communication within the plane and between theplane and the ground was widely published to the world at the time and since 911. Yet, it never dawned on any pilot or any stewardess after receiving what should have been extensive training as to its use that this Flight Termination System could have been “on” at the time of the hyjacking? Pilots for 911 have never published anything about this Flight Termination System. Yet, commercial pilots are members of that group. Further Joe Vialls published information about this Flight Termination System TWO WEEKS after 911, and his information was immediately rejected because at the time they said there was no proof that these planes had such a system. In my opinion, if this device was installed on commercial planes for the legitimate reason given by Roth, then this information would have come out long ago from the people who were bound to receive training on it. Further, having received training about the loss of communication and the transponder being turned off, I would think that some pilot, especially the pilots of “Pilots for 911 Truth” would have published something about it before Roth.Learning about the communication systems and the transponder, did it not dawn on one pilot “The FTS must have been turned on”? I have asked Pilots for 911 Truth about this matter three times, and have even sent them a private e-mail. I have yet to receive a response. One thing Roth does effectively. She vouches for the realness of many of the passengers and airline personnel on those planes. That she does effectively because of her background.
    Frankly, I don’t know what would possess a “truther” to adopt an orthodox Jewish name as a pen name, (is she trying to give the Jews the credit or the blame?) or to wear a wig, or to put her information in fiction form, and to never name one source (not one person with courage among her friends, not even the retired ones like her?), and after doing all that to wind up as No. 1 on Amazon and to have Hollywood movie producers vying to make a movie out of a book readers have said they had a hard time “not putting down”?
    She tells us she is talking to hundreds of pilots and airline personnel and that they sit and brainstorm about what could have happened; that she is talking to “scientists”, that she is talking to military personnel and a host of other people. Yet, no one is named, and not one of them will come forward, not even her retired friends. She will not even identify herself, by name or even by appearance and even has the nerve to throw us a curve ball with her orthodox Jewish name.
    She waited 13 years, and suddenly,she is everywhere on the internet, with a website of her own, her own talk show and two books published in less than a year, publications which she tells us have gotten the attention of Hollywood?
    Sorry, I’m just not buying.

  39. Perhaps the most important thing Roth has accomplished, that others haven’t always been successful at, is to package the 9/11 info in such a way that nonbeliever’s eyes are opened. By presenting her info as fiction, she might reach an audience that would otherwise have avoided the topic altogether. She may not have all her facts in order, but she has presented a plausible enough explanation that readers might feel compelled to look further into the matter. Isn’t this a good thing? As they say, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Don’t we want the naysayers to question the “official” story?

    1. This may only be one stitch in the garment that has yet to be pieced together. She is vouching for the veracity of the stewardesses on the plane. Let’s see what develops later that will be woven onto this new story that may later confirm the official story. For example, one of the reasons I never accepted Sandy Hook is that not one parent brought a lawsuit against the school district for the deaths of their children. The school was in appalling condition. Many people mentioned that. Suddenly, two years later I heard over the radio that one of the parents (who were not named) brought a lawsuit against the school district for lack of security which the defendant was trying to dismiss because of the statute of limitations. That belies one of the reasons for suspicion, doesn’t it. Yet, I happen to know that not only do the parents have to bring a lawsuit in two years, they also must file a notice of claim in 30 days, so if this story is true, it would have been reported long ago because the 30 day notice of claim would have been filed against the school district. .
      Incidentally, on one of her tapes, Roth calls Susan Lindauer her “friend”. On this tape, she suggests that Kurt Sonnenberg was someone she knew personally. (Listen to it again). Both these people were loosely connected to the security agencies of this country, and both indirectly confirm the official 911 story. On one tape, she calls this country, “the company”, and then laughs and says “that was a Freudian slip”. The CIA calls this country’s government, “The Company”.

      1. I agree with you anastasia, I find Roth’s tale to be at the least just self promotion, at the worst disinformation. I suspect the latter. Personally I have completely dismissed her whole whacknoodle caboodle .

        1. I have not dismissed her story entirely because it is plausible. I have simply put my antennae up and it is going to stay up until at least I get confirmation about the FTS, which is the most important thing she talks about. Joe Vialls wrote about it, and was put under suspicion at the time he was writing as an alleged CIA assets; Kurt Sonnenberg’, who is affiliated with CIA, is not really useful to determining what happened on 911; Susan Lindauer, another alleged CIA agent, doesn’t help truthers at all in my opinion, ; and I have always had my antennae up about the very popular Edward Snowden, who gets lots and lots of media coverage. She vouches for all these people. She talks about them. She puts their videos and websites up on her site. Why? I do not find them useful at all in finding out what happened on 911. I find that they substantiate the official story more than they do to belie it.

          1. Anastasia, what is called “her story” is her take on a story that we all are and have been familiar with for years. I too am suspicious of Linduer, and have been since she first came out.
            I don’t have any use for Roth, but if you think she is worth pursuing, that is up to you.

          2. Her most important and significant message to us is that she is a stewardess for thirty years, and she can tell us beyond any doubt (because of her job and because of all the people she knows and talked to in her industry, and more particularly that she knows the friends of these stewardesses allegedly on that plane) that the stewardesses were real people, real passengers and innocent victims on those planes. There is room to reject all else about her story, but that part of it is what everyone is going to unequivocally accept if they believe she is not a disinfo agent.

    2. The one thing she says that MUST be explored is about the Flight Termination System. Joe Vialls came out with this story 2 weeks after 911 happened. It was repudiated almost immediately. If the Flight Termination System cuts off communication between the plane and the ground; if it cuts off communication between the cockpit and the stewardess and if it cuts off the transponder, and if these devices were installed on some airlines’ planes for the legitimate reasons she says (in case of hyjacking and in case the pilots lose consciousness, then there would be numerous commercial plane personnel who would know about it because they were bound to receive training and instruction on its use. The story can be easily substantiated by asking a few commercial pilots and stewardesses of airlines who Roth said used these devices. I personally asked Pilots for 911 Truth about the device three times, and they won’t answer this legitimate questions for reasons I find inexplicable.

  40. Any passenger or stewardess on the planes would NOT be leaving “I love you” messages. They would be leaving messages for their loved ones to call the authorities so that something could be done to save them, or they would be calling the authorities themselves. Not one of them sought to call or get a message to any authority. If they were free to make “I love you” phone calls, they were free to make calls to scream for help. It is inexplicable that not one passenger sought to get any message to any authority, not even the guy who called the telephone operator, only to ask her to “pray” with him. Sorry, I’m not buying this story that the passengers, or even some of them, were legitimate.

      1. I want to know if it was possible for those flights to have taken off with zero passengers on board. A flight manifest can be easily contrived, but can a flight leave the ground, with airport personnel not noticing that there were no passengers on board? If so, then why involve real passengers at all? Sorry if this has been discussed previously – rather late to the party here.

        1. “I want to know if it was possible for those flights to have taken off with zero passengers on board.”~somethingyoushouldknow
          When it comes to the obvious inside coordination of 9/11, I would say that practically anything is possible. Airport security was run by Bush insiders at both airports involved, so the likelihood of what you propose is very plausible.

        2. You have to wonder about that, but what I have found is that the authorities ( with the connivance and aid of probably some foreign government or entity) appeared to try to mitigate the number of deaths. You see this when learning that the first building was struck at 8:45 a.m., rather than after 9 a.m. when everyone is at work, and certainly no one would enter either of those buildings after the first plane struck unless they were wholly incapacitated from their own stupidity. Further, the Pentagon was struck in a place that was half vacant because of renovations. So, the attempt at mitigation is very visible. This attempt to mitigate the number of killings is also seen in the less than half full trans-continental flights of Flight 11, Flight 175, Flight 77 and Flight 93, which is, as Roth says, highly unusual as they are usually filled to the brim. One of those planes, w hich hold 180 passengers, had only 33 passengers (Flight 93, I believe) on it. There is one site that shows that there were 350 cancellations or no-shows for all the flights. Many of the stories surrounding the cancellations and no-shows sound like alot of baloney to me. One would think that it would have been far easier to pretend these flights took off, and just make up a manifest, but maybe too many people would discover such a ruse. In military war games and simulations, there are many civilian (and perhaps corporations) who are participants. Look up war games and war simulations on Wikopedia. They refer to these participants as “government insiders” and high ranking members of the government and Congress and say that the government, in many of these simulations that took place long ago, continue to keep secret the names of the participants. What can I tell you. Did the government know that the Lusitania was going to be torpedoed by the Germans because it was carrying munitions? I believe it recently came out that the boat was carrying munitions. The Germans put advertisements in American newspapers warning people not to travel on this ship on that date, but the government did nothing, said nothing and let the ship sail with thepassengers on it. 911 is not an unusual event. It was another Pearl Harbor, except this time, we did not provoke others to conduct the attack and merely knew when it was going to take place. This time, we actually aided and abetted whoever the foreign element was that did all or most of the dirty work. I think what is on the following link is credible. http://worldgathering.net/world/intel.html

          1. Yes indeed Anastasia,
            Plus we have the Northwoods document calling for an unmanned drone flying into Cuban airspace with a fake manifest listing “students” as being aboard. This was a planned provocation that if it took place would be the cause if fire and brimstone hatred of Cuba by the manipulated public to be convinced of the reality of the manufactured official story.
            YES! UNMANNED DRONES in 1962!

          2. Oh, yes. Today, drones are being sold the consumer public. That tells me they have been around a very very long time. I was watching someone being interviewed by the magazine editor of The Economist about 10 years ago. He said during that interview that they had the technology to give the computer and the internet to the consumer in 1962 and even before and the decision to give it to them at the time they did was a “political” decision, not one based upon technology.. Doesn’t that statement give you some food for thought. Did they know what the consumer was going to do with it? Apparently, they were not concerned about the control or better, lack of control, they would have, or that the public would be put beyond their influence. If it were political, they apparently were not worried about these things.

          3. In military war games and simulations, there are many civilian (and perhaps corporations) who are participants.
            It seems entirely possible, then, that the actual passengers were participants in the 9/11 scheme and boarded the plane to give the impression that it was a typical flight (to not arouse suspicions with an empty plane). If so, then they would not necessarily need to be killed at all, since they were part of the plan. The question of who said what on the tape would then be moot. That they planes ended up at Westover seems plausible enough, however.

          4. Here is the problem I have with the tape and the FBI transcript of the tape. There are inconsistencies between them. Ong does not say on the tape what the transcript reads what she says. Between the two, it would be more reasonable to believe that the actual recording is more reliable than the transcript if you are trying to discern what role Ong played, simple because there is no transcriptionist between Ong’s words and our ears. Roth behaves as if there is no inconsistency or contest here, but there is. One can speculate that maybe the transcriptionist was listening to a different Ong recording, and if there was a different Ong recording, then perhaps Griffin was correct in what he said about voice morphing? Ong never said on the tape, “he stood upstairs”, nor did Ong say, “he is coming back from Business Class”. She said, “somebody is coming back from Business Class”, and then in the background you hear a woman’s voice saying that “Karen” and someone else whose name is unintelligbile, was stabbed. So we know two things. Ong never said “he”, and that it was a “she” who came back from business class because you hear the woman’s voice talking in the background about Karen, etc. being stabbed. There are other inconsistencies. Anyone speaking about this tape and the FBI transcript is bound to disclose that they are inconsistent with each other before drawing inferences from the statements made therein, particularly those statements which are in fact inconsistent with the recording.. Roth draws the inference that there was only one hyjacker/handler who she said was the Israeli in 9B and Roth draws this inference in part by one of the inconsistent statements made on the FBI transcript. No can do if you want to maintain credibility with your story. .

          5. In regard to whether they killed these stewardesses and other passengers who Roth says were innocent and unwitting participants, she believes that because she says she knows their friends and some family members and these friends and family members convinced her that these people are truly dead. If Roth is who she says she is, then it would be reasonable to believe her on this. That is why it is important to know who Roth is, and whether she is a disinfo agent, because she is vouching for these stewardesses in two ways – that they were innocent, and that they are dead.

  41. Here’s another thing she does. She vouches for the FBI transcript of the recording, even though it contradicts the voice recording of Betty Ong, and when I say contradict, I mean that they inserted “different” words in the transcript when compared to what Ong actually said. In the voice recording, we hear Betty Ong say, “somebody is coming back from Business Class”, and then you hear a female voice in the background daying, “Karen has been stabbed.” In the FBI transcript, you read, “he’s coming back from Business Class.” You cannot mistaken the word “somebody” for “he”, and the voice of Ong is as clear as a bell. Even if the transcriber were on psychedelic drugs, they could not have missed that. The FBI said it was a poor transcription. Poor is not the word to describe this FBI transcription. Error cannot account for the discrepancies, especially this one. And there is no statement from Ong on the voice recorder which says, “he’s upstairs.” But it is in the FBI transcript. Objectively speaking, the voice recording is more reliable than the transcription of the voice recording – that is just a principle of nature. Yet, Roth uses the FBI transcription to make her case. We are told that they only recorded a few minutes of the 27 minute phone conversation with her because their devices could only record that much. The FBI document is a “transcription” of the voice recording. It is not the remembrances of the people who were conversing with her. There are so many glaring discrepancies between the voice recording and the transcription, and so many inconsistencies even within the voice recording itself, as well as the transcription, that I have to say that both may have been created for the purpose of creating confusion in the mind of the listener, so that the listener throws up his hands, gives up and instead relies upon the “authority” to figure these things out. Let me give you an anecdote, which is true. A doctor put in his medical report, “The patient has a history of cancer”. In the very next sentence, he writes, “The patient has no history of cancer.” I responded, “If I do not say that one of these stories is a lie, you can never be incorrect about the matter.” One device of inveterate Liars who are trying to conceal a truth is to tell inconsistent stories and they do it not only to obfuscate the truth, they do it to give enough stories so that at least one of them may turn out to be correct when they later get caught. In other words, when they later get caught in their lie, they can later plead “mistake.”

  42. People demand that we put together the whole and true 911 story, and these demands are made under the threat that they will not believe us when we say that the story is false and a lie. But do we have to prove what actually happened on 911 when we say thta the story is wholly false. What we have to prove, and which I am confident I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt, is that the story given to us in all pertinent and significant parts is false, and that is why I am wholly free to reject the entire story as false, which I do, and which everyone should do- because it is so glaringly false. As a matter of fact, I find the story to be so preposterous that anyone believing it has only one seemingly legitimate reason for believing it, and that is because the authorities told them it was true. It is their regard for authority (which is a truth of nature – that people should give due regard to their authorities) that causes them to not look into the story (most have no time to do so), and to accept the story as true without any scrutiny at all. For people to reject this story as wholly false means that the authority is false, which means, in fact, that complete disorder and chaos is imminent.

  43. “For people to reject this story as wholly false means that the authority is false, which means, in fact, that complete disorder and chaos is imminent.”~anastasia
    Yes authority is completely illegitimate. In the US the so-called “government” is clearly and plainly constitutionally ultra vires. They can be proven to be nothing but a criminal syndicate.
    Complete disorder and chaos is not only imminent, it is at hand. This system, this paradigm, crumbles as we speak. Yes it is in slo-mo, but it is manifest.

  44. It has been an interesting read here as I too believe Rebekah Roth is a puzzle.
    I posted some questions to one of her Facebook pages and they have been
    It is impossible to evaluate her significance or motivation until proper interviews
    are conducted and documents are tabled for cross examination.
    I agree with previous comments that the lack of critical scrutiny by almost all the
    interviewers is despairing if not a tragic example of our present situation.

  45. I just attempted to listen to one of Roth’s YouTube shows. It was nothing but shits and giggles, a total waste of time. About 15 minutes in I turned it off shaking my head…a really stupid oinkfest there.

    1. Apparently, she is attacking people who have done a great deal of work on 911. Jim Fetzer and Daniel Ray Griffin. The first one she called a drunken professor who is a disinfo agent,and the latter she remarked, “he doesn’t know what he is talking about.” Every time she is asked whether she read someone’s work on the subject of 911 (usually someone who has done extensive work on the subject,) she invariably says “no”. She’s a brazen hussy on top of everything else. I do not think she is full of “shits and giggles”. Listen carefully. She is saying little things as “asides” (using her 30 year old background as a stewardess) that have the effect of vouching for the official story. I do not believe for one second that people would buy her novel, or that anyone “woke up” reading it. . Did you read the first three pages on her site. It’s nothing but a trashy fiction novel. How does “fiction” wake anyone up to anything?

        1. I apologize for that. I should have known because I have read at least one of his books and many of his articles. I do not think Jim Fetzer is a shill. He has been in the truth movement for a long time, as long ago as JFK assassination, but once one knows how the gov’t behaves, it would be understandable that he would suspect everything since then. I do not think he is correct about everything. I do not agree with him about many things. The article you sent me is more of an ad hominem attack then anything else. The author does not make any good factual argument against him. He starts off calling him a shill and calls everyone who listens to him an idiot. That is how he sets the stage before saying anything else, and what else he says is not much. I myself have come to the conclusion that Jim Fetzer is too much of a nice guy, and sometimes gets himself into trouble promoting the wrong people.

          1. I am the article of that article on Fetzer, and my characterization of him is drawn from many lengthily debates with him. He is the one that started the nasty ad hominem attacks, and anyone remotely familiar with him knows he is infamous for such.
            I don’t care if you want to be continued to be conned by Fetzer. It’s your mind you are going to be wasting.

          2. I am the AUTHOR of that article on Fetzer. Is how the opening sentence should read above.
            Those who aren’t up on science are easily fooled by Fetzers doubletalk and spinning rhetoric.
            He is a pretender, yes one with a long track record, that doesn’t detract from his MO as a mole and disinformant.

          3. Jim Fetzer is not a spring chicken. I have observed him get flustered and a bit confused at times. He seems to be open to all “theories”, and that is where his flaw is. He is not as judgmental as you are, and I am not saying that is a fault of yours, as much as a fault of his in not being sufficiently judgmental. As I said, I do not agree with him on all things, but I do not believe he is a disinfo agent. At this very moment, I do not believe that Rebekah Roth is a disinformation agent. I just think that if she is a disinfo agent, she is more dangerous than you seem to appreciate because of her alleged background, i.e. 30 years a stewardess and her claim that she knows the people or friends and family of the people involved in 911.

          4. Yes, I readily admit I am not “up on science” as you say. But I have never believed what he has said about Stephen Jones, and I fully appreciate what Stephen Jones and his group have done. They are being very careful in their message, and you cannot say that about Jim Fetzer. He is simply not as careful in the theories he is promoting, and I think part of the reason is because he is a “nice guy.” When Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood were still a part of the Jones group, I wrote to Jones and criticized him for putting on all this stuff on his website that was blocking the important things he was finding out. I said that if he were a scientist, his website should not have all these seemingly crazy theories on it that have nothing to do with his work. Shortly thereafter, there was a split, and the Jones website appeared more scientific and professional. I think that Fetzer’s criticism of the Jones group (calling it a “limited hangout”) is wholly inappropriate.
            However, while I see that the “no planes” theory may not fit together (eventually I did not think it was as crazy as I once did), I do not think it was entirely unreasonable for a person to come to that conclusion. I recall Gerald Holmgren contacted me because of a comment I made and he tried using vernacular expressions I was not familiar with to explain it to me. I simply did not understand what he was saying. Perhaps I am not “up on science”, but I can say that I am in the middle of the C-curve in what I am able to be taught with the right teacher. You see this in Jones. He is not only a scientist, he is very apparently an good teacher. That University lost an excellent teacher.
            What I notice about the government story is that it keeps changing, and I think it is deliberate that it changes its story so much. They tell a story, throw it out to the public, listen to the protests, and then change and tailor their story in accordance with the protests, eg. cell phone story is a prime example. We are all drawing inferences from certain parts of their story, and yet, the changing stories make just about everything they say “unreliable”, and therefore, can a coherent and viable theory ever be formulated as to what happened. . Jones had what appears to be forensic evidence – something one can sink their teeth into – something they cannot change, which was the dust he obtained and analyzed. Today, the gov’t spokesmen are saying that he did not conduct enough tests, and I have yet to see if Neils Harrit has answered this charge

          5. “Today, the gov’t spokesmen are saying that he did not conduct enough tests, and I have yet to see if Neils Harrit has answered this charge”
            Harrit has answered all of his critics eloquently. I am getting out of the habit of doing other’s research for them. You need the practice, look up Harrit’s commentary yourself.

          6. I never asked you to look it up for me. I had every intention of doing the search as soon as I had the time.

          7. anastasia, Are you aware of the Millette study attempting to replicate the Jones-Harrit paper?
            He is the only one I know of that was going to make a formal attempt to dispute the findings on Nanothermates in the dust. He was a dismal failure, and only compiled a preliminary report. It was published on the JREF forums, which are the farthest thing from a reputable journal as one can find. Millette never finished his paper, never attempted publication. But the debunker crowd continues to cite his nonsense these many years later.
            This may seem long and grueling to you, but here it is:

          8. For you pleasure Anastasia, this is from a forum debate this morning:
            Willy Whitten 3 hours ago
            My combined reply to 72daystar for this morning:
            72daystar Begins with, “The quote from the NIST report is something we find in all reports an acknowledgement of the scope of the data.” — the quote he refers to is this one by C. S. Fletcher of NIST; “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” And 72daystar is claiming that this is something “we find in all reports” Well who is “we” and what specific reports is he citing?
            72daystar continues with; “It is made seem sinister by decontextualizing it and, frankly, dishonestly, reframing it as evidence for another sinister plot. That is a fallacy called an appeal to ignorance.” — Frankly aye? The quote is totally in context, as explained; NIST did not fulfill their mandate to explain why the towers suffered global collapse, and only did their so-called analysis up to the point of “collapse initiation” and blithely asserting that once this “initiation” was reached the total collapse was “inevitable” with nothing to support such an assertion but pure conjecture. It is a fact that NIST did NOT model the total collapse. It is a fact that the original NIST mandate states; “The specific objectives were: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” — source: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
            As NIST clearly did not fulfill it’s mandate, it is clearly in breach of contract. As NIST clearly did not fulfill it’s mandate, this admission by NIST, “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” is clearly by any reasonable analysis, fully in context.
            72dastard then begins the familiar hum of disingenuous rhetorical distraction “dishonestly, reframing it as evidence for another sinister plot,” — even though his charge of “reframing” is clearly as inapplicable, as his charge of “decontextualizing.” The term “sinister plot,” is 72daystar’s own, a subliminal recognition of the inevitable conclusion of the actual facts of NIST’s obvious evasion. It is shown that in just his opening remarks, 72daystar is the party making an appeal to ignorance.
            Next “There was plenty of aluminum, yes. Aluminum silicate, but not elemental aluminum.” and then he boldly asserts; “There was no evidence of explosives, and there were numerous opportunities to find such evidence.”
            — which is the same circular reasoning NIST itself uses to hand wave the evidence of explosives
            These numerous opportunities to find such evidence were simply not taken advantage of, as NIST itself admits they did not test for explosives: The Report claims that NIST found no evidence of explosive while at the same time admits that NIST did no physical testing for explosives, example:
            ABEL: what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?
            NEWMAN: “Right, because there was no evidence of that.”
            ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?
            NEWMAN:” If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time…
            –Conversation between reporter Ann Abel from ‘CTNow’ and a NIST spokesperson, Michael Newman.
            But according to national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, in any major fire investigators must conduct tests for possible arson. As Bill Manning, editor of Fire & Engineering Magazine exclaimed in frustration;
            “Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.”
            Now 72dastard claims, “There was plenty of aluminum, yes. Aluminum silicate, but not elemental aluminum.”
            — However, the graph illustrates a spike for elemental aluminum not bound with the spike for Silicon. Harrit a professor of molecular chemistry points this out in his own words.
            As for James Millette and the claim that “He is a prestigious award winning forensic scientist,” — his reputation has nothing to do with the matter and the facts at hand. Your claim that “he has presented this to his peers, and unlike Harritt and Jones it has stood up.” — This assertion is provably false. Millette did NOT publish the results of his findings, he in fact never completed the paper he intended to publish. I defy you to cite any journal wherein this paper Millette supposedly wrote appeared.
            You are the one disingenuously reframing the actual facts of this affair. Millette did not replicate the procedures of the Jones-Harrit experiments, and it is therefore no surprise he couldn’t repeat their results. You reframe the facts again when you claim that Bentham isn’t a legitimate scientific journal. Bentham is only defamed by one small but loudly clamoring group, those opposed to the findings of Nanothermate by Jone-Harrit et al.
            It is scurrilous to elevate Millette, who did not publish at all, while defaming Jones-Harrit. Yours are the disingenuous rhetorical tactics of a disinformant. On close inspection of your commentary we find nothing to be as you claim it to be.
            “But” 72daystar says, “just think, given the mass of the building 450,000,000 kg, that would work out to 450 metric tones of unexploded thermite when thermite normally entirely combusts when ignited.”
            — This statement is based on the false assumption that the entire 450,000,000 kg mass of the building was turned to dust Which was clearly not the case. Added to this is the fact that the pile of the aftermath maintained incredible heat for weeks after the event, as shown in thermal images from NASA satellite data. The source of this continued burn can be reasonably assumed that the previously unreacted THERMATE (!) which contains it;s own source of oxygen is the most likely source of the ongoing fires under the rubble pile. Thus the percentage of nanothermate remaining in the dust after the pile was disassembled would be magnitudes less than that of the original day-one dust samples obtained by Jones.
            As per al Qaeda, Brzezinski himself admitted creating the mujaheddin groups that eventually became identified as al Qaeda, in the US efforts to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan; the historical record on this is crystal clear whether you can accept the facts or not. Characterization of Global Research as “just some guys blog” is typical for your jejune and ignorant hand-waving.
            This one is a real knee slapper; 72daystar says; “I have not been “indoctrinated” that requires indoctrination. I would have noticed.”
            –Totally bloody ridiculous! The very definition of indoctrination is that the one being indoctrinated is unaware of the fact he is being indoctrinated. For a historical perspective on this matter see:
            I have read Robert J Liftons work and understand it quite well. Lifton agrees with me, Lifton has criticized the current war on terrorism as a misguided and dangerous attempt to “destroy all vulnerability”.
            It appears to me that 72daystar has read Lifton without fully comprehending Lifton – which is perfectly par for the course in reviewing 72daystar’s past interpretations of other works.
            Lastly to address 72daystar’s question; “Are you at least familiar with the phenomenon of projection?” — WTF?!! ‘Projection’ is a psychology 101 elementary concept. Let’s get past the jejune jokes hot shot. You’ve come a long way, going along to get along, and essentially treading water in the same mental state that led you to become well adapted to a pathological society. It has it’s practical perks … if you are willing to give up your soul and your capacity for independent thinking. You are the typical anemic academic, produced like widgets by the technocratic university system.

          9. anastasia,
            72daystar is one of the most persistent liars I have yet to encounter on the Interwebula.

          10. anastasia,
            You do understand this is not an empty boast by this shill here>>
            ctcole77 to:
            +Willy Whitten
            “You’re beginning the recognize the SHEAR POWER of the 911 DEBUNKING MOVEMENT.”
            This stooge knows that I know how much money and backing the corporatists are putting into the Sunseinian Cognitive Infiltration teams. Cole and I play cat & mouse on the Interwebulator, I understand how to post 2 posts in a row on U-toob, which hides the previous post of an opponent. Cole finally realized I knew that game, thus his message.

          11. You got it, that is the tactic.
            But strategy says, play the game awhile, then disappear, then pop back in later when their shift ends and eliminate their crank posts.

          12. I know you think she is silly and harmless writing her trashy fiction novel, but Roth is on every talk show and she is promoting herself and her book on all these so-called truther shows and her message is that she has figured it out, and no one else has. . This talk show synthesizes all she is saying (link below), and if you are going to listen to any, listen to this one. In the the very beginning what she does is to tell the audience that she knows all the people in the airlines, that she is familiar with all the protocols, and that what others have written about the stewardesses and phone calls, i.e. that they did not exist, that the phone calls were fiction, is alot of “crap” written by people who don’t know what they are talking about, and this has forced her to do her own research, and that she is here to tell us that the stewardesses existed, that the phone calls were real and that the stewardesses died and she knows this because when she was writing her book, the friends and family of the stewardesses contacted her. Do you see what she is doing. The most important thing she is doing is undermining all prior research (David Ray Griffin, Elias Daviddson, and a host of others). She specifically says that David Ray Griffin’s theory about “voice morphing” is stupid.

          13. “I know you think she is silly and harmless writing her trashy fiction novel..”~Anastasia
            Actually no, I don’t find Ross harmless at all! I think her wingdangdoodle is very dangerous in it’s obvious appeal to the lower common denominator.

          14. Also Anastasia,
            I am no fan of Coincidence Theory. So the fact that Roth has written what is essentially a trashy novel, that is pretty awful as far as style and form are considered; I find its incredible popularity hard to swallow. In commercial publishing, strings are pulled by the system’s Power Elite, no less than in any other field. So the likelihood of Roth being a mole is actually quite high in my view.

          15. This guy (hybridrogue1) is an obvious plant. I can’t believe anyone takes him seriously. He was conspicuous for his failure to offer arguments or evidence in support of his position, especially in relation to my research. Observe for yourself: nothing but an endless stream of ad hominem.

          16. Okay, stop. Jim and hybridrogue, do not write even one more comment about the other. In the time I have spent trying to respond to a previous comment, several more have appeared. I am responding. In the meantime, not another word.

          17. She has no broker’s license today
            DOL Home Page
            Search Business & Professional Licenses
            Search Results
            Take a quick Survey
            Your Search Criteria: New Search
            License Type: Real Estate-Real Estate Broker
            Business Name: Madison Realty
            Last Name: Ashlie
            First Name: Koreann
            Street Address: 616 120th Ave NE
            City: Bellevue
            County: All Counties
            No matches were found for your search.
            Information Current as of 01/01/2016 3:06AM Pacific Time

    2. Take a look at an interview by Susan Lindauer (Roth’s friend) and Jim Fetzer and Dennis Cimono. On it Susan Lindauer says that Roth is Jewish, but on another it was said she was Christian. I took issue that she was using an orthodox Jewish pen name. Now suddenly she is becoming “Jewish.”

        1. Ask yourself this question. If she were Jewish and speaks of the Jewish people as she does below, how can she claim that people are attacking her due to anti-semitism. What do you call her comment below, i.e. that Jews are of another species. Is this not a strange comment coming from a Jewish woman who believes that some people are acting anti-semitically against her? It is even more perplexing when considering the context of her accusations about 911. Scroll down to see the comment. I think she is creating alot of confusion, and she is using her orthodox Jewish name in all kinds of ways that is very disturbing. .
          On the youtube show linked below, she is talking about Christ and clearly implying very explicitly that she is Christian. https://youtu.be/nzVQicEeMjI Start listening at 2:15
          Therefore, how can she be Jewish and complain about anti-semitism against her.
          You do not find this disturbing? She is using her orthodox Jewish name to intimidate people who are criticizing her by her saying they are anti-semitic. When you consider the context of her talks, it is nothing short of bizarre. To top it all off, coming out of the other side of her mouth, she says she is Christian. Why is she trying to create this kind of confusion?

          1. Look, I say again, there is no such thing as a an ORTHODOX Jewish name. And a number of Jews believe in Jesus and consider themselves Christian. Ever hear of Jews for Jesus? And who gives a shit what Roth says? Her book sucks and she wrote it for the money. She shoehorned 9/11 into her experience as a stewardess and came up with that piece of orthodox dreck.

          2. She may be much more than simply mistaken. She is using her alleged background in saying many of the things she is saying. For instance, on one show she repudiated the BTS record of no flight on 9/11 for Flight 11. She said that that department’s statistic are not official as airlines are not obligated to report flights to them, and therefore, the BTS does not keep reliable statistics and often does not put down flights that went out. On another talk show, she said that she knows friends of Ong and family members and that she truly was on the plane that day and she is truly dead. This is something that people would be inclined to believe categorically, if they believe that Roth is the real the person she says she is, i.e. a stewardess for 30 years. She is also using the FBI transcript of Ong’s audio and acting as if the FBI transcript is reliable, even though it explicitly contradicts the audio in several instances. Why would anyone treat this document as reliable when it is NOT a true transcription of the audio we are hearing. How can she draw any inferences from the FBI transcript, and she is drawing those inferences from that part of the transcript that explicitly contradicts the audio. The FBI transcript is proven to be fake by just comparing it to the audio. And if one were to choose which one is more reliable, i.e. the transcript of the audio or the audio itself, it is only logical to choose the audio, because there is nothing between Ong’s voice and the listeners ears, unlike the transcript. Both are probably fake, but you simply cannot use the FBI transcript in the way she is using it.

          3. The spelling of it is closer to scriptural spelling, and that is why I say it is a orthodox Jewish name. The reformed Jews would be more likely to name their child Rebecca

          4. She shoehorned 9/11 into her experience as a stewardess and came up with that piece of orthodox dreck.”~Jimbo
            I couldn’t agree more!

          5. No, I do not think she did it only for the money. I have asked Roth some questions, and the most important questions about the Flight Termination System, she refuses to answer, and more and more, I am understanding why. But I did ask one rather unimportant question, and she answered this question on one of her talk shows, correcting me in a very contemptuous way, suggesting that there was something wrong with me for not knowing this information. I had asked her about Ong’s statement that she was sitting in jumpseat 3R, and told her that usually seat numbers go up as you head to the rear of a plane.. She answered me that jumpseats are numbered differently, 1, 2 and 3 and that 3R would be the stewardess jumpseat in the rear. Well and good. On these talk shows, she went into a big analysis of the Ong and Sweeney call, vouching for these women, confirming that they exist, that they were on the plane that day and that they died, showing that she knew all this because she, as a stewardess, knew some of Ong and Sweeney’s close friends and family and therefore was able to verify that they exist, that they were on those planes and that they died.. Of course, anyone believing that Roth is who she says she is would certainly believe this statement to be true. Why wouldn’t we? The only reason we would not is because Roth is not who she says she is.
            I find it curious that in analyzing in depth the Ong and Sweeney calls, (and the government has said that Ong was using an airphone and Sweeney a cell phone, and it has never been disputed at any time that Ong used the airphone), that Roth did not pick up on what the below person stated on his website, and if what this person is saying is true, it is inconceivable that Roth would not know this and would not talk about it. See below
            http://jamesperloff.com/2015/08/12/unraveling-the-mysteries-of-flight-11/ “And “jump seat 3R,” an attendant seat at the plane’s rear, doesn’t pass muster. A jump seat has no airphone by which to make an outside call. Betty would have been facing the last row of passenger seats, which also have no airphones behind their backrests. This seemingly reduces her options to a cell phone……”

  46. Another thing Roth says which she should know is not true if she truly were a stewardess for thirty years is that if the Flight Termination System when turned on leaves no way for the plane to communicate with the ground. Dennis Cimono said that this is not true and the FAA, as bad as they are, would never approve such a device for that very reason, and that there were innumerably ways for the cockpit to communicate with the ground and it is inconceivable that such a system would incapacitate all the ways at the pilots disposal to make such communication. If Roth is lying about this important subject and how it works, she cannot have been a stewardess for thirty years. .
    Further, it is absolutely inconceivable that with all the pilots involved in the truth movement that they would not know that some commercial airlines had installed Flight Termination Systems that do the things that Roth speaks of, and if all these things occurred when the FTS was turned on, the plane personnel would have had to receive training and instruction about the FTS’s use and the consequences of it being turned on, and if they received such instruction, as they must have, then some or all of the pilots involved in the truth movement would have known about it and mentioned it becausee it would have been common knowledge among them. And that is another reason for believing that Roth may not be who she says she is – a retired stewardess who was on the job for 30 years.

    1. Anastasia,
      I enjoy your contributions.
      Let me comment on your discussion of the difference between the Ong audio and the Ong transcript. Davidsson “Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11”, pp. 131-152, points out and details that there are TWO versions of the transcript.
      Roth, however, never mentions there being two versions. In my phone call with her, I asked her about Davidsson and she replied that he was wrong on a number of things, without saying on what matters. My point: She acknowledged having read Davidsson and yet she does not report which transcript she is using, nor even there being two.
      I haven’t thoroughly gone through it all, but would ask whether EITHER transcript corresponds carefully to what Roth reports Ong said, let alone to the audio. I ask because I know that she was fast and loose about her story of planes going to Westover.

      1. Roth is using the FBI transcript, which they themselves admit is poor. Frankly, I find it inconceivable that the FBI would have the nerve to produce and publish such a transcript. . The part of it that Roth makes a very big deal about is the part where , Ong states, “he stood upstairs”, but this has no intelligible place even in the transcript itself. In other words, they are words that make no sense in the context of what she was talking about, and we certainly do not hear these words in Ong’s audio tape. There is nothing about an “upstairs” on the Ong audio. There is something about “he’s up there”, meaning in business class. . Roth takes this nonsensical statement with the initials “UI” next to it, which means “unintelligible”, and from that, Roth tells us (and also tells us that no one else would be able to figure this out because no one is an experienced stewardess like she is) that the plane Ong was on does not have an “upstairs” and that only 747’s have an “upstairs”. Therefore, Roth concludes that Ong must have been in an hangar because in a hangar, there are four stairs and a hijacker, or what she calls a “handler” can certainly be “upstairs.”
        It is very clear in reading both transcripts in Davidsson’s book, that the FBI transcript is wholly inaccurate because not only does it omit things that are contained in the audio, it “changes” words in the audio. For instance, in the audio, Ong says, “somebody is coming back from business. If you can (hold) on for one second ” (and in the audio, you distinctly hear a woman’s voice talking to her). Ong gets back on the phone and tells the listener which flight attendants got stabbed. In the FBI transcript, Ong say, “”he’s coming back from business. If you can hold for one second, he’s coming back (and then the transcript describes unintelligible “noise”) . There is no way an FBI transcriptionist can mistaken the words “somebody” for “he”. No way possible. Ong is very clear. If the FBI transcript is correct, it means the Ong audio is a phony. I have no doubt that both are phony, and Daviddson shows you have to say it is all phony, but Roth is acting as if the FBI transcript is the Rosetta Stone about what happened to the stewardesses and passengers, when this transcript contradicts the Ong audio that we have all heard.
        And you are so right. She is not mentioning to the public that there are two transcripts, one faithful to the audio, and the other, i.e. the FBI transcript, that is not. Because if she did, and if she fully explained that the FBI transcript does not match with the audio, everyone will know what her piece of information is worth. And frankly, it’s contemptuous of her to think that so few people know about these things. She is creating confusion. P.S. I do not think Davidsson identifies the transcript Roth uses as the FBI transcript, but it is the same transcript that the FBI published.

      2. I don’t know who she thinks she is fooling. Who is her audience for her trashy novel? How is it that she is on all these talk shows. She is on a different talk show every day, and sometimes two in a day. Why aren’t these talk show hosts asking her any questions? They are acting as if they had stipulated with her before the show not to ask any questions.
        I won’t say all, but most of the people in this movement have some regard for exactness and accuracy. She is trying to pawn off a fool’s story. She should try to emulate Davidsson, and the fact that she had such little regard for his painstaking work tells you alot about her. She had the absolute unmitigated nerve to say that David Ray Griffin didn’t know what he was talking about, and look at his monumental effort, and the painstaking way he went about proving some but vital matters, especially about these phone calls. I cannot help but think to myself “what is this woman saying that everyone would be inclined to believe” in order to find out what message the gov’t wants to send up. What everyone would be inclined to believe, once they accept her as legitimate, is that those stewardesses existed, were on that plane and died that day, because she is personally vouching for these things on the basis that family and friends of Ong and Sweeney have contacted her as members of her
        “airline family”. About this and about the Flight Termination System, we would be more inclined to believe because of her background and because of her “personal” knowledge. While I had no firm opinion on the subject of the stewardesses, I am beginning to suspect these things as possibly false because I am beginning to suspect her as false..

      3. There are two things that Roth is doing very successfully (1) making herself very popular in the movement going on all these talk shows where the host asks no questions (how the heck is she getting on all these talk shows!?). She is most definitely lying about the people reading and liking her trashy novel, because the only persons inclined to read an unadvertised book that has no publisher (other than her husband), is the audience she is catering to on these talk shows, and I cannot imagine that anyone in the movement who is doing any research at all about 911 would have any use for her trashy fiction novel, so who is it that is reading her book and giving her book the rave reviews that found on Amazon? It makes absolutely no sense.
        The second thing she is doing is undermining the work and reputation of alot of people – some very good people – Griffin (“he doesn’t know what he’s talking about” , Daviddson, Pilots for 911 Truth (they’re useless”, Fetzer (he’s a drunken no nothing professor and a disinfo agent) (although everyone picks on Fetzer); Strangely, whenever she talks about some issue about 911 and acts as if she is the first person to raise the issue, and someone will ask her if she read another person’s work who truly was the first person to raise the issue, she will invariably say “no”. How does this woman expect to keep her credibility answering in this way?

  47. One of the most important things Roth talked about on one talk show was that Mohammed Atta was a “million mile customer” of the airlines, and he always flew first class. If this is true, it is important information

    1. “Mohammed Atta was a “million mile customer” of the airlines, and he always flew first class. If this is true, it is important information”
      So where did Roth discover this information? Interviewing Mohammed Atta in his safe house in Jamaica? That is the problem with these blab-hour radio shows, things like this get thrown out like this little ti-bit. I recall reading a similar allegation somewhile back – so if this is true, it is not something Roth discovered herself, and it is bullshit to cite something and not give the source at the same time. We know that Atta was a big spender and certainly had no adhearance to Muslim laws or traditions. If you look into DRG you will find that he notes all of this long ago. DRG is almost certainly the source for Atta always flying first class. So Roth is apparently denigrating DRG and quoting him without attribution. If so she is doubly despicable.

      1. She did give her source. She said that her airline stewardess friends were sitting around a table in Japan and saw Mohammed Atta’s picture at the time of 911 and they all gasp because they all knew him. She vouched for this in this way. She said that when a passenger is a “million mile customer” that you would recognize him because you see him all the time and faces of these people are recognizable. Of course, she names no names, nor did she even mention the airline they came from, nor did she mention how she was told about this.

        1. “Of course, she names no names, nor did she even mention the airline they came from, nor did she mention how she was told about this.”~Anastasia
          Then this is clearly merely hearsay, not a source in the proper sense of the word. Simpy more of Roth’s flatulent “blablabla”.

          1. Yes Anastasia, The Truth (not just the “movemtent”) has a real problem with Roth, ie, Roth has a real problem with truth.
            The first time I listened to her on a radio show I was convinced then and there that she is totally full of shit.

          2. I think Ott knows too. He is the only talk show host that at least asked her some questions. The security agencies often hire actual kooks to write books. I once called a man by the name of Paul Williams in Pennsylvania who had written a book and given a citation for something that I was trying to get through FOIA. I couldn’t get it through FOIA (they said they did not have anything like that) so I called him. He was acting like a complete lunatic on the phone, telling me “why aren’t you reading my books about Al Queda, and what Al Queda was going to do to this country.” Well, he had written about 8 books on the Al Queda before 911 happened. There was no record for his citation, and his citation was obviously a phony. I then got a hold of his bio, and checked out his background. He said he was a professor at a school in Pennsylvania. I checked that out and found out that he was never a professor at that school, and the girl I spoke to at the college knew him personally. Further, he never won the awards he said he won. His entire bio was a phony. But there is no doubt in my mind that the man was a complete lunatic, nor was there any doubt in my mind that he was hired by the security agencies to write this books. Frankly, I have come to believe that most of the “best sellers” and those books reviewed by the mainstream are written by people hired by the security agencies to send out a message, even when it is only one little message. Roth is very appealing because she is saying many things that we agree with, but buried among all her blabberings are little asides, in which she uses her alleged background, to undermine what has been discovered by people who have done alot of work to find out.

          3. Rebekah Roth is a silly woman and talent-less writer who should have taken up macrame or knitting as a hobby. She is worse than useless to the search for Truth concerning the issues of 9/11 — she is a determent and an obstruction of that Truth.

          4. Not only Ott questioned her. In my article here, I cite that Quantum Matrix Radio did, which led Roth to threaten to hang up. And in another broadcast a person did call in who objected only to her comments that a plane couldn’t go into the Towers. Besides these, all shows I listened to, including Kevin Barrett’s, were unquestioning by interviewers and without callers in.
            So, I have to ask why Barrett isn’t taken to task for fawning over Roth and endorsing her novel? Are some afraid to criticize an outspoken Muslim?

          5. Yes, you are right that the Quantum Matrix Radio people were a little more curious and questioned her, which makes this show a little more interesting. I do not understand Kevin Barrett’s response, or lack of response, at all. As a matter of fact, I was so disturbed by it that I was going to write to him. I expected more from him.
            I notice that she is very authoritative and giving herself an expert’s knowledge, which she does not have that kind of knowledge in all the things she is talking about – even the Flight Termination System, which she admits was not on her airline. Her authoritativeness and her insulting remarks about others may not mean she is a disinfo agent, but simply a vain woman who insists on having her way. Either way, it only means I will never get my questions answered about the Flight Termination System.
            P.S. By the way, with respect to the Cee Cee’s end of phone whisper, I should tell you that I hear both “It’s a frame” and “You did great” , depending upon what I am open to hearing. One can make out both. You simply cannot trust yourself on the issue about this whispering voice is actually saying.
            Daviddson made the important point of saying that there is enough about these phone calls to know they are fake. The very fact that the FBI transcript is not the same as the audio and the discrepancies cannot be attributed to mistake is one reason alone. I am not certain about this, but I do believe they did not use the FBI transcript in the trial, but used the audio tape.
            Will we ever know how they did it? Roth does not have such a bad theory, although I agree with you that the timing of the calls would not seem to allow her Westover landing, or even that the stewardesses were ever on the plane.. I just wish I trusted her more, but I do not. The most important thing to know about 911 is that the authorities are lying. These phone calls are simply not in any way credible for too many reasons.

          6. I agree with this conclusion, Anastasia. I have come across a number of books on international affairs and terrorism that must have been written at the behest of or for intelligence agencies. This phenomenon is not limited to 9/11. It is usually rather easy to find out whether the book is genuine or an intelligence-sponsored production. Mind you that the role of the services may differ from case to case: Some are simply written by intel operatives and appear under the name of a front guy. Others are written by genuine authors who get lots of input and perhaps some help to publish from intel.

          7. Thank you so much. I am gratified to have my suspicions confirmed in this regard. But what is the easy way to find out? I usually find myself suspicious when I read a review of a book on a subject that is on the agenda of the authorities and where the book fosters that agenda.

  48. Elias Daviddson does a superb job in showing the many anomalies with the BTS records, showing not only that the departure times for these flights were not recorded (as they were for every other flight) on this record, but that the record was later manipulated and the scheduled flight times incorporated into the record some two years later. Roth, a stewardess for 30 years, and with the benefit of having her “airline family” slipped in in an off the cuff comment on one of her talk shows that these anomalies are not anomalies after all, but are all very natural because the BTS record is not official, and that flights are given to record by the airlines on a voluntary basis, and that flight times are often not recorded on the BTS system. Wasn’t that sweet of her to clear this up for us? Frankly, if you read Elias Daviddson’s book, the anomalies and manipulations seen in this record cannot be cleared up with Roth’s blithe explanation.

  49. On the Ott tape above, Roth says “For thirty years I have studied hijackings and terrorism”. Is this woman kidding. She said over and over again in earlier videos that she thought nothing about 911 and had what she called “cognitive dissonance”.and wholly accepted the official story. Now, she is saying that she has studied terrorism and hyjackings for thirty years. There is something desperately wrong here.

  50. She says on the Ott tape that someone from the security agencies contacted her and asked her “how did you know there was going to be another attack on this country.” She later says that she heard this third hand. She doesn’t mind contradicting herself in the same breath. She sounds like a fantasizer.

      1. Dear Hybridrogue1: Let me say so that there is no confusion about what I think on the matter that I wholly appreciate Stephen Jones and his group not getting involved with Judy Wood because Judy Wood, while she has very interesting pictures, is all over the lot with her theories. She says that it was some kind of “directed energy”, but that could be anything, as even a gun can produce directed energy, and therefore, whatever it is that she thinks, and she really does not say explicitly, cannot be tested – cannot be proven and cannot even be challenged.. It’s almost an Alice in Wonderland experience one has with Judy Wood, as tantalizing as her pictures are.
        On the other hand that Jones group has something you can sink your teeth into. It is a foundation from which one may more safely draw the conclusion that this was an inside job, and they do not even have to state their conclusions, so self-evident is it. For them to entertain any other issue at this point, or to get involved with Judy Wood, would not be the sensible thing to do.
        But since I think I am among friends, let me ask you this Will you explain to me how that plane in the south tower went through that building without any part of it fragmenting at contact. I appreciate that no one has ever taken a moving picture of a plane striking a building, but my intuitive sense would believe that what happened was not possible. I took the trouble to read the old newspaper accounts of the small four seater jet smashing into the Empire State Building in 1945. The accounts from the newspapers read that the wings and other parts of the plane broke and fell to the ground at the time of contact, albeit that a propeller or some other part went through the building and landed on another building on the other side. Parts of the plane were inside the building, and one part (I believe an engine) fell down he elevator shaft. The plane was smaller, not travelling as fast and the building was a more traditionally constructed steel frame and cement structure.

        1. “But since I think I am among friends, let me ask you this Will you explain to me how that plane in the south tower went through that building without any part of it fragmenting at contact. I appreciate that no one has ever taken a moving picture of a plane striking a building, but my intuitive sense would believe that what happened was not possible.”
          Anastasia, the whole impact lasted less than one quarter of a second. Human visual perception can not fully integrate that visual information with the cognitive aspect of the brain in instances that take place so fast. This is why the films of microsecond events are studied in slow motion; like the Sandia Jet Crash video footage.
          Of course the jet framented – shredded – as it went through the facade.But the momentum carried that into the building, there was debris blowback off the front of the building at the impact point as well. I have a page on my blog with a fairly simple explanation of the crash physics for the tower crashes. That can be found at this link:

  51. I did this as a lark. I ran a search under the Social Security Death Index for New York State in 2001 and I have already checked about 43 pages so far (I cannot go further because of “technical difficulties) and there are approximately 68 names per page. I am up to the “T’s”,, and so far I have found five deaths on September 11, 2001 in New York State but none of them were the victims of 911. They are all very elderly This is very disturbing. Doesn’t the morgue make out the death certificate? https://familysearch.org/search/collection/results?count=75&query=%2Bdeath_place%3A%22New%20York%22~%20%2Bdeath_year%3A2001-2001~&collection_id=1202535&offset=2925

    1. The SS index is only for persons who lose their payments. It is not a national deaths list. Thus, the fact the many are missing, but few of the elderly, makes sense.
      As to voice morphing, might you lay out what you have in mind. The existence of morphing is not in contention. The issue is implementation. As I report on p. 309 of my edited book “The Hidden History of 9-11” many on Flight 93 were late arrivals, including Tom Burnett whose wife Deena says in her book that he made four calls to her (at times differing from the OCT, by the way) in which they spoke to each other. Can you lay out what was happening?

      1. Why, yes, you are right about that. It says that the information on it is described as follows:
        “The Social Security Death Index (SSDI) is a database of death records created from the United States Social Security Administration’s Death Master File Extract. Most persons who have died since 1936 who had a Social Security Number (SSN) and whose death has been reported to the Social Security Administration are listed in the SSDI.”
        Good thing to know.

      2. These people who are saying there are no death certificates for the plane victims, are they saying that based upon this lack of record on the social security death index, or are they finding this out some other way.

        1. The book that seems to have a lot of sales and uses the Social Security Death Index is by Dean Hartwell “Planes without Passengers”. He reproduces evidence by others using the Index that only 24 of 78 passengers on AA 11 died on September 11, 2001, and that, “according to Vincent Sammartino, ‘Of the passengers and crew of Flight 77, 175, & 93, only 22%, 28%, 13% respectively are in the SSDI’.” He goes on with some additional discussion.
          As I explained, these SSDI data would only capture those losing benefits. What Hartwell should have done is use information from the Coroner’s office, as Willy has already mentioned. The numbers Hartwell reports are not evidence that the other named passengers actually lived past that date. Period.
          Several years back I started a critique of Hartwell’s book, but didn’t finish it as I thought such matters (not only this one) are too transparent to make the effort worth my time, given other interests and commitments.

          1. I am very glad you pointed this out. It is important to know this, and so easily verifiable that it is disappointing to learn that this is the record people are using to say the plane passengers did not die.
            Incidentally, you seem to know so much. May I ask you this. There is a guy who has a website “Let’s Roll”. He is saying what seems to be outlandish things. One thing he writes about incessantly are thephotos of the plane passengers, et al. Apparently cameras keep data on when the picture was taken and where. He concludes that the plane passengers have not died because the camera data shows that the photos of the plane passengers were taken one day after 911. However, a journalist or photographer working for a newspaper with a camera can take a photo of a photo, especially when it is a photo of the victim that the famil would not wish to give up.
            Do you know about this camera data, and does this data tag exist and is it reliable as to when and where the photo was taken? .

          2. Most/all digital cameras these days allow a date printing upon a picture being taken. I myself do that. All anyone needs to do is to take a picture of a picture with the date set to the desired date, including of course the true date. However, I don’t know enough to know how to reliably detect if one is viewing a picture of a picture.

          3. Paul Zarembka,
            Here is a page that explains how to find the origin of a jpeg or other digital photo:
            JPEGsnoop 1.7.3 – JPEG File Decoding Utility
            JPEGsnoop is a free Windows application that examines and decodes the inner details of JPEG and MotionJPEG AVI files. It can also be used to analyze the source of an image to test its authenticity.
            Every digital photo contains a wealth of hidden information — JPEGsnoop was written to expose these details to those who are curious.
            Not only can one determine the various settings that were used in the digital camera in taking the photo (EXIF metadata, IPTC), but one can also extract information that indicates the quality and nature of the JPEG image compression used by the camera in saving the file. Each digical cameras specifies a compression quality levels, many of them wildly different, leading to the fact that some cameras produce far better JPEG images than others.

          4. I read it. Interesting. They do not sound that they are prepared in any way for your challenge to them. This technology is something I am wholly unfamiliar with so it will take me a few times reading it to fully appreciate what you are saying. When I bought my android phone, I did not know how to answer it for two weeks.

          5. There are actual data that are included in all digital photos whether the date function is used during photography or not. These diagnostic functions are available in the current version of Photoshop, and have been available for several years of upgrades for that program. There are many good tools for forensic investigations in digital photography for the layman in these types of software.
            There are some remarks on this in the comments section in this article:

  52. I cited Elias Davidsson’s book ‘Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence’ in my review of Roth’s first book. I had asked Roth, in my phone conversation with her, about her opinion of Davidsson’s work but nothing concrete was offered, only that she had read it and there were problems.
    Today, Davidsson has a review of Roth’s book on Amazon. He has given it a one-star with a comment:
    “Due to the many raving commentaries on Amazon, I decided, myself an author of a book on 9/11, to read Rebekah Roth’s book, too. The first pages reminded me of old-fashioned pornographic novels, written by third-class authors. Sentences like the following abound: “Grace found her room, closed the door behind her and immediately began to wonder what she would wear. She hoped she had packed the right shoes and jewelry to accent her sexy blue silk top with her brand new linen pants.” (p. 15) …
    “It took quite many pages until the author began weaving 9/11 factoids into her narrative. Her book demonstrates that she studied some of the 9/11 critical literature. There is no evidence, however, that she carried out original research, let alone “mind blowing research”, the term used on the back cover. The book lacks literary value and is useless as a critical reference book on 9/11.”
    Davidsson could have mentioned that the book has a Tea Party political orientation that becomes very apparent at the end, going so far as to read like a John Birch Society produced novel. This, in spite of claims in interviews that she has no political agenda.

    1. “Grace found her room, closed the door behind her and immediately began to wonder what she would wear. She hoped she had packed the right shoes and jewelry to accent her sexy blue silk top with her brand new linen pants.”~Roth
      Hahahaha!! Precious!
      “..a John Birch Society produced novel.”
      I am convinced that this has to be bankrolled by some group in the shadows. Tea Party, Birchers, one in the same as far as I am concerned. Maybe soon Roth’s junk will be revealed for what it is; she is such a giggly goof in her interviews that it is blatant she is a charlatan.

      1. If anyone wants to be discouraged from reading her book, they need only to read the first three pages, published for free, on her website. Daviddson certainly said it all succinctly. I was very discouraged by those pages and did not wish to waste any of my money. When one writes fiction, one has license to do whatever they will with the facts set forth therein. So, how is it possible for anyone to “wake up” who doesn’t want to? You have to be already awakened to read her book with any appreciation, and even those people must have at their side factual books in order to check her facts.

  53. I got this message in my google alert system from a YT participant:
    James Collinson @4:05 PM
    Willy Whitten,
    This post should clarify a number of topics that are being discussed on this site. I will cover a lot of ground as succinctly as I can and will respond to any questions with additional detail and furnish links to background information. The two attack planes that crashed into the WTC Towers were Boeing 767 tanker drones. These planes were controlled by an advanced autopilot device known as the Flight Termination System (FTS) designed and manufactured by Systems Planning Corporation International. One of the components of the FTS autopilot is a Command Transmitter System Module on the exterior of the plane. This is the cylindrical device or “pod” on the lower right side of the fuselage of the second attack plane that shows up on at least six videos taken from various locations and angles of view. A close-up view of this module can be seen at 2:10 of the following video (close gaps).
    https:// www. you tube. com/ watch?v= bciI8S Bu1n4
    In addition to the cylindrical module, additional evidence indicating the second attack plane was not a commercial airliner but a tanker drone is what appeared to be a standard V-tail refueling boom protruding from the tail cone. In addition there are the statements of numerous eyewitnesses that the second plane appeared to be a windowless military plane. Based on radar and video, the Federal Aviation Administration with the National Transportation Safety Board estimated the speed of the second plane as it approached the tower was 510 knots or 586 mph. This is nearly 100 mph over the maximum operational speed of a Boeing 767. “These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,” said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. “It’s off the chart.” The fact that the plane did not have a structural failure at that speed such as loss of part of the wings or tail would indicate it had been modified for extremely fast speed at low altitudes, probably in order to gain as much advantage as possible over any fighter aircraft that might be scrambled to try to shoot it down. As it turned out, this advantage proved to be totally unnecessary.
    http:// pilotsfor 911 truth. org/ forum/ index. php?show topic=18300
    The Boeing 767’s of American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 that took off from Logan International Airport in Boston were not hijacked by Islamic terrorists. They were hijacked by their own electronics. All 767’s flying in 2001 were equipped with the Boeing Vigilant Flight Management System. This system was designed specifically to take control of the plane and land it safely in the event of incapacitation of the pilot and co-pilot or if there was an attempted hijacking. It utilized a ground-based radio beacon transmitter to guide the plane to the runway. Most major civilian airports and all military air bases were equipped with these transmitters in 2001. This autopilot system had a lock-out feature such that, once activated by radio signal from the ground transmitter, it could not be switched off inside the plane.
    http:// 911 blogger. com/news/ 2011-02-03/ technology-autopilot- override-pilot- control-boeing- aircraft-developed- circa-2001
    AA11 was cleared for take-off at 7:46 AM and lifted off the runway at 7:59. UA175 was cleared for take-off at 7:58 AM and lifted off at 8:14. If you look at the flight path of both AA11 and UA175 you will see that the scheduled route of both planes took them directly over Chicopee, Massachusetts and at that point the flight path of both planes veered from their planned routes to Los Angeles International Airport. This is because both planes were taken over by autopilot shortly after leaving Boston and guided to a landing at Westover Air Force Reserve Base in Chicopee. UA175 was seen approaching Westover for a landing at approximately 8:30 AM exactly corresponding to its flight time from Boston.
    Westover is where the phone calls from flight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney were made. These calls were scripted to make it seem that the plane was still in the air and being hijacked by terrorists. The calls were made at 8:19 AM and 8:32 AM, which would correspond to just a few minutes after AA11 should have landed at Westover. Whether the two flight attendants made these calls under the subterfuge that they were taking part in a simulated hijacking drill approved by American Airlines or were coerced into making the calls is unknown, although it is more likely the former since there is little apparent stress in Betty Ong’s voice. Betty Ong’s call was to American Airlines Reservation Center in Cary NC and was recorded. Amy Sweeney’s call was to Michael Woodward, an American Airlines service manager at Logan Airport, and was also recorded.
    The recording of Betty Ong’s call has been released in part to the public, but none of Amy Sweeney’s has. Why? Could there be some inconsistency between the calls that would bring their authenticity into question? There are indications in what Betty Ong said that her call may have been fake, but in any case we know it had to be because neither call could have been made from the plane in flight. A cell phone call is ruled out because it has been conclusively demonstrated that cell phones will not connect with their ground stations from planes above 8000 ft and 230 mph. An airphone call is ruled out because American Airlines had de-activated the GTE airphones in its planes in January 2001 due to infrequent use.
    https:// http://www.you tube. com/ watch?v= q-Tr0u 35Tek
    In all probability the Westover base is where the passengers and crew of both planes were killed and their bodies and personal effects were incinerated. It seems unlikely they would have been transported elsewhere since, according to several Air Force Reserve people, the entire base had been evacuated the Saturday preceding 9/11 insuring there would be few if any potential witnesses on the premises.
    Base personnel were housed in local hotels until allowed to return several days later. Identification of the 9/11 victims through DNA, fingerprints, dental records, and personal effects was carried out at two locations, the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner and the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations Center (AFMAO) at Dover Air Force Base. All human remains recovered at the Pentagon and at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash site were taken to Dover. All remains recovered at the World Trade Center were taken to the NYC Chief Medical Examiner Center of Forensic Sciences. No identification of human remains was attempted at the crash sites, nor was there any official inventory of either intact bodies or body fragments made on site. This was a grievous error since it made any chain of custody impossible and so allowed body fragments and personal effects to be brought in from other locations under false pretext.”
    . . . . . . . . . .
    Collinson is obviously getting some of this from Roth – whom I am not sure I would trust as an original source. Make of it what you will.

    1. The scenario presented above appears plausible to me. There is still the need to corroborate a few facts, including:
      (a) that the aircraft which allegedly landed at Westover, particularly AA11, could have made it in order to Betty Ong to make her call. Alternately, AA11 might have lifted off earlier, or Ong’s call was wrongly timed.
      (b) that “the entire base had been evacuated the Saturday preceding 9/11” and that “base personnel were housed in local hotels until allowed to return several days later.”
      (c) that “tanker drones” were used to hit the WTC rather than missiles or anything else
      (d) that contrary to official documents, flight UA175 was not in the air at 9:24 between New York City and Philadelphia
      (e) that contrary to official documents, flight UA93 was not in the air at 10:10 near Indiana.
      I find it plausible that the callers were not coerced but misled into participating in drills and were killed by whatever means.
      It would be worthwhile to check with the hotels around Westover regarding the above information.

      1. Elias Davidsson,
        I replied to Mr Collinson, that I thought the scenario he described is plausible. like you have responded here.
        As far as investigating the specific incidents you enumerate, that would take a hands on gumshoe approach, of actually physically going to certain of those places and speaking to individuals who might have knowledge of, or knowledge of where to find that information. As a researcher I don’t have the means for such an investigation personally.
        Getting 14 year old information from the hotels would be a stiff challenge by telephone or internet.
        One thing I am practically certain of it was airplanes that hit the towers, almost certainly flown by wire; but I am equally certain they were not missiles.
        Thank you for your reply!

        1. Willy,
          If you find this “plausible”, then you now know why Roth has an impact for people who don’t care much about verifying claims.
          This J.C. (I don’t recognize the name) says “I will cover a lot of ground as succinctly as I can and will respond to any questions with additional detail and furnish links to background information.” So, let’s ask him for verification to back up his version of Roth’s story imbedded in a novel. Thus,
          1. Ask him for documentation that fights UA175 and UA 93 landed in Westover. Go beyond “plausible”. Other bases are also “plausible” (as is not landing, etc.). If he claims witnesses, who are they and how can we contact them?
          2. Ask him to critique with data my own claim that AA77 didn’t have the time to take off from Dulles, land in Westover, and have May’s call made from a hanger inside the airport, given the prevailing wind pattern that day (see my explication of this under AA 77). Should he claim that AA 77 lifted off earlier than 8:20 or that Renee May’s call was made after 9:12 ask for documentation. (We don’t change, without evidence, facts in order to make a story fit.)
          3. Ask him to documentation that each plane had a Flight Termination System (FTS) in place in all four planes. J.C. said he can provide “additional detail and furnish links”. Have him pony up. Note: Anastasia already asked about this Termination System and she would want to have answers also.
          Enough for now. Thanks.

          1. “If you find this “plausible”, then you now know why Roth has an impact for people who don’t care much about verifying claims.”~Paul Zarembka
            Yes indeed, and I know the lack of impact for people like me who don’t give a shit about some hack writer and so won’t waste my time thinking about it. You guys can spin your wheels chasing this red herring. Again – I have not interest in Roth’s wanknoodle.

          2. Mr. Zarembka,
            I was told to forward my reply to your questions directly to you.
            1. Ask him for documentation that fights UA175 and UA 93 landed in Westover. Go beyond “plausible”. Other bases are also “plausible” (as is not landing, etc.). If he claims witnesses, who are they and how can we contact them?
            UA93 did not land at Westover. Only the two planes out of Boston, AA11 and UA175 did. As of now I can’t go beyond plausible, but AA11 was wheels-up at Logan at 7:59 AM and the tanker drone slammed into the North Tower in lower Manhattan 47 minutes later at 8:46. UA175 and its drone twin covered slightly more distance since it turned and came in toward the South Tower from the southwest in 49 minutes, both flight times less than the 50 minute posted in-flight time from Logan to JFK, so there was absolutely no time margin. The drones had to be already up and circling when each plane came in to Westover. The switch-over point had to be the first airport out of Boston with a 10,000 ft runway directly on the FAA-assigned route from Boston to Los Angeles. Westover is the only one that fits.
            2. Ask him to critique with data my own claim that AA77 didn’t have the time to take off from Dulles, land in Westover, and have May’s call made from a hanger inside the airport, given the prevailing wind pattern that day (see my explication of this under AA 77). Should he claim that AA 77 lifted off earlier than 8:20 or that Renee May’s call was made after 9:12 ask for documentation. (We don’t change, without evidence, facts in order to make a story fit.)
            I dealt only with the two planes that departed Logan, AA11 and UA175, not AA77 out of Dulles. If the flight path of AA77 that is shown in numerous credible sources is anywhere near accurate, it never got within 300 miles of Massachusetts so there is no way it could have landed at Westover. Therefore I do not believe it ever did. AA77 flew west through northern Virginia and through West Virginia. It made a U-turn over northeast Kentucky and the southern tip of Ohio and followed nearly its same path back toward Washington. I could expound on what I believe happened to AA77, but I’d like to work through the questions about the two WTC attack planes first.
            3. Ask him to documentation that each plane had a Flight Termination System (FTS) in place in all four planes. J.C. said he can provide “additional detail and furnish links”. Have him pony up. Note: Anastasia already asked about this Termination System and she would want to have answers also. Enough for now. Thanks.”
            I don’t believe either AA77 or UA93 had Flight Termination Systems installed because they did not need them for their planned roles on 9/11. In addition to the evidence I have already posted, here is a video of the original CNN live feed of the second attack plane crashing into the South Tower (WTC2). Beginning at 1:30 as the plane penetrates the face of the building, you can see three debris/dust plumes burst out, one at each wing where the engines impact the wall and a third at the lower right side of the fuselage exactly where the cylindrical object (pod) is visible. Would-be debunkers have argued long and hard that this object is merely a shadow or some sort of “optical trick”, but neither a shadow nor an optical trick will produce a debris plume when it hits the wall of a building. There simply can be no rational doubt that the second attack plane was something other than UA Flight 175.
            (see my comments on this site)

          3. Mr. Collinson,
            Thank you for answering. We have narrowed discussion since neither of us claims that AA 77 landed in Westover (question #2).
            As to question #3, Anastasia has asked a pertinent question of you about the FTS. I would also ask for documentation, not inference, that AA 77 and UA 175 each had the FTS.
            I claim in my article that AA 11 did not have sufficient time to take-off at 7:59 a.m, fly to and land at Westover, have Ong depart the plane in a hanger and go upstairs, prepare and make a phone call at 8:19 a.m. While I didn’t mention it in my article, the Commission says that the transponder, which I believe is part of your story, was turned off only at 8:21 a.m. What documentation, if any, do you have that AA 11 landed in Westover; also for UA 175 (although I would concur that is had sufficient time)?
            As to pods, I expect Willy to address your analysis, as that has been one of his areas of concern.

          4. Let me preemptively clarify what I think the “pod” was, as many have proposed it launched a missile. I think it was a laser guidance system to bring the airplane precisely to the point of impact, as this plane was being flown by wire [automated piloting].

          5. Can you elaborate as to how you came to believe that it was some kind of guidance system, because this is exactly what Roth a/k/a Collingson is saying.

          6. “Can you elaborate as to how you came to believe that it was some kind of guidance system”
            Because that is obviously a laser beam flashing just before the nose of the aircraft meets the facade of the tower.

          7. That video is goofy nonsense:
            Now prove it to yourself – you probably have a remote for your TV. Aim it at flat surface and push the button. You won’t see anything … just like the joker speaking in this video says himself “invisible to the human eye”

          8. Thank you for answering. We have narrowed discussion since neither of us claims that AA 77 landed in Westover (question #2).
            As to question #3, Anastasia has asked a pertinent question of you about the FTS. I would also ask for documentation, not inference, that AA 11 and UA 175 each had the FTS.
            What I have been referring to as the FTS is the advanced ground-controlled autopilot having an externally-mounted cylindrical device. The Flight Termination System (FTS) is exactly as it was referred to in the “911 Suspects-Dov Zakheim” video and on the System Planning Corporation website. I believe the observable evidence on several videos indicates beyond rational dispute that the drone aircraft that was substituted for UA175 and crashed into the South Tower had a cylindrical device (pod) mounted on it similar if not identical to the external device of the FTS autopilot. From this I infer that the drone was equipped with the FTS autopilot which was used to guide it to target, and by reasonable inference I believe the drone substituted for AA11 that crashed into the North Tower was so equipped. I believe these two drones were the only planes involved in the 9/11 attacks equipped with the FTS autopilot.
            By 1999, Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft like those involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 contained digital flight control systems that can “automatically fly the airplanes on pre-selected routes, headings, speed or altitude maneuvers.”(17)
            For U.S. aviation purposes utilizing GPS navigation, a waypoint is a three dimensional location within the National Air Space, comprised of longitude, latitude and altitude coordinates.(18) RNP-like flight paths and runway approach procedures are comprised of a series of waypoints.(19) The WTC towers themselves occupied waypoint coordinates.(20) Aircraft Flight Management System (FMS) facilitated instrument approach procedures involve the interception of waypoint coordinates.(21) By substitution of World Trade Center tower and Pentagon building waypoint coordinates for flight leg terminating waypoint coordinates, a RNP-like waypoint intercept procedure under autopilot control performed by three of the four aircraft destroyed on September 11, 2001 could apparently also accomplish the aircraft attacks observed.
            Numbers in parentheses refer to notes in document link.
            I claim in my article that AA 11 did not have sufficient time to take-off at 7:59 a.m, fly to and land at Westover, have Ong depart the plane in a hanger and go upstairs, prepare and make a phone call at 8:1 a.m. While I didn’t mention it in my article, the Commission says that the transponder, which I believe is part of your story, was turned off only at 8:21 a.m. What documentation, if any, do you have that AA 11 landed in Westover; also for UA 175 (although I would concur that is had sufficient time)?
            Reading what David Ray Griffin has researched and published about the phone calls made from the hijacked planes, I discovered I had made an unwarranted assumption. Griffin claims with substantial evidence that American Airlines de-activated the GTE airphones only on its Boeing 757’s in January 2001. He makes no claim as to when the airphones on AA’s Boeing 767’s and 777’s were de-activated. Those airphones also were eventually de-activated due to their high cost and infrequent use, but those on AA11 (Boeing 767) may still have been functional on September 11, 2001. If they were, they almost certainly would have been used for Betty Ong’s and Amy Sweeney’s calls. And assuming they were used, this would eliminate a particularly difficult challenge, that of trying to prove the airphone billing records for the AA11 calls presented as evidence in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial had been forged. In all likelihood the billing records are genuine because AA11’s airphones were still functional on 9/11.
            If you’re asking for documentation that AA11 and UA175 landed at Westover, I don’t have it. What I do have is the evidence I’ve posted that tanker drones were substituted in place of AA11 and UA175 sometime during their 47-minute and 49-minute flights, timed from wheels-up to impact. The fact that online calculators give the in-flight time between Logan International and JFK International as varying between 44 to 52 minutes for mid-size commercial jets means there was almost no time margin for the switch-over. It had to have taken place somewhere directly on or very near the American and United FAA-assigned routes from Boston to Los Angeles. I haven’t looked closely at every airport between Boston and New York that could accomodate a 767 nearly fully-loaded with fuel, which would require a 10,000 ft runway, but Westover Air Reserve Base and Stewart Air National Guard Base which each handle the largest cargo planes the Air Force has and have 11,597 ft and 11,817 ft runways respectively seem the most likely possibilities.
            Between Westover and Stewart, the most overt clues point to Westover. The publicly-disclosed flight path of both planes show them staying close to their assigned routes until reaching the vicinity of Westover and then veering sharply off course, AA11’s path turning northwestward and UA175’s turning southwestward. Both paths came into the vicinity of Stewart, but quite late in their course with UA175’s about 70% completed and AA11’s nearly 90% completed. Making the switch-over at Stewart after being detected and tracked flying off course for a substantial length of time would pose a far greater risk for the drones being intercepted by fighter aircraft before reaching their targets. In addition we have Rebekah Roth’s as yet uncorroborated claim that Westover was evacuated partially if not entirely for some few days including the day of 9/11. The base states on its own website that “Westover is the nation’s largest Air Force Reserve base, and is home to more than 5,500 military and civilian workers.” I’ve found nothing to indicate the base population could have been much different in 2001 and if so, in addition to the base air traffic control personnel, there would likely have been a substantial number of other people on base who would have been able to observe two commercial jetliners landing, observe what airlines they were from, and possibly observe their tail numbers. So this would have to have been a major if not total base evacuation and should not be difficult to verify.

          9. In August 2004, shortly after the appearance of the 9/11 Commission’s report, New York Press journalist Alan Cabal, in an article entitled “Miracles and Wonders,” wrote:
            “Last week, USA Today reported a joint effort between Qualcomm and American Airlines to allow passengers to make cell phone calls from aircraft in flight. . . . [T]he satellite-based system employs a ‘Pico cell’ to act as a small cellular tower. . . . Before this new ‘Pico cell,’ it was nigh on impossible to make a call from a passenger aircraft in flight. Connection is impossible at altitudes over 8000 feet or speeds in excess of 230 mph. Yet despite this, passengers Todd Beamer [and] Jeremy Glick . . . managed to place calls from Flight 93 on the morning of September 11. Peter Hanson . . . phoned his dad from Flight 175. Madeline Amy Sweeney, a flight attendant, made a very dramatic call from Flight 11. . . . Each call was initially reported as coming from a cell phone. Later, when skepticism reared its ugly head and the Grassy Knollers arrived, the narrative became fuzzy; it was suggested that $10-a-minute Airfones were involved.”
            (http://www.nypress.com/article-9872-miracles-and-wonders.html ).
            . . . . . . . .
            So this type of language is the Kindergarten class for the budding debunkers as they grow up indoctrinated by mainstream media: “ugly head and the Grassy Knollers” – which gets dumbed down even further with slurs such as “twoofers” & “tin hat idiots”. This has been the psychological operation of the “Conspiracy Theorist” meme since the CIA memo promoting it.
            See: CIA Document 1035-960 — released in response to a 1976 FOIA.

          10. Willy,
            I understand and accept your words but I don’t understand how your comment represents a reply or connects to Jim’s comment.to which you are replying. All of us accept that cell phones cannot be used at a significant altitude (Roth – as if it were new info from her, Jim, Anastasia, you, me).
            Unless I am mistaken, Jim is saying that the Ong and Sweeney calls were (most likely) from inside the plane (not outside, e.g., a hanger). Do you have a comment to share about that?

          11. “Unless I am mistaken, Jim is saying that the Ong and Sweeney calls were (most likely) from inside the plane (not outside, e.g., a hanger). Do you have a comment to share about that?” ~Paul
            Yes. I don’t think the calls came from inside the planes, nor from any hangers. I think the calls were simply patched into the phone network by intelligence operatives.

          12. Jim,
            You write regarding the records of the Moussaoui trial, “those [airphones] on AA11 (Boeing 767) may still have been functional on September 11, 2001. If they were, they almost certainly would have been used for Betty Ong’s and Amy Sweeney’s calls…. In all likelihood the billing records [offered for airphone calls by Ong and Sweeney] are genuine because AA11’s airphones were still functional on 9/11.”
            While I don’t immediately have those billing records, if genuine, then neither call took place from inside a hanger as Roth claims. For you, those calls could have started in air and continued on the ground, or what?
            I claim Ong’s AA 11 call didn’t have time for Roth’s scenario. A different picture would need to emerge under your understanding.
            Just so you are clear, I do not claim that planes did not land on Westover. I am claiming that Roth doesn’t provide proofs needed and those that she tried to offer are faulty.
            (I also don’t know anything about Roth herself because she provides no verifiable information about herself, not even what airline(s) she worked for on September 11, 2001, Contrast that to signatories at AE911. When Roth describes her process of naming individuals in her novel, she may also have practiced re-naming herself. But this is not to the points you are making.)
            P.S. Willy, you have a response at 1:32 p.m. to this same posting by Jim, but I don’t understand its connection.

          13. The point there Paul, is that the official story was that these calls were all made on cell phones until this info came out: “USA Today reported a joint effort between Qualcomm and American Airlines to allow passengers to make cell phone calls from aircraft in flight.”
            Making it clear that cell phone calls couldn’t yet be made by high flying passenger planes on 2001, and was still being sorted out when this deal between Qualcomm and American Airlines was being negotiated in 2004.
            Suddenly the story was shifted to the “airphones” as the ones used for all those in flight calls.
            The bait and switch game of Intelligence agencies and their lapdog press.
            My final remarks were on the defamatory language used by the lapdog press in presenting this information.

          14. The 757 (the plane that struck the Pentagon) definitely did not have operational airphones. I think that has been pretty well established by Griffin.
            The official story (which keeps changing) says that the Ong call was made by airphone and the Sweeney call was made by cell phone. My question is whether the stewardess jumpseat has an airphone. Certainly, the backs of the lack row of customer seats do not have an airphones, as there would be no reason to have one at that location. So, if Ong made an airphone call while sitting in jumpseat 3R, how did she do it?

          15. I can’t give you an answer with any certainty. I listened to the recording of Betty Ong’s call again to see if I could pick up on anything I may have missed before. Whether she was actually sitting in her jumpseat while making the call or merely gave her seat number to identify herself seem about equally plausible to me. If she was actually in the jumpseat, there may have been an airphone in the service area for use by the crew members, but I don’t know and I can’t at the moment think of anyone to ask who would know. I can recall seatback airphones on a couple of flights I’ve made, but I’ve never used one and don’t remember any specific features about them. But one thing is certain, claiming the AA11 calls were made through any means other than the onboard airphones poses some daunting technological and logistical challenges.

          16. “As to pods, I expect Willy to address your analysis, as that has been one of his areas of concern.”~Paul Zarembka
            I am almost certain that there were “pods” on the aircraft that hit the second tower. It is NOT a matter of a trick of the shadows as others have proposed. This would of course mean that it was not a normal civilian passenger jet.

          17. I would love to hear more about that, because whoever repudiated that claim that there was something on the bottom of that plane convinced me that perhaps I was seeing things on the bottom of that plane. Further, since I did not know what the bottom of a plane looks like, it was easy to convince that there was nothing to the pod story.

    2. How very odd. Do you know this person? Did you request this information? Do you have any idea why this person wrote this letter. Was the letter directed to you personally or to the “YT” site. I am so sorry, but what is the YT site? Are they discussing the same things that we are on this YT site, i.e. Roth. What this man is saying is similar to what Roth is saying, but it does not perfectly mirror what she is saying

      1. Anastasia,
        YT is YouTube forums. He addressed me personally, I have no idea why. I’ve never heard of the guy before.
        I replied that the scenario is plausible. I really am not into this Roth trip, so I just passed this on to those of you here who are.
        Like I’ve said before, I think Roth is rinkydink in the sink bullshit. This fellow didn’t mention her by name – but I knew by the Westover stuff he was hawking Roths jabber.
        Like I told Paul, I sent him Paul’s quesions – We’ll see if the guy replies.

        1. You must have responded to someone’s comment on YT, and Collingson replied to your comment. OR, you responded to someone’s comment, and all later responses to that original comment are sent to not only the person making the original comment, but to all those who responded to it. That has been my experience on YT. That place is crawling with worker bees for the security agencies..

  54. The “eye witness” he speaks of is most definitely Roth’s eye-witness, who is the woman who lives in Otis who saw a plane flying very low over her building or house between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. This woman, who says she will swear in court, but who will not give her name, wrote out an affidavit for Roth which Roth reads over and over again on all the talk shows. The affidavit read that she saw the plane flying north (if I recall and I am not certain of this). Otis is southwest of Chicopee where Westover AB is located. If this is the eye-witness he speaks of and it seem to be most definitely, then this man who is writing on the YT site had to have gotten his information from Roth because Roth states that she is the person the woman contacted, not this man

  55. “All 767’s flying in 2001 were equipped with the Boeing Vigilant Flight Management System. This system was designed specifically to take control of the plane and land it safely in the event of incapacitation of the pilot and co-pilot or if there was an attempted hijacking. It utilized a ground-based radio beacon transmitter to guide the plane to the runway. Most major civilian airports and all military air bases were equipped with these transmitters in 2001. This autopilot system had a lock-out feature such that, once activated by radio signal from the ground transmitter, it could not be switched off inside the plane.” Collingson
    This is what Cimono says the FAA (as bad as he thinks they are) would never approve for a commercial plane. Further, if this device were put on all “767’s” flying in 2001 for a legitimate reason, as he (and Roth) says they were) then most definitely all plane personnel had to have received instruction and training about it. As training and instruction MUST have been received by plane personnel, then Roth and this man would not be the only persons to know about it. Other than Joe Vialls, no one has said anything about this FTS System (even Pilots for 911 Truth) for 14 years.
    If this is true, than any commercial pilot (as well as stewardess) flying 767’s would know about it, and this would be very easy to verify. I had asked Pilots for 911 Truth three times, (in both private and public communications) and they have not answered me. As they have answered all my other questions, I find it odd to say the least. . If anyone knows a commercial pilot, he should be able to immediately verify this information.

  56. I would swear Collingson is Roth, and if it is, it is a Roth who has changed her mind. Collingson says that the aircraft that crashed into the towers had a “flight termination system” on it, and that the aircraft that carried the passengers on it, had a Boeing Vigilant Flight Management System on it. Hmmm. Roth called the system on the aircraft that carried the passengers a “Flight Termination System”, or a “Flight Interruption System”. This Collingson calls whatever was on these planes (the ones that crashed and the ones that carried the passengers to Westover) by two different names.
    I would want him to elaborate upon the differences between these two systems that he is identifying with different names.

  57. Again, what this Collingson is saying is almost exactly what Roth said. In regard to the evacuation of Westover, Roth said that a military person (a woman) working at this base told Roth that Westover was evacuated on the day of 911 and that they were all not allowed back into the base for a few days and that the personnel were put up in hotels. This is exactly what this man is saying, so this Collingson again had to have received his information from Roth because it was Roth who this military person spoke with, not this Collingson. Hence, Collingson may be Roth by another name. A rose by any other name smells as sweet, but there must be something else with the same smell because it is not exactly roses that I am smelling.

  58. I know two people who were in the World Trade Center, north tower, and who worked for the Port Authority. One man, before going up to the 60 something floor for work (63rd or 65th) stopped off at the cafeteria which was located at the forty-something floor (I believe 42rd floor) He got his cup of coffee, walked to the local elevators; the elevator stopped, door opened, he got in with another person, and felt it shake violently. He immediately stepped out of the elevator. Seconds later, and around the corner of the hallway, where the express elevators were, the whole bank of the express elevator doors all flew open simultaneously and out shot flames coming up from below. The doors immediately closed again. He believed there was an electrical explosion and fire of some kind. He sat in an office on this floor waiting for 1/2 hour. There were no announcements over the loudspeaker to evacuate and nothing was said for more than 1/2 hours. In that time, he saw paper coming down from the other building out the window. An announcement was heard some minutes later to evacuate. He walked down the stairwell, and as soon as he got out and crossed the street, the south tower came down. I specifically asked him, “As you were going down the stairs, or at any time when you were in the building, did anyone say they saw a plane.?” He said “yes”, there was this one guy who spoke of seeing a plane. He has no specific recollection as to what he said exactly about it, but he knew then that a plane has crashed into the building..
    The second man also worked for the Port Authority and was on the 71st Floor. He felt a big jolt, and immediately left everything and headed for the stairs. It took him, he said, one and one half hours to get out of the building because as he descended, the stairwell became more and more crowded and at some point they had to go up and then come down. He said that he had the presence of mind to leave immediately because he was told by someone working for the Port Authority (I believe maintenance) that if he EVER felt anything happening in the building, to IMMEDIATELY leave without any hesitation and head for the emergency stairs.

  59. Mr. Collingson did not answer the question about the Flight Termination System. Firstly, he says that the Flight Termination System was on the aircraft that crashed into the towers, and that the Vigilant Flight Management System was on the airplane that carried the passengers.
    Roth said that the plane that carried the passengers was equipped with a Flight termination System or Flight Interruption System, and that some airlines put them on their planes, and some did not, and she also suggested that AA and UA installed them on their planes. She said that this Flight Termination System was put on by airlines for legitimate reasons. If that is the case, the plane personnel had to have received instructions and training about it. Mr. Collingson is not making himself clear. Is the the Vigilant Flight Management System and the Flight Termination System the same system? If not, does the Vigilant Flight Management System have the effect of turning off the transponder, of precluding communication with the ground and within the plane, because that is what Roth said it has the effect of doing (other than flying the plane automatically from the ground and landing it)I

  60. I am satisfied with the answer to the question question about what was on the aircraft that flew into the buildings, but Mrs. Roth stated that this Flight Termination System was also put on the planes that carried the passengers to Westover, and she identified it as a “Flight Termination System” or “Flight Interruption System.” Mr. Collinson states that the Vigilant Flight Management System was the device that was on the planes that carried the passengers to Westover. I would like a few questions answered about the planes that carried the passengers to Westover.
    (1) Were the planes that carried the passengers to Westover the same device that was put on the aircraft that flew into the towers, i.e. Flight Termination System, or was it a different device.
    (2) If it is a different device that is called the Vigilant Flight Management System, how do you distinguish the two devices.
    (3) Was the device that was put on the passenger carrying planes put on for the purpose of 911 or did airlines install these devices prior to 911 for legitimate reasons, eg. hyjackings or if pilots lose consciousiness.
    (4) If so, which airlines used them. Specifically, did American Airlines and United have them installed for legitimate reasons before 911.
    (5) If they were installed before 911 for legitimate reasons, did plane personnel receive trainign and instruction about their use.
    (3) Does the device that was put on the planes that carried the passengers when it is turned on have the effect of turning off the transponder signals
    (4) Does such device have the effect of precluding communication between ground and cockpit) (other than the use of airphones)
    (5) Does such a device have the effect of precluding communication between cockpit and stewardesses outside the cockpit
    (6) Would there be any way that the cockpit can communicate with ground in some other way when this device is turned on.

    1. (1) Were the planes that carried the passengers to Westover the same device that was put on the aircraft that flew into the towers, i.e. Flight Termination System, or was it a different device?
      It was a different, older, and less technically advanced autopilot device than the Flight Termination System.
      (2) If it is a different device that is called the Vigilant Flight Management System, how do you distinguish the two devices.
      My present understanding from what I have been able to research online and from conversations with a former commercial airline pilot is that there were several Flight Management System variants, each having a distinct level of technical sophistication and going under various names. Boeing Corporation’s “Vigilant Flight Management System” is the one the former pilot is most familiar with. Another was developed by Honeywell. “On September 7, 1998 Honeywell International announced plans by American Airlines and United Airlines to install the RNP-capable Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) within their Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft, with a 150 waypoint route capacity.”(27,28)
      (3) Was the device that was put on the passenger carrying planes put on for the purpose of 911 or did airlines install these devices prior to 911 for legitimate reasons, eg. hyjackings or if pilots lose consciousiness?
      From all the information I now have, this series of autopilot devices was developed beginning in the early 1990’s for the purpose of getting an airliner safely on the ground in the event of incapacitation of the pilots or attempted hijacking. However, at the risk of seeming to indulge in excessive conspiratorial thinking, I would not rule out the possibility of the planners of 9/11 inserting moles in the research and development groups at companies such as Raytheon, Honeywell, Rockwell Avionics, and Boeing that designed these devices in order to make sure they would have components specifically allowing a hijacking by ground-based radio transmission that could not be prevented or reversed from inside the plane. I’m thinking primarily of the “lock-out” circuit. After I discuss who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, a “deep mole” scenario will not seem at all far-fetched.
      (4) If so, which airlines used them. Specifically, did American Airlines and United have them installed for legitimate reasons before 911?
      The big five: American, United, Delta, Southwest, and USAir (later US Airways) all had them installed before 9/11. Just what percentage of the fleet of each carrier had them I’m not certain, but I believe most if not all the planes that flew cross-continent did.
      (5) If they were installed before 911 for legitimate reasons, did plane personnel receive training and instruction about their use?
      Obviously the pilots and co-pilots were instructed, and also the flight engineers before most airlines went strictly to two-man cockpits. I honestly don’t know if any of the flight attendants would have been instructed on how to operate the autopilot, but I doubt it particularly as onboard flight-control computers began to be used to run almost every function of the plane after take-off.
      (3) Does the device that was put on the planes that carried the passengers when it is turned on have the effect of turning off the transponder signals?
      A properly functioning un-tampered Flight Management System should not switch off the transponder since ATC radar tracking of the autopiloted plane would be crucial to avoiding air traffic and getting it landed safely. But like the lock-out circuit, such a feature may have been covertly built into the system allowing the transponder to be switched off from the ground transmitter station.
      (4) Does such device have the effect of precluding communication between ground and cockpit) (other than the use of airphones)
      See answer to the previous question.
      (5) Does such a device have the effect of precluding communication between cockpit and stewardesses outside the cockpit?
      I’m certain it would not. All commercial passenger jets have an internal phone system that would fail only if all cabin power failed. I believe 767’s have 6 phone stations: cockpit, cockpit door, first class, business class, coach, and service area. I have no idea how many a 747 or Airbus has.
      PS. Don’t let any flight attendants hear you call them “stewardesses”.

      1. @James Collinson If the planes on 9/11 could be remotely hijacked why wouldn’t they just fly them to New York and crash them into the WTC?

        1. This also puzzled me until I learned about the limits to the accuracy of the Flight Management System (FMS) installed on American and United airliners in 2001. It would have been necessary for the GPS coordinates to be programmed into the FMS computer and for the planes to be flown some 290 air miles and guided accurately enough to hit within the 208 ft width of the WTC Towers. All I have seen indicates this degree of accuracy wasn’t possible with FMS technology in 2001. Beginning at 4:32 in the “911 Suspects-Dov Zakheim” video there is a description of the flight characteristics of the tanker drone substituted for UA175 in its last few seconds before crashing into the tower. A last-second course correction maneuver was necessary in order to hit the building. This would not have been possible with the plane flying solely on its FMS computer.
          In addition to hitting the building, the planes had to completely penetrate the building wall and the fuel had to ignite and explode. How do you get a plane with a fuselage shell composed of aluminum and kevlar with a hollow carbon fiber composite nosecone to go through a building with steel-framed outer walls? You do it with mass, velocity, and hardness. I have claimed all along that the two WTC attack planes were Boeing 767 tanker drones and they very likely were fully-loaded tanker drones. The empty operating weight of UA175, a Boeing 767-222, is 181,610 lbs. With a fuel load of 12,000 US gallons at take-off and 65 persons aboard counting all passengers, crew, and alleged hijackers plus cargo, a generous estimate of the take-off weight would be 275,000 lbs. A KC-767 tanker carries 160,660 lbs of fuel at full load. The fuel alone would make its weight 342,270 lbs. Its maximum take-off weight is 395,000 lbs and I believe it was close to that when it left Westover Air Base.
          A couple of years ago I started wondering about the amount of fuel on the two planes that crashed into the WTC towers in relation to the size of the fireballs that exploded out of the buildings. All references I have found say that there were approximately 10,000 US gallons of Jet A turbine fuel on AA11 which crashed into the North Tower and about the same amount on UA175 which crashed into the South Tower at the time each plane hit. Since there are many more videos of the 2nd crash than of the 1st, I looked at several compilations of videos of the 2nd crash to gauge the size of the fireball that was created. This turned out to be a relatively simple procedure knowing that the width of each tower was 208 feet. Examining the fireball from several different angles revealed that there were in fact three visible fireballs, not just one; a large one that burst out of the east face of the tower, another large one out of the north face, and a smaller one from the hole made by the plane on the south face. The two large fireballs rapidly expanded and merged into one huge fireball. I was able to calculate that this fireball was conservatively 31.8 million cubic feet in volume at its maximum expansion and could have been as much as 10% more than that.
          Determining if the fireballs were consistent in size with a plane carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel took some searching, but I was able to find a means of doing it. I compared the volume of these fireballs with the fuel fireball from the crash of a B-52H Stratofortress (registration no.61-0026, callsign Czar52) on June 24,1994 at Fairchild Air Force Base near Spokane, Washington. This crash occurred during practice for an airshow scheduled for the next day and was determined to be caused by pilot error. The plane made an extremely high-banked turn and rapidly lost altitude. It was already much too low to attempt such a maneuver and slammed into the ground killing all four crewmen on board. This accident was videotaped and I was able to accurately gauge the diameter of the resulting fireball from the wingspan of the plane. The wingspan of a B-52H is 185 ft and the fireball from the burning fuel expanded to approximately 220% of the wingspan or 407 ft. Because the plane crashed into the ground, the fireball could only expand in a hemisphere upward and outward above ground unlike the spherical fireballs at the WTC towers. The volume of a hemisphere 407 ft in diameter is 17.6 million cubic ft. This provided the comparison I needed because the amount of fuel onboard the B-52H at the time of the crash could be accurately determined.
          On page 144 of the USAF Aircraft Accident Investigation Report for this crash is a copy of the standard “B-52 Aircraft Refueling and Distribution Log” for Czar52 showing that it had been fueled the day before the crash with 20,685 lbs of fuel added, making a total of 89,685 lbs of fuel in all tanks. Using the standard conversion factor of 6.4 lbs of jet fuel per US gallon gives a figure of 14,013 US gallons onboard before the fatal flight. This flight lasted 18 minutes from 1:58 PM until crash at 2:16 PM. The B-52H burns 3334 US gallons of fuel per hour at its nominal cruising speed of 508 mph. Even though it flew well below this speed throughout its last flight, I subtracted 1/3 of 3334 or 1111 gallons of fuel burned during the 18 minutes. So the B-52H had at least 12,902 gallons of fuel in its tanks when it crashed. The fireball from the crash of UA175 supposedly with 10,000 gallons of fuel onboard was 31.8 million cubic ft while the fireball from the crash of the B-52H with 12,902 gallons – nearly 30% more – was only 17.6 million cubic ft, a huge discrepancy. Adding in the additional fuel of the smaller fireball on the south face of the tower and all the fuel that burned inside the building comes fairly close to the total fuel capacity of a KC-767 tanker.
          So we have a much greater mass than UA175 could have been, likely close to a KC-767’s maximum take-off weight of 395,000 lbs, impacting the wall of the building. And this mass was moving at a much greater velocity than UA175 could have flown at any altitude near sea level. Based on radar and video, the Federal Aviation Administration with the National Transportation Safety Board estimated the speed of the second plane as it approached the tower was 586 mph. This is nearly 100 mph over the maximum operational speed of a Boeing 767. How could this velocity have been attained? The genius lunatics who build and race top fuel dragsters have devised numerous methods to get ever more horsepower out of their suicide rails and some of these methods are adaptable to turbofan jet engines. One such method is hydrazine injection. Hydrazine is a liquid-fuel rocket propellant. The tanker drones could have been programmed to fly most of their course from Westover to the WTC towers on standard jet fuel and then switch over to hydrazine in the last minute or two for the final sprint to target. Other methods such as nitro-methane injection or ozone-pumping could have been used. All these methods would soon destroy a jet engine, but that would hardly be of any concern in this instance.
          In addition to added mass and velocity, a hardened nosecone and hardening at other critical points would not present any major technical problems. Any of the new “super steel” alloys developed over the last 30 years or even depleted uranium as used in anti-tank armor piercing shells would not be beyond the means of those who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. As long as I’m speculating, I may as well speculate on the possibility that the outer walls of the towers may have been pre-weakened at critical points or had explosive charges placed in them set to detonate just as the planes hit the walls. We know that floors 92 to 100 and 102 in the North Tower and floors 77, 78, 88, and 89 in the South Tower were closed supposedly for “fireproofing” in 1999 and 2000. Those floors in the North Tower are nearly an exact match to the first plane’s impact zone at floors 93 to 99 and at least two of the South Tower’s floors were in the second plane’s impact zone at floors 77 to 85. Although the flash on the surface of the South Tower an instant before impact that was captured on several videos could have been produced by any number of means, I would include the possibility of a laser flash to detonate explosive charges inside the frame of the outer wall.

      2. Well, Mr. Collinson, here is where you diverge from the story that Roth is telling. She is telling everyone that the passenger carrying planes had a Flight Termination System or Flight Interruption System installed on them (installed for legitimate reasons, i.e. hyjackings and pilots being unable to fly the plane), and that these devices, when turned on, have the effect of turning off the transponder signals. She also states that all communication with the ground is also lost, and that even the ability to communicate outside the cockpit is lost when the system is turned on.
        I found that very difficult to believe since I would think that all plane personnel would have to be instructed about what happens when this system is turned on because having all these other systems fail would be a cause for alarm for ALL all personnel on the plane.
        How is the system turned on? If it has to be done inside the plane, it defeats the whole purpose of the system. and if it can be done by land, would it make a difference that the hyjackers turned off the transponder.

        1. The Flight Management System is already on and navigating the plane with its pre-programmed destination (airport) coordinates. There is little the pilot has to do manually after take-off. Of course the instruments have to be constantly monitored, but piloting a modern jetliner is essentially a hands-off operation between take-off and landing approach unless some emergency, technical or human-caused, arises. In that case the pilot can immediately intervene to fly the plane on a different course to its original destination or get it to the nearest accessible runway for an emergency landing. I don’t know what if any operating systems would have to be switched on but from what I have read and have been told, anytime the pilot puts so much as a finger on the yoke the FMS computer is overridden and the plane is being flown manually.

      3. Whether she was actually sitting in her jumpseat while making the call or merely gave her seat number to identify herself seem about equally plausible to me.
        Betty Ong, after being asked three or four times what seat she was sitting in” answered, “right now I’m in jumpseat 3R” Her answer indicates that she was actually sitting in this jumpseat.

  61. Willy,
    You wrote yesterday at 11:20 a.m. — in contrast to Jim who thinks that the Ong and Sweeney calls were most likely from within the plane — ” I don’t think the calls came from inside the planes, nor from any hangers. I think the calls were simply patched into the phone network by intelligence operatives.”
    This is very sketchy and leaves a lot a room for variation. Do you think the recipients were real and correctly identified. If so, how do you think that a person like Deena Burnett was not in fact receiving a call from her husband from inside the plane, i.e., what does patching have to do with anything?
    If you think she is a damn liar, then there is nothing more to discuss for her. On the other hand, if you accept she is telling the truth, how does she not know who she is talking to? Or, what was happening?
    I could mention others, but let’s get concrete with a first case for consideration that seems to have the most evidence behind it.

    1. “what does patching have to do with anything?”~Paul
      You can patch into the phone system as it stood in 2001 from anywhere, just like a “phone tap,” only you have control of the timing as you are initiating the call. Such phone taps are still possible by using the relay towers for cell phones.
      I think the recipients could be genuine. I think the messages were made via voice morphing technology that was well advanced at that time; not the commercial toys available now, but serious waveform analysis replication. As far as knowing personal details between lovers and friends, how often do you ask your wife what the dedication is inside your wedding band?
      Would you even dream of quizzing a loved one or trusted friend in an emergency call situation?
      How ever far fetched you might think this is, I am comfortable with it.

      1. Willy, and also Anastasia,
        Many of the callers on UA 93 were late registrants for the flight, including Burnett. So please explain how a setup with voice morphing could have occurred. I’ll say once again that the existence of the technological capability is not in question; the question is implementation for these reported calls, given the recipients being genuine.
        UA 93 was a newly scheduled flight and late additions to the flight included Beamer, Bingham, Bradshaw, Glick, Grandcolas (who was stand-by), and Wainio, in addition to Burnett. “Together, they account for 10 calls of at least 28 seconds each” (my update in “Hidden History of 9-11”, p. 309).
        In other words, please fill in with at least some details your interpretation. I don’t accept Griffin’s rendering.

        1. “UA 93 was a newly scheduled flight and late additions to the flight included Beamer, Bingham, Bradshaw, Glick, Grandcolas (who was stand-by), and Wainio, in addition to Burnett. “Together, they account for 10 calls of at least 28 seconds each” (my update in “Hidden History of 9-11”, p. 309).”~Paul Zarembka
          Yes, “a newly scheduled flight” … Pardon my “conspiracy analyst” angle to this, but this 9/11 operation was large and complex, and these characters could very well have been participants manipulated into place (Intel having knowledge of their former activities and flight histories – ability to make wire taps or even in person voice recordings of these people by sitting next to them in cafes and such) And there is the possibility that some of these people were themselves agents.
          We are both in the realm of conjecture here, and I find my scenario much more convincing. I am sure you will disagree, but be that as it may.

          1. Willy,
            Unlike yourself or Roth, Jim relies on collaborating evidence from the Moussaoui trial to claim the Ong and Sweeney calls were genuinely from airphones (see his earlier message), even if controllers were involved.
            In any case, everyone of the late additions to the flight called someone they personally knew. I went through their stories and do not recall hearing anything but normal explanations for late decisions to take this flight. If they were not manipulated onto the flights, the background, last minute, work needed to learn about the persons, their families, and voice imagings becomes quite problematic. Keep also in mind the person doing the morphing has to minimize the dangers of mistakes that might be revealing. For me, it is too much a stretch.
            In writing this, I am not claiming that the callers were reporting real events.

          2. Fine Paul, I have understood your position for quite awhile. I disagree and arguing about it is futile. This whole page is futile bullshit, and your likening me to Roth is an insult I shall keep in mind always. Keep that in mind bucko.

          3. Sorry, Willy. I didn’t mean at all to give personal offense and am a bit surprised. I think you know me better than that, which includes a respect for your contributions.

          4. Okay Paul…
            That will be 15 Hail Mary’s and a dollar for the girl pulling down her knickers…

          5. There were so many concessions and stipulations made by the defense attorney for Moussaoui regarding the evidence allowed to be entered in that case as to raise suspicions about the entire trial. I never heard of an attorney making all those concessions and stipulations, all of which effectively allowed the prosecutor to put in all kinds of evidence that could never have otherwise gotten into evidence. Why would a lawyer do that? I find it highly suspicious.

    2. I find these plane passengers very hard to clock. Some seem credible and some do not. Ms. Burnett is a strange case. She seemed credible, but obviously made a mistake in saying that she saw the cell number on caller ID. But was it necessarily a “mistake?” She was so credible about the call being seen on caller ID that we tend to believer her, but she seemed credible about other things as well. Perhaps she is simply a good liar, not only lying about seeing the number on caller ID, but lying about everything else, as well.

      1. Anastasia,
        Why do you say that Deena Burnett was obviously mistaken in saying that she saw her husband’s cell number on caller ID?
        Since Deena is not following the government’s line about the calls she received, she maintains credibility and not easily dismissed as a liar (in my view).

        1. I really cannot decide what role these people played, if they were innocent or willing participants, or if there were voice morphing. I really do not know. Whoever did this were certainly willing to murder some people in those buildings, how many, I am not certain, but what is certain is that whoever did this made some effort to mitigate the number they murdered. I am certain of that.

        2. You know, there is a constant message being drummed into us by the media today – in books, on television, movies, etc, and that is that one should be willing to kill a few to save the many. In my day, the old adage was that if there were three men in a boat and they only had food enough for two to last as long as they needed, one was not permitted to make any decisions about killing the one to save the other two. They all had to share the food, attempt to preserve all life, fostering a reverence for all life, and let fate or God decide who was going to live and who was going to die. Today, it is being drummed into us that this is not the way it should be done – that we are to act decisively and kill a few if he must in order to save the many. This is, in my opinion, how they justify these things like 911. This is a real sicko mentality, and thankfully, I will be leaving this earth before this kind of thinking takes a firmer root in the mind of all society. Thankfully, I still know there are some like-minded people out there somewhere..

  62. Jim,
    Thanks very much for detailed reporting of your work on the fireball at the South WTC Tower, it being useful for confirming that a drone substitution for UA 175 had occurred. I am not sure a pod would be only means of guiding the drone to the Tower, but we can leave that aside for now.
    If you don’t mind, let’s go to your 8:21 p.m. comment on Oct 18 (replying no longer indicated thus my starting over).
    You conclude that “one thing is certain, claiming the AA11 calls were made through any means other than the onboard airphones poses some daunting technological and logistical challenges.” As you know, I agree, but want to move this aspect forward. Namely, if she is on AA 11 using an airphone, then there is no need to consider her leaving the plane and making a call at 8:19 from inside an office in a hanger at Westover. She could be anywhere, including just landing in Westover. From re-listening to the audio of the call, have you worked out whether she is using a script or being coached/controlled, and/or its relation to the call by Sweeney, and/or the absence of other calls? Also, has your work informed you about the calls for UA 93?

    1. I’m just now getting out some long-delayed replies to my emails. I put this together hurriedly so please check and let me know if any of my math is wrong. Question for consideration and comment:
      Could a guided drone have been substituted for United Airlines Flight 93 soon after it departed Newark International Airport allowing UA93 to divert to Westover Air Force Reserve Base, board passengers and crew members from AA11 and UA175, and then fly to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport?
      United Airlines Flight 93 (UA93) departs Newark International Airport at 8:42 AM (EDT)
      A plane identified as UA93 lands at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport at 10:45 AM (CDT)
      Total interim flying time: 3hr-3min
      Posted flight time Newark to Cleveland: 1hr-6min (in-air) 1hr-35min (gate-to-gate)
      Excess time: 1hr-28min to 1hr-57min
      Posted flight time Newark to Westover AFRB: 28min (in-air) 55min (gate-to-gate)
      Posted flight time Westover AFRB to Cleveland: 1hr-24min (in-air) 1hr-44min (gate-to-gate)
      Total flying time: 1hr-52min (in-air) 2hr-39min (gate-to-gate)
      Interim (on ground) time available: 24min to 1hr-11min
      Passengers and crew on UA93 that departed Newark: 44
      Total passengers and crew on AA11, UA175, and UA93: 201
      Passengers reported to be on UA93 landing at Cleveland: 200
      This video presents the possibility of UA93 landing at Cleveland, with which I concur although I disagree with other assertions made on it.

      1. Looks like I’m going to have to correct my own math. For some reason I had Chicago (or some other midwestern city) in my mind instead of Cleveland which is in the Eastern time zone. So I should subtract 1 hour from all the interim times. This leaves just 11 minutes, or possibly a little more, for on-ground time at Westover, but I will let my question stand for comment.

      2. Jim, I checked and wind makes a big difference flying to Cleveland. No wind EWR (Newark) to CLE (Cleveland) is 1 hr. 8 min. at https://airplanemanager.com/FlightCalculator.aspx, but seasonal wind gives 1 hr. 26 min. Likewise, CEF (Westover) to CLE for no wind gives 1hr. 19 min., but 1 hr. 41 min. with seasonal.
        Where are your data from? And are you taking account of the wind on September 11th? Going EWR-CEF-CLE no wind anywhere has 1 hr. 44. min. flying time, but for seasonal has 2 hr 03 min.

        1. My flying time data were from:
          The factor of seasonal wind direction definitely could have made the crucial difference as to whether a Newark-Westover-Cleveland scenario for UA93 was possible within the time constraints given by various sources. But owing to significant gaps in our current knowledge, we can’t yet make a definitive judgment. Maybe the winds that day were in fact very favorable for flying east to west. Maybe the beginning and ending times for the flight were slightly different than posted, particularly the landing time in Cleveland since it was totally unexpected. It’s likely just coincidence that the 2hr-03min total flying time that takes into account seasonal wind matches to the minute the flying time for UA93, given a take-off time of 8:42 AM at Newark and a landing time of 10:45 AM at Cleveland. But this would leave no time at all for anything to happen on the ground at Westover.
          A previous post (Big Tim, October 29) asked for comment on “any possible use of Cleveland as a site for landing and phone calls.” I had occasionally given some thought to United Airlines Flight 93 landing at Cleveland and why Cleveland Hopkins International Airport was the only major airport evacuated on 9/11. Assuming AA11 and UA175 landed at Westover Air Base and noting that the passengers and crew of those two flights combined with that of UA93 added up to almost exactly the 200 passengers claimed to have been on the plane identified as UA93 at Hopkins and taken to the NASA Glenn Research Center prompted me to post the question and flight information I did. This was not to make any claim about what happened, but primarily to obtain comments and/or any additional information anyone might have.

          1. — “Maybe the winds that day were in fact very favorable for flying east to west.”
            They were not:
            Newark: Winds on 9-11-01 were from the NNW at 7:51 and 8:51 a.m. (no reading reported again until 11:51 when it is N) — available at http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KEWR/2001/9/11/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Newark+International&req_state=NJ&req_statename=New+Jersey&reqdb.zip=07191&reqdb.magic=5&reqdb.wmo=99999 .
            Westover: At 8:55 and 9:55 a,m, Westover had a NW wind, and so a cross/head wind for flying from Newark to Westover and suggesting a headwind Westover to Cleveland (see http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KCEF/2001/9/11/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Westover+Air+Reserve+Base+%2F+Metropolitan+Airport&req_state=MA&req_statename=Massachusetts&reqdb.zip=01022&reqdb.magic=6&reqdb.wmo=99999&MR=1 ).
            Cleveland: NNW at 9:51 a.m. confirming some headwind out of Westover for a good portion of a flight, then a reading of N at 10:07, variable at 10:26 and NNE at 10:51 – this being the only possible small tail wind but after a 10:45 landing.
            I am not a meteorologist but winds increase at higher altitudes. I do not know, however, if wind directions at airports are fully reliable for direction at higher altitudes.

          2. Thanks, Anastasia. Whatever eventuates as closest to the truth will be a reflection of very many persons.
            Coming back to Roth, your November 1 link to her on the Hagmann Report is yet another fawning over her by the Hagmanns that is simply out of my universe of dialoguing and asking probing questions. I have no reaction, except: she gets more emotional in these three hours and says she is serving God. To me, she sounds like an attempt to be a messiah.
            You may find interesting the discussion on Roth among Lindauer, Fetzer, and Dennis Cimino beginning about 1 hr 30 min., September 21, 2015, Real Deal #107 linked at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. Cimino makes a point that I hadn’t considered before: AA11 was at 21,000 feet 9 miles from Westover, based upon radar data, and that altitude and short distance would make it extremely difficult to land there without circling first (which kills once again Roth’s timing for the two flight attendant calls from AA 11). He also says that terminating all contact with the ground, as in Roth’s claim of a Flight Termination System, would not ever have been implemented (Cimino has expertise on this issue).
            Note: Lindauer, Fetzer and Cimino claim that no passengers died on September 11. That gets a hearing toward the end in this audio, but I am only addressing evidence about Westover.

          3. This Flight Termination System, albeit that Collinson called it by a different name, does not do the things Roth says it does. She is not being exact, and is engaging in speculations as if they were true. I too engage in speculations but I am not writing a book. I myself also tend to think there were no passengers on those planes, and the reason I think that is because it would appear that it was possible that they could sell the same story to the public without passengers and without commercial flights taking off. They clearly had the cooperation of the airlines.
            Yet, on the other hand, there were so few people on those planes (Roth makes the valid point that airlines attempt to fill all transcontinental flights), that it appears as another attempt to mitigate deaths, just as striking the WTC at 8:45 a.m. appears to be such an effort.
            For Roth to expect people to take her seriously, she must do more than engage in these speculations and write a fiction book. To take on this subject, you must take care to be as exact as possible, like for instance, Elias Daviddson. You see the amount of work he has done on the subject just by reading his book. She is writing fiction, and therefore she is not confined by the facts. But she is doing worse than playing fast andloose with the truth. In this interview among Fetzer, Cimino and Lindauer, Lindauser states that Roth told her she was Jewish and Roth was complaining to her about people’s anti-semetism toward her. In another interview, Roth talks about Christ, in such a way as to clearly convey she is a Christian. Now, tell me that is not bizarre and disturbing. Why would she do such a thing?

          4. Lindauer claims in that 9-21-2015 show (with Fetzer applauding her) that there is no record of deaths for those on AA 11 and UA 175, citing local records. I am not sure of Lindauer’s source material (if any), but such a claim contradicts the work of the Coroner’s Office in NYC which identified the majority of remains for the September 11th event in NYC: that is, I have never heard that all those on AA 11 or UA 175 were all missing from the NYC Coroner’s list.
            Furthermore, consult the Social Security Death Index (SSDI). The Social Security principally learns of deaths when benefits are affected, namely when death leads to an end of benefits or when death leads to beneficiary filing. Someone, for example, in their 40s or 50s, with grown children and a spouse less than 60 does not lead to an initiation of a filing.
            Earlier, I did a detailed, but unreported, study for AA 77 (not for other planes) and found the following just from SSDI records:
            16 are in SSDI (including both of those 66 or old, and two children)
            2 on board with spouses, the spouses being in SSDI, but not them
            2 Chinese
            27 not in SSDI (including three children) and survivor’s ineligible benefits
            2 not in SSDI and unclear as to survivor eligibility benefits
            10 seem eligible but not included
            59 Total
            Individual cases were studied in order to arrive at this of much information but of course is incomplete.
            Only 10 of 59 might seem eligible to be included in SSDI but were not in actuality. Some reasons for non-inclusion of those otherwise eligible would seem to be no request for survivor benefits, re-marriage of surviving parent, request not posted, or an administrative error. In any case, at least 47 are either in the index usually because of a benefit change, or are not in the index and need not be.
            If needed, the other planes could be examined similarly, but it involves a decent amount of work and I had convinced myself concerning the records.
            Of course, anyone can claim that the SSDI is falsified or the Coroner’s Office is lying. If so, let’s have it out.

          5. Lindauer does not say what records she is referring to, but those who do refer to the lack of death records, when they do say what record they are referring to, say it is the Social Security records. These records can be inaccurate and incorrect. For instance, Adam Lanza, who was said to have massacred 20 children in Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012, is recorded to have died on December 13, 2012, the day before.

          6. There is no official record that the “passengers” of AA11 and UA175 died in New York. There is no official record that the persons designated as “passengers” of these flights boarded any plane. We must not make assumptions where the government has not even produced elementary evidence. On the contrary, if the government fails to produce that elementary evidence, we may safely presume that it does not exist.

          7. I find interesting that so many do not believe the government story of 9/11 in many aspects, particularly the larger ones of what destroyed the towers and whether planes hit them at all, but yet they unhesitatingly go along with the government claim of 3.000 or so dead victims and the claim of the “jumpers”. Personally I am at least skeptical of pretty much all of it.

          8. I agree with you. But there were alot of people in the building who did die. The building was hit around 8:45, before the business day begins for many people, but not for a brokerage firm like Cantor, Fitzgerald who got hit the worst losing over 600 of its 960 employees, and Marsh McLennon (impact floors) lost 294 of its 1,900 employees (they say all other employees were “elsewhere in the building” (how odd! ) . I would expect both these firms to lose alot of employees because their business day starts before 9 a.m. and they had alot of employees. The third largest loss was AON insurance (south tower), losing 176 employees, out of 1,100 (most got out); . Port Authority (north tower Floors in the sixties) lost about 84 people, 34 of which were police; Fugi Bank lost 23 (they were in Bldg 2 and evacuated all employees in the south tower as soon as north tower was hit.). The rest were in the single or low double digits. I don’t know the number of firefighter and police, but I think it was somewhere well over 300. There were 125 people who died in the Pentagon, i.e. mostly the accountants looking for the lost 2.3 trillion, and lastly, the alleged plane passengers, i.e. maybe 0. The numbers in the WTC sound about right for two buildings that housed 430 businesses and usually around 50,000 employees (probably less on 9/11).

          9. There is some guy on the internet (Let’s Roll website) who is trying to tell people that the WTC was “vacant” on 9/11. I personally know that the building was not full, but still had alot of employees in it. I don’t know what that guy on Let’s Roll is trying to do. He is creating alot of confusion, perhaps deliberately. The numbers for Cantor Fitzgerald make sense. Marsh, McLennan’s numbers do not make sense because, in my opinion, there are too few (294 out of 1,900 employees who died, and all should have been at work at that time, and Marsh McLennan’s offices (on several floors) were all on the impact floors. The other numbers make sense, despite their being some empty floors.

          10. “Personally I am at least skeptical of pretty much all of it.”~Big Tim
            Maybe nothing at all happened in NY then, aye Tim?
            Where do you draw the line?

          11. My point is that 47 of 59 persons for AA77 are either included in the SSDI for dying on September 11, 2011, or else are absent in a manner consistent with requirements of the index (being absence on that index does not mean not dying on September 11, 2001). 12 persons are yet to be explained.
            Yes, there can be errors/issues in the SSDI, but doesn’t call into question the main point.
            The main point represents a response to those such as Dean Hartwell “Planes without Passengers”, pp. 60-61, reporting results of others, who claims that the absences on the SSDI mean “the public has been given names of people who (1) did not exist, (2) were still alive and (3) had already died!”. It does no such thing.
            Hartwell has Fetzer’s support. I had an unproductive exchange with both.

          12. “Before going any further, let’s clear something up here: the “no planes” theory of 9/11 can be summarized as follows, which I think Dean would most assuredly agree with: there were no large commercial Boeing 757 or 767s involved at any of the alleged crash sites on 9/11.” ~John Friend – Amazon review of ‘Planes without Passengers’
            This is not so. There is the original “No Planes” theory that claims that there were no planes used at all on 9/11. This theory promoted by Simon Shack, Jim Fetzer and others, contends that rather than real planes, what we have seen is either CGI special effects video, other objects such as missiles camouflaged as planes, or holograms. The “No-Commercial Planes” theory is a separate issue; one that most of the truth movement has come to accept, in one manner or another.
            Real Boeing aircraft were used in all four incidents on 9/11. Most likely military Boeing decoys painted with commercial livery. Most likely all were flown by wire; piloted by software or from another location.
            Two of these planes crashed into the WTC Towers, one was flown over the Pentagon, and the forth was blown up in the sky over Pennsylvania.

    1. I don’t know why they would even bother to put people on these planes. Even employees at the airline do not seem to know what gate this plane left from or the time it took off. There is even some indication that these planes had no scheduled flight on that date. If they can pawn off this inconsistent information about the gate, etc without the public or even airline employees showing the slightest disturbance or even mildest curiosity about these inconsistencies, then why would they need real passengers at all. Sounds like the public would accept even a pile of dung as an explanation.

  63. Roth seems to be using her analysis to rule out any possible use of Cleveland as a site for landing and phone calls. Any agreement or disagreement with this? Also, how important would it have been to have all 4 (?) planes land at the same site? Perhaps there are too many unknowns, both known and unknown, for us to guess what their thinking was.

  64. Rebekah Roth acts like she is the first person to publish anything about the “Flight Termination System” on the planes, but Joe Vialls was the first person to write about it, which he did two weeks after 911 happened. Further, what Vialls said about this device being installed on the planes was repudiated by several people. The matter was not raised again. I keep mentioning Joe Vialls with regard to what Rebekah Roth is saying for another reason. I have always been suspicious of Joe Vialls, and I am not the only person who feels that way. I have been studying the Port Arthur massacre for some years now, and apparently, an Australian police officer also investigating Port Arthur expressed his opinion of Joe Viallswho was living in Australia at the time and who also wrote extensively about the Port Arthur massacre. Joe Vialls is allegedly dead, but this man McGregor does not think that is true about Vialls either. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=81545 Joe Vialls, or at least what Joe Vialls said about Flight Termination System is simply another reason to suspect Rebekah Roth is up to no good.

  65. Anastasia,
    I start a new thread only because replying is not indicated for your message earlier today.
    You write “There were 125 people who died in the Pentagon, i.e. mostly the accountants looking for the lost 2.3 trillion, and lastly, the alleged plane passengers, i.e. maybe 0.”
    It is quite possible that AA11 and UA175 left Boston with passengers, had drone substitutions, and the passengers and crew died elsewhere, which would make 0 correct in NYC. I tried to find the NYC Coroner’s list of those for whom it claims to have found concrete identification such as DNA (a majority but not by very much), but I haven’t been able. Might you know if this list is available? I don’t expect a surprise, but we won’t know without checking. Thanks.

    1. May I ask you a question, Mr. Zarembka. Do you feel confident that there were planes with passengers taking off from those airports, and if you do, what do you feel is the best evidence of that? For example, is it some of the phone calls, and if so, which ones; or is it some of the interviews with the surviving members of the families, and if so, which ones; or is it the records of the airlines,e tc. . It seems to me that each one of these matters have glitches in them. In other words, some of the phone calls, i.e. Barbara Olsen, are not credible; some of the interviews with the surviving members of families are not credible, some of the records of the airlines are not credible. One can say that the evidence that there was no Barbara Olsen call even rises to the level of proof. In other words, they were “caught” with Barbara Olsen. Would this not allow one to conclude that all calls were fraudulent? It is clear enough for me that they are willing to kill people to get what they want, but is there anything in particular about this matter that convinces you that passengers on planes truly took off from the airports that day?

      1. There were 213 passengers and crew reported to be on the four 9-11 flights, listing widely varying home locations. Consider those 213. (Incidentally, I carry no water for Barbara Olson being on the flight AA77.) Or … consider ONE who I picked out first from the AA 11 list provided at http://www.legacy.com/sept11/Story.aspx?PersonID=91768&location=3:
        Lynn Edwards Angell
        American Flight 11
        Her memorial page says
        “She knew all 66 kids by name. She sent each one a postcard from Cape Cod this summer.” [N.B.: closest airport is Boston]
        Profile published in THE NEW YORK TIMES on November 26, 2001.
        “A Memorial Mass will be held Monday, September 17, 2001 for David Angell and his wife Lynn Edwards Angell who perished together on the hi-jacked American Airlines Flight #11 …”
        Many people go to the memorial. Has anybody said, “no, she wasn’t at Logan, it is lie.”

        In other words, in the public information, 66 kids plus many others who knew her are told that she died on AA11 having flown out of Boston. Well, maybe she didn’t die at WTC1. But who has come out and said that she wasn’t even at Logan, but instead … ?
        Now multiply this problem for another 212 persons, whether or not one objects to the single example I have offered.
        If someone claims that, yes, the passengers were at the departure lounge but then manipulated and AA 11 never took off, well, I can listen and evaluate. And so forth.
        But to claim 213 people weren’t even at the airports, in spite of very widespread, publicized statements about where they were that morning, well, it is just not believable to me. It is fantasy.

        P.S. One person, Michael E. Schechter, gave a one star to Hartwell’s book (among quite a few others) saying: “Can only provide one star. Unfortunately cannot provide zero stars, as I have “irrefutable evidence” that one of my colleagues died on the plane that was destined for the Pentagon, and I have seen the pain and suffering of her husband and children. These conspiracy theorists are ridiculous. And those that follow them are even more so.”
        Should we summarily reject any such posting? Not I.

        1. From my air travel experience I find it peculiar that all four flights had so few passengers. Did anybody check what was passenger load on the respective flights on previous Tuesdays?

          1. In my chapter in “Hidden History of 9-11”, p. 50, I considered the comparable Tuesday after the Labor Day weekend in 2005. While we need to consider how many other flights were available, the comparable American flight for AA 11 had about 120 rather than the 76 on 9-11-2001. Yes, it is a bit of a puzzle.
            UA 93 had only 33 but it was new service that had only begun on 9-05-2001.
            The 9/11 Commission did not ignore this issue, and had a report for earlier summer 2001, seemingly Tuesdays but not clearly stated. It concluded that the AA flights were not unusual but that the UA flights were “well below their averages.” (What was its referenced flight for UA 93 isn’t stated.)

          2. That is a very good question. If Rebekah Roth is who she says she is, she could find things like this out. She has said transcontinental flights are always full, and that would make sense that they would try to fill them because of the expense of flying across the continent. Roth could be far more helpful if she would write more about the procedures of airlines, with respect to these things. But she doesn’t. She goes off on matters she would have little knowledge about, or knowledge that she has gained in the same way as we all have gained it.

        2. Here is another interesting tid bit about Mr. Angell. I capitalized what I want you to see.
          David Angell was born in West Barrington, Rhode Island in 1947. He had little desire to be in showbiz as a child, indeed he once planned on becoming a priest like his brother Kenneth. He thought of becoming a doctor for a while before he went to Providence College, where he gained a Bachelor’s Degree in English Literature.
          David Angell was a multiple Emmy Award winner as the creator and executive producer, along with Peter Casey and David Lee, of the hit comedy series “Frasier”. David was born in West Barrington, RI, and he received a bachelor’s degree in English Literature from Providence College. HE ENTERED THE ARMY UPON GRADUATION WHERE HE WORKED FOR 2.5 years UNTIL 1972. DAVID HAD A CLERICAL ASSIGNMENT AT THE PENTAGON IN 1972.
          After returning to civilian life, David wrote manuals for insurance companies and also worked as a methods analyst. One day he watched The Mary Tyler Moore Show and wondered if he could write like the writers of the show. David wrote some scripts, his first first script was sold to the producers of the Annie Flynn series. Five years before he sold his second script to Archie Bunker’s Place. David virtually worked in every temporary job known to mankind. Luckily for him two of the producers of Rhoda picked up his scripts and said he showed promise.
          David and his wife Lynn sold their house and moved to LA in 1977. He managed to get a job writing some scripts for Barney Miller, but was then unemployed for 5 years. He stuck at it though, believing he could really do it. He managed to find work in the early 1980’s, writing scripts for Family Ties, The Bob Newhart Show and Condo before he joined Cheers in 1983 and became a staff writer on Cheers, where he met Peter Casey and David Lee in 1985. David won an Emmy for his script for the Cheers episode “Old Flames”, where Sam Malone’s friend says he can break Sam and Diane up in 24 hours.
          Angell joined forces with Peter Casey and David Lee as Cheers supervising producers and writers. Since then, the trio has received 37 Emmy Award nominations and won 24 Emmy Awards, including the above-mentioned for “Frasier”, as well as an Outstanding Comedy Series Emmy for Cheers, in 1989, which Angell, Casey, Lee and the series’ other producers shared, and Outstanding Writing Emmy for Cheers, which Angell received in 1984. After working together as producers on the hit comedy series Cheers for NBC-TV, Angell, Casey and Lee formed Grub Street Productions. In 1990, they created and executive produced the hit comedy series Wings, which received critical and ratings success during its seven season run. On September 11, 2001, Angell and his wife, Lynn, were killed when Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked American Airlines Flight #11 and deliberately crashed it into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York.

          1. In 1972, males in the U.S. were subject to the military draft. Why clerical service at the Pentagon for David Angell, I haven’t a clue.
            As to the first link about the Rollings and the Angells on 9-10, there may well be the game being played as mentioned, but I don’t accept a reference to Angell’s “ALLEGED” death, David or Lynn.
            Nor does my basic point depend upon any one or two persons but the whole range of persons who knew 213 listed passengers.

          2. Example of a career from a graduate of Providence College. Note all that “Catholic” education beneath his name
            In addition to overseeing Bay State College’s Criminal Justice program, Professor Morrissette can often be found in the classroom, where he teaches Criminal Justice and Humanities.
            Professor Morrissette’s own studies have centered on philosophies of justice and their theoretical and practical applications in the criminal justice system.
            His first career position was with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) where he worked as a Federal Police Officer. He then transferred to the CIA Security Division where he was trained and worked as a Polygraph Examiner and Counter-Intelligence Interrogator.
            Professor Morrissette is President of a national Forensic Consulting and Training Firm which was founded in 1997. The firm specializes in Lie Detection, Forensic Investigations and Criminal Interrogation.
            Ph.D. Salve Regina University
            MA Salve Regina University
            BA Providence College

          3. http://www.providence.edu/HISTORY/Pages/careers.aspx
            Providence College – Career Opportunities
            Some graduates in history pursue careers teaching history or in archival or curatorial positions. Others are attorneys, judges, stockbrokers, FBI and CIA officers, bank officers, corporation executives, priests, accountants, civil servants in many branches of government, teachers of economics, religion, mathematics, sociology, military officers, journalists, college deans, librarians, ship captain, and even college president[ours!].

        3. Let me give you this piece of general knowledge also. Angell was a “good” Catholic, and by “good”, I mean “practicing.” His brother was a priest, and later a bishop. He went to Providence College, a Catholic College. I happen to know that the Security Agencies, particularly the CIA, solicits alot of their people from Catholic Colleges. The founder of Christendom College, Warren Carroll, was an actual CIA agent, and this can be established by you very easily because while he never bragged about it, it is well documented. Carroll was very much involved in the JFK Assassination. One of his books on heroism was found in Jack Ruby’s car when he killed Oswald (giving him that silly excuse), and Carroll represented (before they were suspected) that group of fake “conservatives” who put up that “black-bordered ad” on Kennedy which was published at the time of his assassination. These “conservatives” were not truly “conservatives”. They were men who joined the mlitary after WWII, started this group in Germany, and then almost immediately set up shop in Texas, hired Warren Carroll who helped them as a lawyer rent space for their group and represented them in other capacities while they were in Texas. They became “suspects” in the JFK Assassination, and while many fled Texas, one of them wound up testifying before the Warren Commission. The Security Agencies, like the CIA, like to have men in their organization who know the meaning of “obedience” – “blind donkey obedience”, a Jesuit teaching that is the opposite teaching of the true and ancient teaching of the Church.

        4. Of course, you know that there is NO WAY that Angell was a “clerk” in the Pentagon. He was graduated from Providence College. He was a very smart man. He certainly was NOT in the typing pool at the Pentagon.

        5. My guess is that David Angell was in ROTC, joined the army after graduation and was an officer in the Army and at the Pentagon.

        6. The info does not wholly jive together.
          He was born April 1946
          Here is an article about Lynn Angell, when they met at Cape Cod in 1969 and when they married in 1971. http://firemansams.blogspot.com/2011/01/lynn-angell-age-dilemma.html
          Upon graduation from Providence college (they don’t give year but it must have been in the area of 1968), he entered the Army, and in 1972 had a “clerical job” at the Pentagon.
          In 1971, he married Lynn and they moved to Alabama? http://www.angellfoundation.org/content.php?pgID=240
          shortly, thereafter, they moved back to Providence.http://www.angellfoundation.org/content.php?pgID=240
          In 1977, they moved to California because of his “scripts”

        7. If he was born in 1946, he graduated from college in 1968, unless he did not go to college right away and I doubt that. He was in the army for four years, and only then worked at the Pentagon in 1972, which means that after a four year stint in the army, he went to work in the Pentagon. Clearly, he was not living in Alabama or in Providence, as they say he was. He had to be living in Washington DC at some point, but they do not say that in his bio. They say he lived in Alabama in 1971, and from there he moved back to Providence, and that simply is not true. He had to be living in or around the DC area.

        8. Stephen Rollins, who planted this phony story about the Angell’s calling him the day before to wish him a Happy Birthday. Rollins said theAngell’s were in Boston to visit their sick mother (all parents were deceased at that time) His bio info is published below. It is noteworthy that his family is full of military people, and it is also noteworthy that in his line of work in HOllywood, there would seem to be no connection with Angell who wrote sitcoms. Lastly, it looks like Rollins gave up Hollywood in 1995, indicating that Angell and he were not working together in Hollywood since 1995. The story about this call appears to be wholly fabricated. Why? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1087297/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
          Stephen Rollins
          Stephen Rollins (born Stephen Emmanuel Rollins) is an American actor, writer, producer, and director. He began his film career with his acting debut as an extra in the motion pictures “Glory” and “Career Opportunities” and his first speaking roles in the television series “In the Heat of the Night” and “I’ll Fly Away”. He would go on to appear in over 30 feature films and television productions.
          Rollins was born on September 10th, to Dianne (born Dorothy Dianne Hicks), a telecommunications specialist with Bell South and President of the Atlanta chapter of the Telephone Pioneers of America, and James Rollins, a Fulton County, Georgia deputy sheriff. Stephen’s father served in the United States Army Rangers, and his Uncle Edward Rollins served in the Marines and worked in various roles within the Government. Stephen is the youngest of four children, two step brothers and one step-sister from his father’s previous marriage, and is a graduate of Lithia Springs High School, in Lithia Springs, Georgia. Following graduation, Stephen continued his studies at Mercer University, focusing on Communications, Business Management, and Law.
          In 1991, Stephen added producer to his resume, launching his own production company and producing the short film Mikey Was Here, which garnered Academy Award “Best Live Action Short Film” consideration. Stephen quickly established relationships that flourished with opportunity with many of Hollywood’s studios, gaining the ability to take projects directly to the heads of Acquisitions at studios such as Universal Studios and 20th Century Fox. Throughout the early to mid 90’s, his career continued to successfully progress, collecting various acting awards and being presented with the “Young Filmmaker’s Horizons Award” for his accomplishments in front of and behind the camera. Late in 1995, Stephen briefly experienced studio life himself, working with Sony Pictures Studios withing the film and television vault department. With the scheduling conflicts that this position created, acting, producing, and hockey, Stephen decided that this position was not for him. In 1996, Stephen was cast as the lead in his first leading role, the UPN sitcom Billy’s Magic. Production never moved forward from the pilot, and soon after, Stephen left the industry in late 1995 and returned to Atlanta to care for both of his parents after learning that both were diagnosed with cancer six days apart, and remained there following their deaths.
          Stephen spent his early years playing sports, mainly hockey and baseball. In 1993, Stephen began his ventures in professional hockey, playing with the “New Jersey Rock n’ Rollers of the RHI league, a professional roller hockey league. Since, Stephen has skated with several different NHL, AHL, and IHL teams until an ankle injury in 2004 finally took him off skates.
          In the summer of 2004, among the midst