9/11 Bombshell: Methodical Deception -- Rebekah Roth

a reply to: micpsi

And you miss the significance of Nova's post. That those 2,000 odd people are experts in architecture/engineering or demolition, which is not reality.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: micpsi

And you miss the significance of Nova's post. That those 2,000 odd people are experts in architecture/engineering or demolition, which is not reality.

No one in A&E for 9/11 Truth ever claimed they were experts. That is a strawman argument set up by Nova and people like you to create a bogus argument for yourselves. Only it doesn't work, because I did not miss the significance of Nova's post. Rather, I saw THROUGH it. Unlike you.

a reply to: micpsi

Good. So we are agreed. A/E911truth, Pilots49/11 truth and FF4 9/11 truth are fringe groups unworthy of any serious attention.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

They are "experts" in their fields......where their colleagues openly laugh at them. The box stacker, the Seattle firefighter, and of course, Robby Balsamo are jokes when it comes to their professions, they are good however, at making money off of those who have turned 9/11 conspiracy into a religion.

Rob Balsamo and I, have gone head-to-head in another forum. I caught him spewing disinformation and deliberately distorting facts. In fact, he'd committed so many blunders in regard to aviation and aircraft performance, I questioned whether he was actually a real pilot.

I began flight training in 1969 and received my pilot license in 1970, and I was appalled how blatantly Rob Balsamo distorted facts and evidence, and amazingly, there were people who actually believed the false and misleading information he was spewing.

a reply to: Salander

Holy Smokes! From what I have seen so far, you might be the largest source of disinformation here.

How would you like a challenge?

Prove me wrong with scientific facts and evidence and do so in front of everyone here. If you are unwilling or unable to backup what you say, then you have no case and we will leave it at that.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: micpsi

Good. So we are agreed. A/E911truth, Pilots49/11 truth and FF4 9/11 truth are fringe groups unworthy of any serious attention.

Er, no. These members are qualified scientists and academics and airline employees whose views are worth listening to far more than those that frequent internet forums and pretend to be more knowledgeable.

Roth has many unique insights into events of 9/11 stemming from her experience as a airline stewardess. But she DOES make factual errors. For example, on her Classic Redneck Radio interview,

she states that Mrs Bhutto confirmed that bin Laden died from liver disease in December, 2001. On the contrary, Mrs Bhutto claimed that he was murdered by Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, who was reported by The Times of India (see here) shortly after 9/11 as having wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the supposed leader of the 9/11 hijackers, on the orders of the (then) ISI Director-General Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad. It is important, therefore, not to trust as accurate EVERYTHING she says as though she were some whistleblower who knows the inside story about 9/11. She has done her own research and what she is presenting is her own understanding about what happened surrounding the four planes and their passengers. It needs to be investigated objectively, not uncritically accepted as the truth, as she has already shown that she is just as fallible as anyone else, and sometimes she gets her facts wrong when she merely reports what she misread or misheard on the internet.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Salander

Holy Smokes! From what I have seen so far, you might be the largest source of disinformation here.

How would you like a challenge?

Prove me wrong with scientific facts and evidence and do so in front of everyone here. If you are unwilling or unable to backup what you say, then you have no case and we will leave it at that.

You cannot prove yourself right, not once have you done so. You are in chronic cognitive dissonance, as it's been 14 years gone by with much new information learned, yet you keep repeating the same old stale claims with the same old stale pictures.

Why should I waste time with a "challenge" from you?

Peace, out.

a reply to: micpsi

So, the Bin Laden family is wrong? Especially his wives and children?

a reply to: micpsi

Which is it? Are they experts or not? Either way, it does not change the fact that architects laugh at Richard Gage. Firefighters think Erik Lawyer is an idiot and pilots think the same of Rob Balsamo.

a reply to: Salander

You cannot prove yourself right, not once have you done so.

Your comment is false. Let's take a look here to see if you are correct. Are you denying this wreckage is from American 77?

Photo: American 77 Wreckage

It is obvious the wreckage was not from a missile.

You are in chronic cognitive dissonance, as it's been 14 years gone by with much new information learned, yet you keep repeating the same old stale claims with the same old stale pictures.

I posted those photos for a very good reason, and that is, to prove my points.

Why should I waste time with a "challenge" from you?

One reason is, you have nothing to challenge me with and I knew it. Have you ever thought as to why I posted that challenge to you in the first place? Think about it!

If you attempted to use false and misleading information from a conspiracy website in response to my challenge, I would have taken advantage of your attempt to do so because those 9/11 conspiracy websites are well-known for spewing disinformation.

Your comment is false. Let's take a look here to see if you are correct. Are you denying this wreckage is from American 77?

You expect us to believe thous are parts from a 757, you have quite an imagination.

Why don't you send them to Boeing for comment and get back to us.

a reply to: wildb

You expect us to believe thous are parts from a 757, you have quite an imagination.

You have to understand that reality does not depend on what you think. Now, prove to us that this wreckage belongs to anything but to a B-757.

Photo: American 77 RB-211-535 Engine Wreckage at the Pentagon

RB-211-535 Engine Parts Log

RB-211-535 Wreclage sat the Pentgon

Now, the challenge for you is to prove me wrong, and do so in front of us all. Otherwise, you have no case.

originally posted by: wildb

Your comment is false. Let's take a look here to see if you are correct. Are you denying this wreckage is from American 77?

You expect us to believe thous are parts from a 757, you have quite an imagination.

Why don't you send them to Boeing for comment and get back to us.

None of that evidence was found in front of that hole and on that day. It was added later as the public (quite rightly so) had doubts that a plane hit the Pentagon.

This bit was added and photographed the taken away



It was small, funny shape and surprisingly not burnt even though the OS said the plane disintegrated!

I find it very laughable despite the for's and against's the OS that anyone with half a brain would believe the OS.

WTC 1, 2 and 7 especially 7 were obvious demolitions. The Pentagon was either a Missile or a bomb planted just inside but no way a plane.

Shanksville is just plain stupid!

9/11 is a complete Farce from Start to finish and so obvious on multiple fronts. And it all ties in to there THEATRE WARS They planned on that PNAC document released 1 year to the month before their False Flag 9/11.

How could anyone believe or even not question 9/11 because of their record. Don't you think that their past False Flags may lead you to even consider that 9/11 was POSSIBLY a False Flag too given the obvious evidence? COME ON!

Just for argument's sake regarding the towers.

'Who would have thought that using jet fuel could collapse buildings? One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 am and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and black smoke. We can see pictures of the smoke and flames shooting from the windows. Then by 9:03 the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen. But by 10:29 am the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat that I find so amazing, It melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground. And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision again with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower. I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel, I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.'

And what are squibs? Oh yeah, eruptions emitted during a controlled demolition! Danny Jowenko said that WTC-7 was a Controlled Demolition and suspected that WTC 1 and 2 were CD's too and after that phone call he received from a Canadian guy where he said yes definitely that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition his car was found wrapped round a tree with him dead in suspicious circumstances?

Come on people!

And explosions reported by multiple people from all professions including the media are nothing?

It's obvious that WTC 7 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. WTC 1 and 2 were also CD's.

It really despairs me to see people believing in the crap the media and Government TELL THEM TO BELIEVE!!!

a reply to: Nova937

Transcript from CNN, September 11, 2001

"JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy.

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane. "

Jamie McIntyre was at the Pentagon when the plane hit. He was on scene throughout the rest of the day. He clearly saw pieces of the airliner wreckage. The funny part is, the above paragraph is from the same report he did that truthers have tried for years to use to make it look like he did not believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

This is the part that is consistently misused by "truthers"..

"MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon"

One problem, that is taking him out of context in the worst way. Here it is, in its entirety.

"WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. "

He was answering a question asked about reports that some had thought Flight 77 had hit the ground first and then hit the Pentagon. Mr. McIntyre is clearly saying that from what he saw, the airliner did not hit the ground first. He also restates that the pieces that he can see are small enough a person could pick them up.......but, that has not stopped the truth movement from misrepresenting his words that day.

transcripts.cnn.com...

You have to understand that reality does not depend on what you think. Now, prove to us that this wreckage belongs to anything but to a B-757

No one has been able to prove that, I don't think you can either..

a reply to: Nova937

This bit was added and photographed the taken away

That is false. That part is part of the fuselage of American 77.

Photo: Americsn 77 Wreckage

I find it very laughable despite the for's and against's the OS that anyone with half a brain would believe the OS.

It is even more laughable that there are truthers who believe that demo explosives do not make noises when detonated. Case in point, no sound of demo explosions as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed.

Who would have thought that using jet fuel could collapse buildings?

The same way that fire affected these steel beams.

Photo: Fire Weakened Steel Beams

And what are squibs? Oh yeah, eruptions emitted during a controlled demolition!

The squibs were there result of compressed air, not explosives. Let's take a look at a demolition process that does not used explosives and you will see the same squibs you saw as the WTC buildings collapsed.

PHoto 1: Verinage Demolition Squibs

Photo 2: Verinage Demolition Squibs



Compressed air squeezed out of a container as the container is suddenly crushed was something I learned in grade school, which also applies to compressed air inside of buildings as they collapse. The laws of physic, you understand since the interior of a building consist mostly of air. Where did you think all of that air was going to go as the WTC buildings collapsed?

I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel, I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.'

Truthers speak of melted steel, which was not the case. Taking another case as a case in point, let's take a look here.

Kader Toy Factory Fire

At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burnt very fast... Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures.

A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Have you ever wondered why fire protection is added to the steel structures of buildings?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Nova937

Transcript from CNN, September 11, 2001

"JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy.

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane. "

Jamie McIntyre was at the Pentagon when the plane hit. He was on scene throughout the rest of the day. He clearly saw pieces of the airliner wreckage. The funny part is, the above paragraph is from the same report he did that truthers have tried for years to use to make it look like he did not believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

This is the part that is consistently misused by "truthers"..

"MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon"

One problem, that is taking him out of context in the worst way. Here it is, in its entirety.

"WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. "

He was answering a question asked about reports that some had thought Flight 77 had hit the ground first and then hit the Pentagon. Mr. McIntyre is clearly saying that from what he saw, the airliner did not hit the ground first. He also restates that the pieces that he can see are small enough a person could pick them up.......but, that has not stopped the truth movement from misrepresenting his words that day.

transcripts.cnn.com...

CNN = Criminal News Network is your first mistake. Full of liars and crisis actors!

a reply to: Nova937

WTC 1, 2 and 7 especially 7 were obvious demolitions.

If that is the case, please point out the time lines where demo explosions are heard in the following videos.







In case you don't know what demo explosions sound like, you can review this video.



Now, you can go back and review the videos of WTC1, and WTC2, and WTC7 and point out to us, the time lines where demo explosions are heard in those videos now that you know what demo explosions sound like.

The Pentagon was either a Missile or a bomb planted just inside but no way a plane.

Considering that people reported seeing an aircraft strike the Pentagon, but no missile, makes your statement incorrect by that very fact, not to mention the recovery of B-757 wreckage at the Pentagon.

Shanksville is just plain stupid!

Please clarify for us.

a reply to: Nova937

And they were the first to interview William Rodriguez. So, to use your logic, he must be a liar too. Thank you. First A/E 911 is to be disregarded, now William Rodriguez. Thank you.