Where Did the Planes Go? (Rebekah Roth exposes another piece of the 9/11 puzzle)

[jaybee]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Paul (here)
... Someone else hears first, someone who is part of an organized effort, with deep surveillance capabilities and deep control of most of the media, and their organizations do whatever need be done to squelch, confuse, discredit, redirect, silence or destroy such leaks. That's an obvious part of how such operations are planned and executed. ...

To be more, but still not entirely, explicit, such operations include encouraging and supporting trolls (who may or may not realize they are serving in such a role) to post the usual confusions on Web forum threads that are getting too close to the truth.

I hope you're not suggesting I'm a troll Paul...

To clarify..All the things I say about 9/11 are my own thoughts and research...

I have my own theories about that day as you might remember from some time past...

I like to reverse engineer Roths narrative to see if she is covering up stuff that fits in with my theories..

For example...in one of her interviews she explicitly declares...'No planes were shot down by the way'

mmmmmmm


I listened to the 'Elizabeth Nelson' interview with Bill, again, the other night..and I have to say here and now that 'Elizabeth' comes over as far more believable and sincere than RR.....IMO

.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by jaybee (here)
I hope you're not suggesting I'm a troll Paul...

I would not pretend to know what conscious awareness or intentions you have.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by jaybee (here)
I listened to the 'Elizabeth Nelson' interview with Bill, again, the other night..and I have to say here and now that 'Elizabeth' comes over as far more believable and sincere than RR.....IMO

As I wrote here, several months ago:

=======

My current guess, in good part from Rebekah Roth's work, is that both the well known flight paths for the four flights ..., and Norman Mineta's testimony, are so far removed from reality as to be about as useful to understanding 9/11 as studies of the Easter Bunny would be to understanding the real historical meaning of Christmas.

It doesn't surprise me that the "Elizabeth Nelson", who Bill heard speak, witnessed military officers discussing and ordering a shoot-down (and doing so in genuine sincerity.) But I have no way of knowing what was painting on the radar screens that those officers were dealing with, and no way of knowing if there even was a real "flying hunk of metal" in the sky that was being painted, much less what any such flying hunk of metal might have actually been.

Apparently, the "real" 9/11 planes didn't fly anywhere close to the claimed paths, there were false targets being painted on both FAA (civilian) and Norad (military) radar, and real targets being hidden, again on both radar systems.

=======

Since the time of my above post, Rebekah has reported obtaining, via Freedom of Information requests filed by others who shared what they obtained with her, FAA flight data for those supposed hijacked 9/11 flights ... that was uploaded hours before the flights and events of 9/11. This provides further confirmation that the publicly reported flight paths are a deliberately provided part of the false 9/11 story.

[awakeningmom]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by jaybee (here)
.


Westover Reserve Base essentially being closed on 9/11 is central to Roth's narrative ... so all the dastardly deeds could be done -

Here's more evidence to contradict that - although like all good fabrications a grain of truth is there in that the base, when it went to 'Delta' security level was closed to 'non-mission people'.... but to all intents and purposes it was apparently not closed - not by a long chalk -


Again - it took me minutes to find this link - but from memory, I think RR said she tried to debunk herself for a month...!

scroll down to page 12...


http://www.westover.afrc.af.mil/Port...1/sept2011.pdf

The pdf meta-data in that September edition of the Patriot shows that it was created and modified on Sept 7, 2001, four days before 9/11. So how does it come to contain an article reprinted from the October Patriot edition, that was post 9/11, and that shows a fair bit of reporting and production quality that would take a few days to accomplish ?

My guess would be that that pdf is a combination of portions of both the Sept (pre 9/11) and Oct (post 9/11) editions of the Patriot ... which is not a crime nor is it decisive evidence, but is a bit confusing and puzzling.

Now ... as to whether I'd trust something published in such a journal, from that source, a month after (the Oct 2001 portions) 9/11 ... well, no, I wouldn't.

Can you please explain what you mean by the meta-data showing it was created and modified in September 2001? The PDF is an article from 2011, not 2001, even though the article that Jaybee is referencing was "reprinted from the October 2001 issue of the Patriot." Is this 2011 PDF showing edits from September 2001? I'm confused.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by jaybee (here)
I listened to the 'Elizabeth Nelson' interview with Bill, again, the other night..and I have to say here and now that 'Elizabeth' comes over as far more believable and sincere than RR.....IMO

That's how I contacted Rebekah in the first place, by sending her that interview *.

Rebekah's response was that she thanked me, and that it was very interesting, and that she never had said that no plane was shot down (or crashed, or anything else). She said that, however, this was NOT Flight 93.

I took the point totally. Rebekah was correct, in that in Elizabeth's interview, at no stage did she hear, or know, or verify, that this was identified as Flight 93.

It was just a passenger plane that was not responding to radio after repeated requests, and was flying into restricted airspace. So they shot it down... just by the book. They had to. It need not even have been covered up, as they were acting quite properly under the law.

It's always been everyone's assumption (including mine) that that was the actual Flight 93. But this is consistent with the idea that all four 'real' planes were 'replaced' by something else, whatever the four replacements were.

There is no anomaly here.

* Elizabeth Nelson (pseudonym) is a witness I knew personally, who as a young Army medical trainee was in the room where the decision was made to shoot down what she assumed was Flight 93. Do see this page, and listen to her interview:
http://projectcamelot.org/elizabeth_nelson_flight_93.html

[jaybee]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by jaybee (here)
I hope you're not suggesting I'm a troll Paul...

I would not pretend to know what conscious awareness or intentions you have.

I love a good mystery and solving it to my satisfaction...if I can

9/11 is a big one and I like to look at it like a detective would...or a lawyer in a court of law would...

If you lived in Britain I would invite you to meet me for a cup of tea to put your mind at rest that I'm a real person, with no ulterior motives..
living a normal ish life in a town in the Midlands, England..

The internet is fraught with paranoia when it comes to Conspiracy....and I can be paranoid about it all myself as well ... who's who....who's genuine who's not - it's a minefield and at the end of the day we just have our own judgement -

.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
Can you please explain what you mean by the meta-data showing it was created and modified in September 2001? The PDF is an article from 2011, not 2001, even though the article that Jaybee is referencing was "reprinted from the October 2001 issue of the Patriot." Is this 2011 PDF showing edits from September 2001? I'm confused.

Aha - you're right. I was confused on that point. Your eyes are doing fine. I misread 2011 as 2001. The font on my computer screen seems to be getting smaller over the years.

[jaybee]

.

@Bill....I personally think it was Flight 93 that 'Elizabeth' overheard being talked about because of the geography..

aaahhhhhhhh noooooo.. now I will have to try and find the interview where RR said 'no planes were shot down'

that might take some time because I don't have loads of time to devote to it...I will get back to you if/when I find it

.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by jaybee (here)
@Bill....I personally think it was Flight 93 that 'Elizabeth' overheard being talked about because of the geography..

I understand you think that. I did, too.

But that's not actually logical. It was simply a plane, of some kind, not responding to radio, that was shot down over Shanksville. Nothing at all to say it was the actual Flight 93, except from the fabricated phone calls.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by jaybee (here)
@Bill....I personally think it was Flight 93 that 'Elizabeth' overheard being talked about because of the geography..

The geography of the officially reported flight paths might match that analysis. It is most likely, in my view, that the officially reported flight paths, as uploaded before the flights even took off on the morning of 9/11, are not the actual flight paths.

[awakeningmom]

Thanks, Paul. And Jaybee. Like Jaybee, I also have an interest in reverse engineering Roth's narrative. Not to discredit her or make any ad hominem attacks on her as a person. But I still want to see what parts of her story can be corroborated with other "evidence." And you would think that there would be an easy way to verify whether Westover was oddly closed to most reservists that day -- or a bustling Delta mode base used, in part, for refueling fighter jets involved that day.

I have to say, while the story of the busy "'closed to non-mission people" Westover base in Delta mode initially sounds more plausible to me than Roth's narrative, I also view this military-generated article with some suspicion.

First, if you noticed, there are TWO military guys who just so happened to be on bridges in NYC seeing both the first and second planes crashing into the Towers (see insert on PDF page 13, where the first guy just so happened to be on the George Washington Bridge at the precisely right moment to watch Plane 1 hit, and then PDF page 14, where another guy was on the Brooklyn Bridge and just happened to see Plane 2 hit....really?).

Second, to me, it's also interesting that this article explaining what was happening at WAB comes out in 2011, when Roth's books are probably generating a lot of interest in Westover. Yes, lots of 9-11 propaganda comes out around 9-11 every year, but if this is the first time the Patriot magazine has explained what was going on at WAB since 2001, the timing is rather suspicious. No doubt they've received at least SOME calls in response to Roth's work?

I'm not a Roth supporter or a Roth detractor at this point. Just considering all the information, information from Roth, from Jaybee, and from others still trying to unravel the mystery.

[awakeningmom]

Oops - I guess I have to debunk my own second reason for finding the Patriot article suspicious, since the article came out in 2011, not this year. If this Patriot article was published in 2011, then it wouldn't have been in response to Roth's 2014 books! The "Reservists Remember 9/11 Tanker Mission" story, however (posted by Jaybee above with a link), did just come out in 2014.

Also, I just noticed yet another direct connection is made in the Patriot story about actual eyewitnesses to the plane attacks. In addition to being on the GW bridge to watch Plane 1, and the Brooklyn Bridge to watch Plane 2, another interviewed person's nephew was in the room "that was demolished" by Plane 3 at the Pentagon. Now, not that surprising that someone in the military might have other family in the military who might have been at the Pentagon....but pretty convenient to be on that GW Bridge before anyone supposedly knew a Plane would hit Tower 1.....

[jaybee]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
That's how I contacted Rebekah in the first place, by sending her that interview *.

Rebekah's response was that she thanked me, and that it was very interesting, and that she never had said that no plane was shot down (or crashed, or anything else). She said that, however, this was NOT Flight 93.

Hello again - well that didn't take as long as I thought it would - to find the reference I wanted. I just had a look at a couple of interviews I watched and it was quite near the beginning of one -

From memory I thought she had said that 'No planes were shot down, by the way'


Re the bolded above...what she said to you...

And in this interview in the bit starting at 7:11 (the actual quote coming at 7:44)

she says...

"Nothing was shot down by the way"

The video was released on 10th Sept (2015)

make of that what you will......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdP95oSoOFk

[Wide-Eyed]

Putin states and puts it all out there in his UN speech calling for coalition against fascism. The US, Neo-Con , Project for New American Century's fake war on terror and their connections in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Corporate/Fascist multinationals are going to be exposed by Russia and Putin finding hard evidence of US/Isreal/Saudi arming creating ISIS. Good work REBEKAH keep connecting dots.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=23&v=eyt6tY_PxLo

[Bill Ryan]

.
This...
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015...on-may-be.html
… is an interesting article.

I was e-mailed a couple of days ago by an Avalon supporter with quite a long, detailed analysis of this — that Rebekah Roth, and a quite different internet personality called Monika Gainor, are the same person. As best I can see at the moment, this may well be correct. Rebekah and Monika have a very similar appearance, voice, and sometimes use the same phraseology. And, of course, neither may be her real name.

There's no crime or any kind of impropriety here — and logically, of course, it doesn't invalidate any of Rebekah's work at all. My strong view is that it stands very compellingly: basically, that the planes were flown to Westover Air Force Base shortly after takeoff, the infamous cellphone calls were all made on the ground in a hanger, most of the passengers and all the crew members were murdered, and different planes or disguised missiles (of some kind) were deployed in the events which ensued that day.

But there may be a further slew of criticism and controversy now coming Rebekah's way. 9/11 has always been a hotbed of conflict, and there's not a single 9/11 researcher without a large number of detractors! We may hear more about this in days to come.

[ThePythonicCow]

My wild 9/11 theory #27 (please know that my wild 9/11 theories #1 through #26 have all been thoroughly discredited):

Rekekah Roth and Jim Fetzer are both covertly speaking for elements of the Anglo-American-Zionist intelligence agencies -- Rebekah (an alias) for one faction endeavoring to reveal some more of (likely not all of) the truth, and Jim for another faction endeavoring to keep some of those same elements hidden, or at least endeavoring to keep the 9/11 controversy bubbling for some reason, perhaps just to continue the distractions and fears.

In other words ...

I figure the odds are quite high that Rebekah's appearance and name are a disguise, and

I find Jim's grounds for discrediting Rebekah to be rather thin - just (1) that Rebekah's identity is disguised, (2) a plausible conjecture as to who she really is, or at least another of her aliases, a CIA agent, and (3) the claim that the absence of flights 11 and 77 in the BTS [Bureau of Transportation Statistics] data base for that day really is evidence that those flights never left the ground that day.

[Slorri]

Posted by Paul (here)
My wild 9/11 theory #27 (please know that my wild 9/11 theories #1 through #26 have all been thoroughly discredited):

Rekekah Roth and Jim Fetzer are both covertly speaking for elements of the Anglo-American-Zionist intelligence agencies -- Rebekah (an alias) for one faction endeavoring to reveal some more of (likely not all of) the truth, and Jim for another faction endeavoring to keep some of those same elements hidden, or at least endeavoring to keep the 9/11 controversy bubbling for some reason, perhaps just to continue the distractions and fears.

In other words ...

I figure the odds are quite high that Rebekah's appearance and name are a disguise, and

I find Jim's grounds for discrediting Rebekah to be rather thin - just (1) that Rebekah's identity is disguised, (2) a plausible conjecture as to who she really is, or at least another of her aliases, a CIA agent, and (3) the claim that the absence of flights 11 and 77 in the BTS [Bureau of Transportation Statistics] data base for that day really is evidence that those flights never left the ground that day.

I believe they are. But "covertly" can be "unknowingly".

[tnkayaker]

Posted by Zebra (here)
Thanks Paul for bringing this well organised package of material together. I am going to now listen to these interviews and read much more.

My question at this juncture is, how come Rebecca Roth has managed to stay unharmed through bringing this research into the main? Max Igan always reminds me to ask this of any source that brings information to light. Why has Rebecca been 'allowed' to continue bringing her findings 'out' ? For what purpose? Who benefits?

Cheers
Debra

well I remember the native American called Splitting the Sky whos you tube posts may still be up but he was a about to publish a book explaining who made the most money and basically the rest of the story, he was suicided, oops I mean he slipped and fell oh the stairs behind his house where he had lived for years, hes dead, and had strangely made the comment to his close friends that if anything happens to him to ask questions, its a shame, maybe rebeca has been tolerated because her book is written under the fiction or novel category(s) similar to Dr Savage's recent books that hit home pretty well but also he writes under fiction/novel category ,and he still talks on talk radio most nights for a few hours,

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Slorri (here)

Posted by Paul (here)
My wild 9/11 theory #27 ...:[INDENT][INDENT] Rekekah Roth and Jim Fetzer are both covertly speaking for elements of the Anglo-American-Zionist intelligence agencies
...

I believe they are. But "covertly" can be "unknowingly".

Yes - excellent point - I agree. Often many of us, including perhaps ourselves, end up speaking for hidden elements of the elite, quite unknowingly.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
... that Rebekah Roth, and a quite different internet personality called Monika Gainor, are the same person. ...

And ... wouldn't you know it ... the counter argument, debunking the claim that Rebekah Roth and Monika Gainor are the same person, has now been posted.

At Rebekah Roth-Monika Gainor Psyop (GoyBiscuits.com), Jim Fetzer, in his report that he has been receiving reports that Rebekah Roth was really Monika Gainor, has also posted without further direct comment, this graphic that purports to debunk the Roth-Gainor connection: