+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst 1 6 15 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 296

Thread: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

  1. Link to Post #101
    Avalon Member Lifebringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th December 2010
    Posts
    4,392
    Thanks
    6,806
    Thanked 11,706 times in 3,534 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    It is quite a "bread crumb trail, Bill. The secret is out, the judgement is in, the prayers heard in the Universe and the more I see that ET crop circle with the message: "We don't like deceit," all the while the "tangled web spinners of woe are responsible for schtupping the world." Like the guy in Stephen King's "Needful things." Getting everyone to weaken each other for the take over? Kinda makes you go, hmmm, for a moment, then a firm...Not if I can do something about it netwise.
    Just glad the lancing of this festering boil, is finally happening after 14 years.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lifebringer For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (16th September 2015), LittleTree (18th September 2015), Michelle Marie (16th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015)

  3. Link to Post #102
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,028
    Thanks
    11,911
    Thanked 28,394 times in 4,641 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote Posted by Star Mariner (here)
    Quote Posted by w1ndmill (here)
    I'm looking for info on calls that were made from inside the Twin Towers which mention actually seeing the second plane hit, but can't find anything. Here is an account of somebody who was in TC2, who felt the impact and smelled jet fuel on the way down the stairs. But no info about actual planes other than hearsay.
    Well there is this following testimony - from a surviving eye witness, and not a phonecall, that does mention the plane as seen from inside the tower before, during, and after impact. Stanley Praimnath. He's appeared in several 9/11 documentaries, telling his quite incredible tale:

    http://www.crossmap.com/blogs/9-11-r...ods-grace-3613
    http://www.timteeman.com/2011/09/03/...lood-brothers/


    An excerpt of one of his accounts (below) states, if true, that a solid, actual aeroplane was involved:

    He walked into his office and the phone rang immediately. It was a woman from Chicago. "Stan, Stan, get out, get out of the building." He assured the woman he was fine. "But you're not logged on to the computer," she said. Stanley still didn't know a plane hit the first building.

    As he assured the woman he was safe, he stood up near his desk, while he held the phone in his hand, and just happened to look toward the Statue of Liberty. Suddenly he saw a huge plane, gray in color, that flew straight at him. "It was coming at me at eye-level contact," he notes. Praimnath could make out the letter 'U' on the tail. It was United flight 175.

    "As the plane was getting nearer I could hear a revving sound the engine was making, like the sound a plane makes when it's about to take off," Praimnath says. "Quadruple that sound, and that's the sound I could hear, even in this soundproof building. I can still hear that sound in my head," he says. "That sound will never go away."

    "I'm standing up looking at this plane getting bigger and nearer," Praimnath says. "You don't know how fast your mind is reacting."

    In desperation he cried out to God: "Lord, I can't do this-you take over," and he dove under his desk. Praimnath's Bible still sat on top of the desk. The plane slammed into the building with immense force. The bottom of the wing sliced through his office and stuck in his office door 20 feet away from where he huddled.


    Sounds miraculous that he suvived at all, and virtually unscathed!

    In another interview, the 'U' he saw emblazoned on the tale, he called a 'giant U'. And that is interesting.

    This is Boeing 767 N612UA, seen in 1999, and the actual aircraft that purportedly hit the south tower on September 11th. Can the logo on the tale be construed as a Giant 'U'?

    Attachment 31159

    What exactly was this 'U' he saw? Would it even have been visible from his angle/perspective, when the plane was flying directly at him? It's worth noting, I have also read another account of his (source unverified however) where he states that he saw an American Airlines plane flying at his building, not a United...
    When you have an eye-witness stating that something that couldn’t happen did happen, such as aluminium carving through steel like butter through a knife, then there is reason to believe some form of hypnosis has occurred, whether individual or, as observer suggests here, mass hypnosis.


  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    animovado (17th September 2015), Bill Ryan (16th September 2015), Curt (16th September 2015), Gardener (16th September 2015), hohoemi (16th September 2015), LittleTree (18th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015)

  5. Link to Post #103
    UK Avalon Member EarthMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th May 2012
    Location
    Devon
    Age
    55
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 166 times in 28 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Great interview but there are some questionable points for example she claims that the transponder frequency is used to remotely control the planes but as I understand a transponder only sends a signal it’s not a receiver. More likely something like the "Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot" as described by Field McConnell could have been used and I don't recall her ever talking about this system of taking over a planes control remotely. Maybe she is just unaware of this or has just decided not mentioned it?

    Also worth checking out is the investigator Andrew Johnson's comments about Rebekah, he makes some valid points that we need to also take in to account. http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/...=410&Itemid=60
    Last edited by EarthMan; 16th September 2015 at 17:31. Reason: typo

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to EarthMan For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (16th September 2015), Fiberglut (17th September 2015), Innocent Warrior (16th September 2015), Michelle Marie (16th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015)

  7. Link to Post #104
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    8,920
    Thanked 10,415 times in 1,556 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote Posted by araucaria (here)
    When you have an eye-witness stating that something that couldn’t happen did happen, such as aluminium carving through steel like butter through a knife, then there is reason to believe some form of hypnosis has occurred, whether individual or, as observer suggests here, mass hypnosis.
    I have been an eye-witness of things that I would not have thought possible.

    So I choose to reserve some judgement here based on Brian's Clarke's testimony (fellow survivor) which backs up Praimnath's. For one thing, their accounts are solid and consistent, and delivered with genuine emotion. They should not be dismissed simply because they not jive with an assumption - and that's what this boils down to: an assumption, that the WTC *could not possibly* have been hit by two physically real aeroplanes.

    Planes as solid objects are more plausible to me than planes depicted by holographic projections. I don't rule out either scenario, but re Stanley Praimneth, I'm just playing devil's advocate, and presenting a piece of evidence.
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (16th September 2015), LittleTree (18th September 2015), Michelle Marie (16th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015), take (17th September 2015), w1ndmill (16th September 2015)

  9. Link to Post #105
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,418
    Thanks
    74,475
    Thanked 269,578 times in 19,903 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote Posted by EarthMan (here)
    Great interview but there are some questionable points for example she claims that the transponder frequency is used to remotely control the planes but as I understand a transponder only sends a signal it’s not a receiver. More likely something like the "Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot" as described by Field McConnell could have been used and I don't recall her ever talking about this system of taking over a planes control remotely. Maybe she is just unaware of this or has just decided not mentioned it?
    Rebekah cited and described the FTS (Flight Termination System)... here it is:

    http://sysplan.com/capabilities/radar/fts

  10. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    alexius (16th September 2015), Fellow Aspirant (16th September 2015), Innocent Warrior (17th September 2015), kanishk (17th September 2015), Michelle Marie (16th September 2015), Paul (16th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015), Snoweagle (17th September 2015)

  11. Link to Post #106
    UK Avalon Member EarthMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th May 2012
    Location
    Devon
    Age
    55
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 166 times in 28 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Thanks Bill, missed that.

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to EarthMan For This Post:

    alexius (16th September 2015), Bill Ryan (16th September 2015), Innocent Warrior (17th September 2015), Michelle Marie (16th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015)

  13. Link to Post #107
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,028
    Thanks
    11,911
    Thanked 28,394 times in 4,641 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote Posted by Star Mariner (here)
    Quote Posted by araucaria (here)
    When you have an eye-witness stating that something that couldn’t happen did happen, such as aluminium carving through steel like butter through a knife, then there is reason to believe some form of hypnosis has occurred, whether individual or, as observer suggests here, mass hypnosis.
    I have been an eye-witness of things that I would not have thought possible.

    So I choose to reserve some judgement here based on Brian's Clarke's testimony (fellow survivor) which backs up Praimnath's. For one thing, their accounts are solid and consistent, and delivered with genuine emotion. They should not be dismissed simply because they not jive with an assumption - and that's what this boils down to: an assumption, that the WTC *could not possibly* have been hit by two physically real aeroplanes.

    Planes as solid objects are more plausible to me than planes depicted by holographic projections. I don't rule out either scenario, but re Stanley Praimneth, I'm just playing devil's advocate, and presenting a piece of evidence.
    Yes, you might see something you thought impossible, but it still has an explanation, if not in ordinary human physics, in some kind of extraordinary meta-physics.


    If you take an ordinary aircraft and an ordinary steel tower block, there is no ordinary way that the plane is going to enter the building. That is not an assumption; it is a materialist scientific given. If ever you see someone walking through a wall, it is because they are from a different dimension or in an alternate state of being, one such state being holographic. The normal wall will suffer no damage. You cannot in your normal state walk through a wall in its normal state. If the situation involves destruction and therefore aggressive intent, then you can expect some kind of deceit to be used to overlay the apparent normal state with something else. Your witness(es) may well be faithfully describing what they saw, but they do not understand what it is, they do not know what hit them.


    When the seemingly impossible happens, that merely proves that it is possible after all, and the seeming is just an appearance, implying inadequate understanding. In a negative context like this, that is deceitful. The fact that two witnesses saw the same thing does not make the impossible possible, it simply rules out the individual, possibly hypnotic, misunderstanding, but not the collective one.


  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    animovado (17th September 2015), awakeningmom (16th September 2015), Bill Ryan (16th September 2015), mab777 (16th September 2015), Michelle Marie (16th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015)

  15. Link to Post #108
    United States Avalon Guide: Here to help
     
    Ron Mauer Sr's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th January 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Age
    77
    Posts
    1,927
    Thanks
    12,580
    Thanked 15,086 times in 1,863 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Transponders can transmit automatically when interrogated by ground radar, or they can transmit manually by pushing a button on the transponder front panel.

    The manually selected 4 digit code can be set to help air traffic control (ATC) identify the aircraft position on a radar screen.

    There are squawk codes reserved for the pilot to use during certain emergencies, such as hijack.

    In some (not all) controlled air space, typically in a very congested area, a Mode C altimeter is required. A Mode C altimeter adds pressure altitude information to the transmitted transponder data so ATC can see both position and altitude of the aircraft.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_%28aeronautics%29

  16. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Ron Mauer Sr For This Post:

    alexius (16th September 2015), Bill Ryan (16th September 2015), EarthMan (16th September 2015), Fellow Aspirant (16th September 2015), Innocent Warrior (17th September 2015), Jean-Marie (17th September 2015), LittleTree (17th September 2015), Paul (16th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015), Snoweagle (17th September 2015)

  17. Link to Post #109
    United States Avalon Member Michelle Marie's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th June 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,630
    Thanks
    27,304
    Thanked 16,970 times in 2,584 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Can someone please help me? I'm trying to download the .mp3 of this interview. Once I got part of it. I got home and listened to 30 minutes. Later, I was able to leave home and listen to the whole thing, but I still need to download it for my friend who is home sick. There is no Internet at his home.

    It seems to be a link rather than a file. So, is there a way to access and download the file?

    Thanks!
    Love,
    Michelle Marie
    ~*~ "The best way to predict the future is to create it." - Peter Drucker ~*~ “To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children...to leave the world a better place...to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson ~*~ "Creative minds always have been known to survive any kind of bad training." - Anna Freud ~*~

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Michelle Marie For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (16th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015)

  19. Link to Post #110
    Avalon Member Star Tsar's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th December 2011
    Location
    Orion Arm
    Posts
    13,141
    Thanks
    27,946
    Thanked 34,349 times in 11,956 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote Posted by Michelle Marie (here)
    Can someone please help me? I'm trying to download the .mp3 of this interview. Once I got part of it. I got home and listened to 30 minutes. Later, I was able to leave home and listen to the whole thing, but I still need to download it for my friend who is home sick. There is no Internet at his home.

    It seems to be a link rather than a file. So, is there a way to access and download the file?

    Thanks!
    Love,
    Michelle Marie
    Right click on link and select either save target as / save link as & select download target
    I for one will join in with anyone, I don't care what color you are as long as you want to change this miserable condition that exists on this Earth - Malcolm X / Tsar Of The Star

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Star Tsar For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (16th September 2015), Michelle Marie (16th September 2015)

  21. Link to Post #111
    United States Avalon Member Michelle Marie's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th June 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,630
    Thanks
    27,304
    Thanked 16,970 times in 2,584 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote Posted by Star Tsar (here)
    Quote Posted by Michelle Marie (here)
    Can someone please help me? I'm trying to download the .mp3 of this interview. Once I got part of it. I got home and listened to 30 minutes. Later, I was able to leave home and listen to the whole thing, but I still need to download it for my friend who is home sick. There is no Internet at his home.

    It seems to be a link rather than a file. So, is there a way to access and download the file?

    Thanks!
    Love,
    Michelle Marie
    Right click on link and select either save target as / save link as & select download target
    Still trying...
    I got the file with .part listed after the .mp3 file extension.
    Tried it again...it just opened. I'll see if I got the whole thing.
    Thanks! I REALLY appreciate your help.

    Oh boy, after many attempts, it was successful!

    Heaps of gratitude!
    Michelle Marie

    Edit from Bill: Star Tsar explained it correctly. If the filename shows up with .mp3.part at the end, then it means it's still downloading (and is therefore incomplete, so won't play yet). That's why it worked when you tried it again a short while later.


    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 16th September 2015 at 22:01.
    ~*~ "The best way to predict the future is to create it." - Peter Drucker ~*~ “To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children...to leave the world a better place...to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson ~*~ "Creative minds always have been known to survive any kind of bad training." - Anna Freud ~*~

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Michelle Marie For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th September 2015), Paul (16th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015), Sierra (17th September 2015), Star Tsar (16th September 2015)

  23. Link to Post #112
    United States Avalon Member Michelle Marie's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th June 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,630
    Thanks
    27,304
    Thanked 16,970 times in 2,584 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Thanks, Bill.

    My computer is running slow and I probably "jumped the gun" with all my excitement about this!

    You are awesome and I'm sending lots of LoveLight blessings.

    Someday maybe you will comprehend the enormity of all the good you are doing. My life has been deeply impacted by truth you (and Kerry) have shared courageously.

    Michelle Marie
    ~*~ "The best way to predict the future is to create it." - Peter Drucker ~*~ “To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children...to leave the world a better place...to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson ~*~ "Creative minds always have been known to survive any kind of bad training." - Anna Freud ~*~

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Michelle Marie For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (16th September 2015), Gardener (16th September 2015), Paul (16th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015)

  25. Link to Post #113
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    8,920
    Thanked 10,415 times in 1,556 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote Posted by araucaria (here)
    "If you take an ordinary aircraft and an ordinary steel tower block..."
    That’s the thing, because nothing was ordinary that day, nothing was as it seemed.

    I knew this early on. Think most of us did. The moment I heard the lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta, had driven all the way up to Portland, Maine, from New York, to board a flight to Boston, where he would in turn board American Airlines Flight 11, I knew something was wrong. Why would he do that? Why drive north, beyond Boston, all the way to Maine, to catch a flight back south to Boston? The answer: to leave his bags behind - his terrorist ‘kitbag’ and the Al-Qaeda operational handbook etc, which conveniently did not accompany him on the plane! It was left at the airport, and it contained a whole host of damning evidence tying him to the devilish plot. (Did he purposely set himself up?) Like his passport that was reportedly discovered at ground zero (yeh right), or the Lee Harvey Oswald photograph, posing with his rifle. It all says, ‘I did it, I’m the one, look no further than me…’ This is classic patsy territory.

    But anyway, I don't know what part the alleged 19 hijackers played. I don’t know if they really did board those flights, and hijack them. Even if they did, I don’t believe they piloted them, and flew into targets on the ground. I suspect, and have long suspected, even before hearing Rebekah’s account, that those planes must have been remotely piloted. They were crappy pilots, and only then with small, single-engine light aircraft. There’s no way they could pull off the manoeuvres those large Boeings did that day.

    I still don’t know about the Pentagon. I mean, if you wanted to hit the Pentagon with a plane, and you have a ‘hijacked’ plane at your disposal, and under your control, why fire a missile instead? Why the hell would you risk firing a missile, out in the open, next to a busy public highway, in broad daylight? I just don’t get that. It makes no sense, so I have a hard time believing this angle of the ‘conspiracy theory’. I don't know about the Air Force base that Rebekah talks about, of the real planes landing there, its passengers shepherded into hangars and gassed and all that. I just don’t know. For now, I still believe that physical planes, of some kind, did strike the WTC, and the Pentagon, and one crashed in Shanksville.

    Quote Posted by araucaria (here)
    Your witness(es) may well be faithfully describing what they saw, but they do not understand what it is, they do not know what hit them.
    In my opinion, they saw what was there: an aeroplane. What else did they see? What else did everyone else see? To me it feels a lot more realistic to contemplate planes really hitting buildings, than some sort of widespread hypnosis event (involving thousands) making people believe a depiction, an illusion, of what wasn’t actually there at all, whilst at the same time faking, and making consistent, hundreds of photos and video clips. Even if it were possible to do, hypnosis makes no sense anyway. ‘They’ had probably been planning this for years. They had it all perfectly set up: real planes and real buildings, and real terrorists (or persons programmed/coerced/set up to be terrorists), to fly those planes, or at least appear to board those planes, putting them on site as the patsy, to pull this off for real. So why think 9/11 was all just some illusion or magic trick? 3,000 people lost their lives. 9/11 was as real as it gets.

    The fake holographic plane scenario could be fake in itself - a red herring planted from day one, designed to throw people off, as well as stir up a sense of ridicule in those outside the truth movement who would, on the weight of that theory alone (and small wonder), write off the whole 9/11 conspiracy scene.

    Consider for one moment:
    An aircraft hits tower 1. The event is photographed and videoed by a few, and seen by many. Minutes later, another aircraft hits tower 2. It is photographed and videoed by dozens, seen by thousands, and watched on TV by millions.

    Occam's Razor suggests, probably demands, that what we all perceive as two aircraft hitting two towers, probably was two aircraft hitting two towers. Why cannot it be just that? There is nothing unlikely or scientifically impossible about that happening. Why the hell would "they" fake two aircraft hitting the WTC (with all the world watching), when they easily have the power to do so for real? There is nothing at all unlikely or impossible about what the above witness said he saw and experienced that day.

    For years, people have been saying aluminium cannot slice through steel, therefore the planes are fake, footage of the planes are fake, or eye-witness testimony is fake, etc., etc. Has anyone ever stopped for one moment to think that maybe the building themselves were fake??

    Of course, I’m not suggesting the World Trade Centre wasn’t there. But what if it wasn’t steel the planes were slicing through? Consider alternatives to fake planes:

    1. Maybe the skeleton of the structure across the affected floors was not ordinary steel. Maybe something about the quality of the steel was changed beforehand. Some have mooted secret energy weapons being in play that day. Maybe they weakened the steel superstructure of the WTC before the planes hit them, so when the collisions came, they could pass through with ease, all the way into the building and explode.

    2. Alternatively, perhaps some sort of explosive was planted in specific locations - dynamite for example. A flash of light, just in front of the nose cone, was seen at the moment of impact when United175 struck the south tower. Perhaps the steel columns, in the millisecond prior to impact, were collapsed/imploded. Evidence of thermite was found in the debris. Maybe this was how it was used. I don’t know - I’m just putting this out there…

    3. What if there was something unusual about the planes we don’t know about? Such as special modifications for the task, such as enhanced engines, or reinforced wings that could slice steel, etc.

    4. Consider an aircraft in the range of 200 tons, and travelling at high velocity, hitting a stationary object, like the ground, or a structure. What sort of force does that generate? A lot, I imagine. It doesn’t seem possible that a particle of dust would punch a hole in an orbiting satellite, or crack a window in the space station. Its mass is tiny, just tiny. Cartoon physics? This can and does happen. When a plane hits a building, that’s a lot of speed, and a lot of mass, resulting in an awful lot of kinetic energy being released. Even if aluminium won’t slice solid steel, might it at the very least break the welded seams that connect each individual steel panel?


    5. Maybe something else about the planes came into play, something attached to the fuselage to help them penetrate the facade of the building. Bombs, missiles, lasers, who knows. Not quite sure about the whole ‘pod’ theory though, suspicious though certain phots appear at first glance. I believe the pod was a natural feature of the aircraft, as seen in this image

    I honestly don't know. So many questions, so many unknowns! I’m simply suggesting that there are alternative theories to consider, and the above which I came up with in half an hour are all more plausible to me than holographic planes and mass hypnotic illusions…
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  26. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    awakeningmom (17th September 2015), Bill Ryan (17th September 2015), Gardener (17th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015), take (17th September 2015), w1ndmill (17th September 2015)

  27. Link to Post #114
    Moderator (on Sabbatical) Harley's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th September 2010
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,610
    Thanks
    4,158
    Thanked 9,307 times in 1,374 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote That’s the thing, because nothing was ordinary that day, nothing was as it seemed.
    That's because it was a "Made for TV, Based on a True Story, Movie Premier" event.

    Very easy to do.

    And as far as the live witnesses go, those that were easily convinced as to what they witnessed were covered and interviewed by the mainstream media

    And those live witnesses that were not easily convinced and knew what they witnessed were simply ignored.

    If you have the mainstream media working for you, you can sell anything to the world.

  28. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Harley For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (17th September 2015), Gardener (17th September 2015), meeradas (17th September 2015), Michelle Marie (17th September 2015), Paul (17th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015), Ron Mauer Sr (17th September 2015), w1ndmill (17th September 2015)

  29. Link to Post #115
    Avalon Member take's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th February 2011
    Posts
    147
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 360 times in 108 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    That was a good and interesting interview, lots of new details, connections and hypotheses I did not know.

    But can you clear to me why she first talks about how cell phones don't work in airplanes, in 1800 feet was it? That it would've been impossible to make phone calls from inside the planes.
    But towards the end she uses calls made from the planes as arguments for her theories? ("I think we're in Ohio" etc) I found it confusing that she wasn't very consistent whether or not alledged phone calls from the planes could be concidered credible or not. Or have I missed or misunderstood something?


    Also, I feel I should mention this, I feel some people attacked Elixer because of his post, when he only had good intentions to make sure that nothing could be used as material to discredit the truth value of this interview. Critical thinking and differing points of views is exactly what this forum needs. But that's a different topic. Was suprised to see some of the reactions, that's all.

    Now back to topic please.

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to take For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (17th September 2015), Michelle Marie (17th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015), Ron Mauer Sr (17th September 2015), Star Mariner (18th September 2015)

  31. Link to Post #116
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,418
    Thanks
    74,475
    Thanked 269,578 times in 19,903 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote Posted by take (here)

    But towards the end she uses calls made from the planes as arguments for her theories? ("I think we're in Ohio" etc) I found it confusing that she wasn't very consistent whether or not alledged phone calls from the planes could be concidered credible or not. Or have I missed or misunderstood something?
    Yes, that was a misunderstanding. That was one of the cellphone calls made when on the ground, in the hangar at Westover Air Base... but all according to a script. (Or cue cards, or having been told/ordered what to say, or something!)

    Rebekah was explaining that

    • It had to have been a faked call (meaning: a real call made on the ground), because no-one (and if I remember correctly, that person was a pilot) could ever have made that error, when, according to what was supposed to be happening, the plane was clearly over New York... something that would have been evident to anyone just by looking out of the window.

      (Therefore: there was no window to look out of. The person making the call could NOT see New York, because they were in a hangar, and were being told what to say.)
    • That constituted evidence (combined with the content of another, different, cellphone call, saying that the caller was worried they were going to crash the plane into the Sears Tower) that there was a mixup of the storylines, and that there had been another plan, never executed, to fly something into the Sears Tower. There was no way that any hijacker would ever have told a passenger what their intentions were.

  32. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Gardener (17th September 2015), Michelle Marie (17th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015), Ron Mauer Sr (17th September 2015), take (17th September 2015)

  33. Link to Post #117
    Avalon Member take's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th February 2011
    Posts
    147
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 360 times in 108 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

    Yes, that was a misunderstanding. That was one of the cellphone calls made when on the ground, in the hangar at Westover Air Base... but all according to a script. (Or cue cards, or having been told/ordered what to say, or something!)

    Rebekah was explaining that

    • It had to have been a faked call (meaning: a real call made on the ground), because no-one (and if I remember correctly, that person was a pilot) could ever have made that error, when, according to what was supposed to be happening, the plane was clearly over New York... something that would have been evident to anyone just by looking out of the window.

      (Therefore: there was no window to look out of. The person making the call could NOT see New York, because they were in a hangar, and were being told what to say.)
    • That constituted evidence (combined with the content of another, different, cellphone call, saying that the caller was worried they were going to crash the plane into the Sears Tower) that there was a mixup of the storylines, and that there had been another plan, never executed, to fly something into the Sears Tower. There was no way that any hijacker would ever have told a passenger what their intentions were.
    Thanks for clearing that out.
    I think I need to listen to the interview again at some point.

    BUT. The calls about Ohio and Chicago could make sense, if the passengers were indeed flown to Cleveland in stead of Westover as Cardillac suggested in post#49, and the calls made from the planes somehow.


    Here's some speculation (sorry for the lack of sources on anything, I'm tired and in a hurry)
    So maybe, and just maybe, there is a possibility that the towers indeed were hit by military planes without pilots or passengers, with strengthened wings (I remeber hearing somewhere how the US military needed to strengthen the wings on some aircraft like the C-5A for instance), and maybe the passengers on the landed flights were all in on it? Perhaps they didn't know they were part of it, but were nevertheless. (in chains of command you very rarely need to know what's going on, just do as you're told)
    This could also explain why there were so few passengers on those flights.They had to depart as genuine commercial flights to make it all look credible, but could have landed right after take off and replaced with military planes? Could it be possible?

    PS. as I was writing this, a commercial jet just flew SUPER low right above my house, which is very unusual. And it was LOUD. Gave me chills...
    Last edited by take; 17th September 2015 at 18:46.

  34. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to take For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (17th September 2015), Michelle Marie (17th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015), Ron Mauer Sr (17th September 2015)

  35. Link to Post #118
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,418
    Thanks
    74,475
    Thanked 269,578 times in 19,903 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote Posted by take (here)
    Thanks for clearing that out.
    I think I need to listen to the interview again at some point.
    Yes, it's quite complicated!

    Quote Posted by take (here)
    BUT. The calls about Ohio and Chicago could make sense, if the passengers were indeed flown to Cleveland in stead of Westover as Cardillac suggested in post#49, and the calls made from the planes somehow.
    The logic went: cellphone calls can't be made above about 1800 feet... period. So the calls must have been made on the ground, or very close to the ground. The first cellphone calls started to be made about 20 minutes after each flight had taken off.

    That means that each plane had made only a short flight before landing again.

    The rest is just a matter of looking on a map. Westover is the only solution... it has very large hangars, a 10,000 foot runway (needed to land for planes with a full load of fuel), and the personnel at the base were all given leave BEFORE the towers were hit, and put up in hotels for a two day period. (Go figure.)

    AND — one local resident SAW a United Airlines 767 (which must have been Flight 175) coming into land, very low, very soon after 8.30 am that morning. Case closed... really.

    Quote Posted by take (here)

    there is a possibility that the towers indeed were hit by military planes without pilots or passengers, with strengthened wings
    My personal opinion is that that can't be discounted. The first plane to hit looks quite large, but doesn't LOOK like a passenger plane... of course, whoever orchestrated all this may have been gambling on that impact not being captured by any cameras at all.

    And incidentally, I've not done the math, but Rebekah states that it's going WAY too fast for a passenger plane. She says that a number of first hand initial reports stated that it was a missile. Its speed could be calculated in confirmation if we estimate the frame speed (30 fps?) of the two videos that exist. (Does anyone want to do this? Might not be too hard.)

    For the second impact, when all the TV crews would certainly be there, and thousands of people with their own cameras, the plane would need to be more convincing. So a strengthened military plane seems possible. There is still the question of no plane parts being found, though.... although of course they may have been vaporized/'dustified', too.

  36. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    4evrneo (17th September 2015), animovado (17th September 2015), Michelle Marie (17th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015), Ron Mauer Sr (17th September 2015)

  37. Link to Post #119
    Great Britain Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th April 2013
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 46 times in 9 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Please the article, kindly linked above by Earthman.

    Roth presents no new information (much of it has been available for 10 years), doesn't disclose the airline she worked for and she gets things wrong. Who is this woman?

    Just another pied-piper who accidentally (through ignorance) or deliberately (by design) helps keep the cover up going.

    This clip of her on Coast to Coast, responding to a caller, is also revealing:

    http://www.checktheevidence.com/audi...Technology.mp3

    Can anyone else figure out what she is trying to say?

    Probably not - that's the point, it seems.

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AndrewJohnson For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (17th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015)

  39. Link to Post #120
    United States Avalon Guide: Here to help
     
    Ron Mauer Sr's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th January 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Age
    77
    Posts
    1,927
    Thanks
    12,580
    Thanked 15,086 times in 1,863 posts

    Default Re: Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015

    Quote Posted by AndrewJohnson (here)
    Please the article, kindly linked above by Earthman.

    Roth presents no new information (much of it has been available for 10 years), doesn't disclose the airline she worked for and she gets things wrong. Who is this woman?

    Just another pied-piper who accidentally (through ignorance) or deliberately (by design) helps keep the cover up going.

    This clip of her on Coast to Coast, responding to a caller, is also revealing:

    http://www.checktheevidence.com/audi...Technology.mp3

    Can anyone else figure out what she is trying to say?

    Probably not - that's the point, it seems.
    I listened to the audio clip.
    Rebekah Roth makes sense to me.

  40. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ron Mauer Sr For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th September 2015), Jean-Marie (17th September 2015), LittleTree (17th September 2015), Paul (17th September 2015), quiltinggrandma (28th September 2015)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst 1 6 15 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts