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

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by HaveBlue (here)

Field McConnell said Rebecca is more interested in selling books than finding truth about 911. It's a hot topic over at AD. I will ask Field to elaborate the next chance I get during his and David Hawkins Livestream shows.

Well, that's hardly true!

Up to 20 hours research a day, for hundreds of days over a period of years, uncovering material other 9/11 researchers have missed or so far not connected, doesn't really match with 'not being interested to find the truth'.



What's being revealed here (in a few places) is the human weakness of territoriality.

I encountered this myself when I entered the scene (suddenly, with quite a high profile right out of the blue), back in late 2005. A number of people went: "Who the heck are YOU?", and it was suddenly me that became the topic of discussion (in a few areas) — rather than the material I was presenting, as a then-unknown messenger.

[Harley]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
What's being revealed here (in a few places) is the human weakness of territoriality.

I encountered this myself when I entered the scene (suddenly, with quite a high profile right out of the blue), back in late 2005. A number of people went: "Who the heck are YOU?", and it was suddenly me that became the topic of discussion (in a few areas) — rather than the material I was presenting, as a then-unknown messenger.

Too often it's been quite painful for me to witness this treatment of other messengers, which is exactly the reason why I prefer presenting what I know in the form of personal opinion.

And that's the way it is!

[Tangri]

Posted by Harley (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
What's being revealed here (in a few places) is the human weakness of territoriality.

I encountered this myself when I entered the scene (suddenly, with quite a high profile right out of the blue), back in late 2005. A number of people went: "Who the heck are YOU?", and it was suddenly me that became the topic of discussion (in a few areas) — rather than the material I was presenting, as a then-unknown messenger.

Too often it's been quite painful for me to witness this treatment of other messengers, which is exactly the reason why I prefer presenting what I know in the form of personal opinion.

And that's the way it is!

I agree, I prefer presenting what I know in the form of bed stories. Bare truth is very cruel for horse glassed humans. More than 2 decades ago I was working with open minded(!?) screen writers as a consultant, even open minded Sci-fic writers became dummies when they met with untold things. But all efforts work eventually. Nowadays, sometimes I am surprised by my bed time stories affects.

[ThePythonicCow]

There is an interesting detail in this story that keeps returning to my awareness.

Notice that the Flight Termination System (FTS) cuts off -all- communication with the pilots. The FTS goes further than is needed just to ensure that a hijacker cannot take control of a plane. If that's all you wanted to do, you'd keep the communication channels open, you'd still allow the pilots to squawk the Hijack code 7500, and otherwise focus just on taking over control of what is needed to land the plane, regardless of who wants what in the cockpit. Indeed, isolating the pilots from communication with the ground or their crew and disabling squawking the Hijack code both seem counterproductive in an emergency situation, and could put the plane, crew and passengers at greater risk, due to the potential for miscommunication.

This excessive degree of control is an excellent example of where technology goes wrong.

Smart meters and smart phones demonstrate similar risks. Self driving cars will surely display similar risks.

• A smart meter that lets my electrical company read my meter more economically each month is OK by me (I don't have any friends or relatives who are out of work meter readers.) But a smart meter that enables the CIA/NSA to monitor my habits, inside my trailer, by closely monitoring my electrical usage, or a smart meter that enables the power company to decide what electrical appliance I can use when, allows for excessive central surveillance and control.
  
• Smart phones (or in my case computers and tablets) that I control, with features useful to me, are fine. But having some central authorities use them to track my every move and communication, and have the ability to block or modify any communication at will, is excessive central control.
  
• Smart self-driving cars that I can still control have the potential to be a better driver than I will be, as I get more senile and they get smarter. But a smart car that the central authorities can use to monitor my travels and to control when and where I can go, is excessive central control.

In each case, I don't mind the increased technology. But I do strongly object to some nameless central authority abusing that technology to control me like some lab rat.

... mostly a bit off topic ... but the excessive isolation forced on the pilot by the FTS, as documented by Rebekah Roth brought this to my awareness.

[awakeningmom]

In her interviews, Rebekah Roth presents good arguments for why the alleged phone calls had to be made from the ground, and I think she makes a pretty good case for where the flights landed too, given the official time lapses between take-off and when the calls were made. (Many researchers have also pointed out the unlikelihood of cell phones working from the presumed altitudes and I recall at least one researcher pointing out that there may not have even been air-phones on those particular flights at all).

Some other interesting information I wasn’t aware of before was the fact that many of the calls on the respective flights were made at EXACTLY the same time, and that none of the flight attendants on any of the four flights followed proper protocols – e.g., calling family members and “reservations” instead of supervisory personnel, etc. Nor was I aware that the FBI showed up to confiscate cell phones and voice message systems from the call recipients well before any hijacked flight information was even released. Some smoking guns here, IMO.

But still I’m left with many questions….particularly about the weird phone calls.
For example, Roth says two flight attendants mention a singular “he” as the lone hijacker instead of the 2-4 hijackers we are supposed to believe took over each flight. One flight attendant mentions “steps” although there are no steps on a 767, while another passenger with flight experience tells his mother he’s “over Ohio” when the timing between take-off of that flight and the alleged impact wouldn’t have given enough time to make it close to Ohio (nor does Ohio look like NYC), etc. Then there’s the flight attendant who, when asked where she was, says: “I see buildings, I see water” – minutes before impact into the WTC. Is there really anyone, let alone a flight attendant, who doesn’t know what NYC looks like?

Roth suggests that these weird calls indicate that passengers were either reading from some kind of script or basically told what to say. And that the passengers were either forced to make these calls or willingly participated in the calls because they were told they were part of a drill. Ok, but….

1. If the passengers of these various crafts were taken to a US military base, it is quite possible, as Roth hypothesizes, that they didn’t quite know they were being hijacked. And if they were met by men dressed in US military attire, it is quite possible they would have been relieved and believed any story they were told about participating in a drill.

2. Still, I find it hard to believe that normal people are going to willingly call their loved ones and traumatize them about a hijacking even if they thought it was a drill. Wouldn’t they object to doing this for this reason – or somehow assure their loved ones that it was a drill?

3. On the other hand, the problem with the “force” theory for me is twofold. First, as many researchers have pointed out, the people making the calls, both flight attendants and passengers, sound devoid of emotion and fear. Hard to believe they wouldn’t express any of it on calls if they were being forced to read a script at gunpoint and knew they were likely going to die. Second, if they were reading from scripts, the scripts are pretty odd-ball. Why would the perpetrators tell a flight attendant to mention “steps” – or a singular “He” or allow a passenger to tell his mother they were “over Ohio” when the time elapsed wouldn’t have allowed that to be a possibility? Is it because the perpetrators weren’t yet sure which plane would crash at which destination? Was it just to overwhelm the rest of us with things that don’t make sense? Or were the passengers/attendants actually trying to go ‘off script’ as much as possible? Though I would like to believe this, wouldn’t they have been stopped from doing so immediately?

So many unanswered questions here. I'm appreciative of Roth's fresh perspective, and much of what she says makes sense. But does anyone have any further thoughts about these calls or what to make of them?

[Jean-Luc]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I encountered this myself when I entered the scene (suddenly, with quite a high profile right out of the blue), back in late 2005. A number of people went: "Who the heck are YOU?", and it was suddenly me that became the topic of discussion (in a few areas) — rather than the material I was presenting, as a then-unknown messenger.

Dis-information 101. Discredit the messenger
By extension, associate opponents with unpopular names such as "eccentric", "extreme right", "leftist", "terrorist", "conspiracy", "radical", "fanatic" or even "blonde" etc ... "

Technique #6 in this list referenced on our 9/11 website: http://www.vigli.org/desinfo.htm (in French)

"Technique n°6 : Décrédibiliser le porteur du message.
Par extension, associer les opposants à des dénominations impopulaires telles que "excentrique", "extrême-droite", "gauchiste", "terroriste", "conspirationniste", "radical", "fanatique", ou même "blonde" etc…"

[araucaria]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
So many unanswered questions here. I'm appreciative of Roth's fresh perspective, and much of what she says makes sense. But does anyone have any further thoughts about these calls or what to make of them?

Your basic point is that the deception was not wholly realistic. This is a given since that is how a deception is detected. A successful deception is simply one that is good enough for long enough; but at some stage it is always by definition going to fall short of the real thing, i.e. fooling all of the people all of the time.

I don’t have all the details of the phone calls, but it seems to me the simplest solution would be in some cases at least for the handlers to confiscate cellphones and make the calls themselves. This might explain for example how someone gave his full name to his mother, a slip-up that could be corrected by threatening the mother into keeping her mouth shut. Alternatively, maybe all the callers were somehow compromised well in advance and selected for that reason. The exact details are not necessarily important because whether these calls were ‘genuine’ or made by handlers, you are losing total control to a modicum of improvisation. You can stand there threateningly, you can whisper ‘you did great’ at the end, but you cannot control every syllable as it comes out. And the same goes for any prepared scripts. Unforeseen mistakes creep in because the meaningful content of any action is potentially unlimited and so ultimately uncontrollable; hence no crime is perfect. Once suspicion is aroused in the right direction, there is no stopping it.

The closer you look the more discrepancies you are going to see. But in this particular instance, had they been fewer or smaller, that would in no way invalidate the major clinching discrepancy, namely that any cellphone calls as advertised were totally impossible. There is absolutely nothing anyone could have said to overcome that impossibility. Here’s an analogy for what I mean. They say Marilyn Monroe would have sounded inimitably sexy just reading a list of groceries. If true, it would still be true even if that list included some items you would never find in a grocer’s store.

[awakeningmom]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
So many unanswered questions here. I'm appreciative of Roth's fresh perspective, and much of what she says makes sense. But does anyone have any further thoughts about these calls or what to make of them?

Your basic point is that the deception was not wholly realistic. This is a given since that is how a deception is detected. A successful deception is simply one that is good enough for long enough; but at some stage it is always by definition going to fall short of the real thing, i.e. fooling all of the people all of the time.

I don’t have all the details of the phone calls, but it seems to me the simplest solution would be in some cases at least for the handlers to confiscate cellphones and make the calls themselves. This might explain for example how someone gave his full name to his mother, a slip-up that could be corrected by threatening the mother into keeping her mouth shut. Alternatively, maybe all the callers were somehow compromised well in advance and selected for that reason. The exact details are not necessarily important because whether these calls were ‘genuine’ or made by handlers, you are losing total control to a modicum of improvisation. You can stand there threateningly, you can whisper ‘you did great’ at the end, but you cannot control every syllable as it comes out. And the same goes for any prepared scripts. Unforeseen mistakes creep in because the meaningful content of any action is potentially unlimited and so ultimately uncontrollable; hence no crime is perfect. Once suspicion is aroused in the right direction, there is no stopping it.

The closer you look the more discrepancies you are going to see. But in this particular instance, had they been fewer or smaller, that would in no way invalidate the major clinching discrepancy, namely that any cellphone calls as advertised were totally impossible. There is absolutely nothing anyone could have said to overcome that impossibility. Here’s an analogy for what I mean. They say Marilyn Monroe would have sounded inimitably sexy just reading a list of groceries. If true, it would still be true even if that list included some items you would never find in a grocer’s store.

Thanks, Araucaria, I agree that the “major clinching discrepancy” is that the calls as advertised were totally impossible. But many 911 researchers over the years have ALREADY pointed that out. Roth now suggests that they were all made on a military base outside Boston. If true, this is a major new piece of the puzzle. But in order for it to be true, the various pieces should fit. So I’m trying to work out the kinks to that theory, first based on the oddities of the calls.

I can’t see how handlers could make the calls to close family members and not have the family member recognize the caller as a fake – although I suppose handlers could make calls to “reservations” or 911 operators (but again, wouldn’t the recorded voices be analyzed later by those who knew the victims well? I think that’s why Griffin focused on existing voice morphing technology). I also agree you cannot control every syllable that comes out – but why would a flight attendant say: “I see buildings, I see water” or a passenger say: “we’re over Ohio” to his mother, minutes from impact into the WTC? If these were scripted to be intentionally confusing/illogical calls (either by willing or forced participants), what’s the point of this? Why not tell a story that supports the official narrative? Was it to buy time? To make sure that whatever actually hit the WTC actually got there? Clearly no-one is seeing unidentifiable water/buildings when/if they are tucked away in a hangar on a military base.

The mounds of intentional disinfo surrounding this psy-op has certainly made me throw my hands up in defeat and disgust more than once – and maybe focusing on specific details of the crime scenes again will just result in more frustration. But Roth is giving us a new puzzle piece to ponder – and I guess I’m just looking for some brainstorming about whether -- and how -- this puzzle piece fits in with the pieces we already (think we) have.

[araucaria]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
Thanks, Araucaria, I agree that the “major clinching discrepancy” is that the calls as advertised were totally impossible. But many 911 researchers over the years have ALREADY pointed that out. Roth now suggests that they were all made on a military base outside Boston. If true, this is a major new piece of the puzzle. But in order for it to be true, the various pieces should fit. So I’m trying to work out the kinks to that theory, first based on the oddities of the calls.

I can’t see how handlers could make the calls to close family members and not have the family member recognize the caller as a fake – although I suppose handlers could make calls to “reservations” or 911 operators (but again, wouldn’t the recorded voices be analyzed later by those who knew the victims well? I think that’s why Griffin focused on existing voice morphing technology). I also agree you cannot control every syllable that comes out – but why would a flight attendant say: “I see buildings, I see water” or a passenger say: “we’re over Ohio” to his mother, minutes from impact into the WTC? If these were scripted to be intentionally confusing/illogical calls (either by willing or forced participants), what’s the point of this? Why not tell a story that supports the official narrative? Was it to buy time? To make sure that whatever actually hit the WTC actually got there? Clearly no-one is seeing unidentifiable water/buildings when/if they are tucked away in a hangar on a military base.

The mounds of intentional disinfo surrounding this psy-op has certainly made me throw my hands up in defeat and disgust more than once – and maybe focusing on specific details of the crime scenes again will just result in more frustration. But Roth is giving us a new puzzle piece to ponder – and I guess I’m just looking for some brainstorming about whether -- and how -- this puzzle piece fits in with the pieces we already (think we) have.

That is true: she cannot claim to be the first in pointing out the impossibility of cellphone calls; but she takes credit for fleshing out the story to enable a lot of new people to overcome their cognitive dissonance. Her main breakthrough, as you say, is in naming the airfield where all the timelines come together and as one where personnel were locked out. She doesn’t have to correctly explain every detail to be right on the basic scenario, which is apparently partially confirmed by locked out personnel. More research could be done in that direction. Her other major contribution to this, I believe, is removing a stumbling-block by identifying the Mitre corporation and its technology for falsifying radar screen data both by removing real flight paths and inventing fictitious ones .

I perhaps feel more comfortable than you do in the gray area between fact and fiction. I think the choice of writing a thriller novel has more than simply self-protection on the one hand and engaging the reader on the other. It is an integral part of how we operate, for good and bad, and in a sense it is the middle ground, the no man’s land that we need to snatch back out of the wrong hands. Let me explain how this works.

Spoiler warning.
In a sense, removing real paths and inventing fictitious ones is what Roth herself has done: her real data is ‘only’ reconstructed’, and she has added Dan Brown-type fictitious data of her own. These are what I call things in her grocery list that are not groceries, namely the whole presentday terrorist attack scenario grafted onto the old 911 story. I don’t know how much is true for instance about the Mossad people in Paris lavishly entertaining flight attendants. If it were true back then, then when you later find flight attendants playing a key role, you would expect to find infiltration at this level, with some of these ladies acting compliantly after maybe being selected to perform a drill (asked to work a given flight). I don’t know exactly how this would work, but you would expect a return on investment on the jewellery and expensive clothes and other ‘free lunches’. This is an area Rebekah Roth does not go into. She has a character who is a little one-dimensional and whom she maybe would not have killed off so quickly had she rounded her out more.

At some stage, this fictional part slips back into reality. I take it, for instance, that airport security is indeed as slack as Rebekah Roth claims, on the levels she mentions: elevator use, duty-free shop assistants, passenger wheelchairs, or how flight crews spend their free time in foreign capitals. Any anti-terrorist measures worthy of the name would have to see off-duty airline personnel as a security risk and replace the secret recording of a lover misbehaving directly with secret recordings of possible suspects behaving suspiciously. But again this talk about now, not 911, is precisely where Rebekah is making inroads. Her fiction takes us out of purely historical research and segues into where we are at right now, and where we would like to be in the very near future. It is uplifting not just for the extra piece it adds to the puzzle, but also for the positive next step that she sketches in. What she is doing is actually taking a leaf out of the cabal’s book: you start with a desired goal, you work out a plan, and then you make it happen, you turn your fiction into reality. That is the next step here: we could, for example, find a politician unbeholden to anybody and put him in the White House or some other powerful position. As this will likely involve deception, like superimposing a real state-of-the-union speech over a fictional one reserved for the press, then that is simply one example of the possible uses of deception for a positive purpose.

[awakeningmom]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
Thanks, Araucaria, I agree that the “major clinching discrepancy” is that the calls as advertised were totally impossible. But many 911 researchers over the years have ALREADY pointed that out. Roth now suggests that they were all made on a military base outside Boston. If true, this is a major new piece of the puzzle. But in order for it to be true, the various pieces should fit. So I’m trying to work out the kinks to that theory, first based on the oddities of the calls.

I can’t see how handlers could make the calls to close family members and not have the family member recognize the caller as a fake – although I suppose handlers could make calls to “reservations” or 911 operators (but again, wouldn’t the recorded voices be analyzed later by those who knew the victims well? I think that’s why Griffin focused on existing voice morphing technology). I also agree you cannot control every syllable that comes out – but why would a flight attendant say: “I see buildings, I see water” or a passenger say: “we’re over Ohio” to his mother, minutes from impact into the WTC? If these were scripted to be intentionally confusing/illogical calls (either by willing or forced participants), what’s the point of this? Why not tell a story that supports the official narrative? Was it to buy time? To make sure that whatever actually hit the WTC actually got there? Clearly no-one is seeing unidentifiable water/buildings when/if they are tucked away in a hangar on a military base.

The mounds of intentional disinfo surrounding this psy-op has certainly made me throw my hands up in defeat and disgust more than once – and maybe focusing on specific details of the crime scenes again will just result in more frustration. But Roth is giving us a new puzzle piece to ponder – and I guess I’m just looking for some brainstorming about whether -- and how -- this puzzle piece fits in with the pieces we already (think we) have.

That is true: she cannot claim to be the first in pointing out the impossibility of cellphone calls; but she takes credit for fleshing out the story to enable a lot of new people to overcome their cognitive dissonance. Her main breakthrough, as you say, is in naming the airfield where all the timelines come together and as one where personnel were locked out. She doesn’t have to correctly explain every detail to be right on the basic scenario, which is apparently partially confirmed by locked out personnel. More research could be done in that direction. Her other major contribution to this, I believe, is removing a stumbling-block by identifying the Mitre corporation and its technology for falsifying radar screen data both by removing real flight paths and inventing fictitious ones .

I perhaps feel more comfortable than you do in the gray area between fact and fiction. I think the choice of writing a thriller novel has more than simply self-protection on the one hand and engaging the reader on the other. It is an integral part of how we operate, for good and bad, and in a sense it is the middle ground, the no man’s land that we need to snatch back out of the wrong hands. Let me explain how this works.

Spoiler warning.
In a sense, removing real paths and inventing fictitious ones is what Roth herself has done: her real data is ‘only’ reconstructed’, and she has added Dan Brown-type fictitious data of her own. These are what I call things in her grocery list that are not groceries, namely the whole presentday terrorist attack scenario grafted onto the old 911 story. I don’t know how much is true for instance about the Mossad people in Paris lavishly entertaining flight attendants. If it were true back then, then when you later find flight attendants playing a key role, you would expect to find infiltration at this level, with some of these ladies acting compliantly after maybe being selected to perform a drill (asked to work a given flight). I don’t know exactly how this would work, but you would expect a return on investment on the jewellery and expensive clothes and other ‘free lunches’. This is an area Rebekah Roth does not go into. She has a character who is a little one-dimensional and whom she maybe would not have killed off so quickly had she rounded her out more.

At some stage, this fictional part slips back into reality. I take it, for instance, that airport security is indeed as slack as Rebekah Roth claims, on the levels she mentions: elevator use, duty-free shop assistants, passenger wheelchairs, or how flight crews spend their free time in foreign capitals. Any anti-terrorist measures worthy of the name would have to see off-duty airline personnel as a security risk and replace the secret recording of a lover misbehaving directly with secret recordings of possible suspects behaving suspiciously. But again this talk about now, not 911, is precisely where Rebekah is making inroads. Her fiction takes us out of purely historical research and segues into where we are at right now, and where we would like to be in the very near future. It is uplifting not just for the extra piece it adds to the puzzle, but also for the positive next step that she sketches in. What she is doing is actually taking a leaf out of the cabal’s book: you start with a desired goal, you work out a plan, and then you make it happen, you turn your fiction into reality. That is the next step here: we could, for example, find a politician unbeholden to anybody and put him in the White House or some other powerful position. As this will likely involve deception, like superimposing a real state-of-the-union speech over a fictional one reserved for the press, then that is simply one example of the possible uses of deception for a positive purpose.

Thank you for your response, Araucaria. I do love the way you write. 

However, I think we have to separate Rebekah Roth as the “whistleblower” doing the radio interviews and speaking on the real 911 as though she has pieced together some major missing pieces of the puzzle (and that is how she is presenting herself on these interviews), and her fictional take on it in Methodical Illusion, which obviously takes poetic license to advance her characters/arc/storyline.

With respect to Roth’s novel – I like your idea, which, if I understand it correctly, suggests that Roth’s fictional and idealistic solution(s) could, in fact, become reality if enough people buy into her positive outcome. This certainly appeals to me (and is one of the reasons I sometimes read “hopium” like David Wilcock’s, despite not really believing it anymore). Researching how thoughts/intentions can become reality has recently become an interest of mine – I suppose it’s the next level of my late-to-the-party awakening. And I see how fiction can -- and does -- often act as a catalyst for world-changing views -- can it also act as a catalyst for literal reality shifting too? I certainly hope so, in this instance!

On the other hand, I think many people who have actually done the rabbit hole/911 research have (or will have) a hard time believing in Roth’s seemingly naïve/unrealistic ending, despite wanting to. I admit that, cynic that I’ve become in the last two years since I’ve formed my own understanding of how/why 911 was not only allowed to happen but why it still hasn’t been properly investigated 14 years and a new administration later, I hoped for a more complex, believable ending, with solutions I could bite off on. I was also disappointed that Roth seemed to buy into the false Democrat/Republican paradigm, where, in her novel, the Democrats were the ones ruining the country and overly beholden to the (unnamed but obvious) “foreign nation who isn’t really an ally.” This representation not only fails to reflect the current reality (with respect to which party now appears to be the greater supporter of this foreign nation), but it also puzzlingly ignores which party was at the helm (and neck-deep involved) when 911 happened. Someone who has researched 911 so deeply and who has also claimed (in several interviews) that she’s now traced the cabal “back to Babylon” clearly must know that the political/economic/military differences between the (national-level) Democrats and Republicans is simply kabuki theatre for the masses. But yes, I realize she presented this world view in a novel -- and perhaps she simply wrote her novel this way to appeal to readers who might not otherwise be willing to read her book and consider her premises. Or maybe she’s saving that further trip down the cabal’s rabbit hole for book 2. 

But my request for brainstorming about the odd calls and Roth’s military base theory was about the real event, and not the novel. This event is personal for me on a very deep level. I want to get to the truth of it, want to find the missing pieces, no matter how many years it takes. Futile? Unrealistic given the powerful forces invested in suppressing the truth? Maybe. Still, I’m grateful to Roth the whistleblower, for providing a new, plausible theory, and for re-energizing the truth movement, which seems to have lost momentum judging by the last-posted dates on many 911 truth websites (no surprise, given the 14 years that have passed without any mass awakening or calls for justice – but I’m only 2 years in). I hope that Bill’s argument about “territoriality” isn’t completely true – and that many honest 911 researchers will take her theory seriously enough to at least research it further themselves.

[araucaria]

Thank you awakeningmom.
I personally don’t need to have worked out every element in such exquisite detail as a prosecution lawyer might need to, but you reach a point when you are beyond any reasonable doubt and know there are people who know more. William James said that for verification, verifiability is usually enough. The next step when democratic processes are involved is to build up a sufficient constituency to move forward, which is what I see Rebekah Roth as contributing towards. Getting the bullet points across is not simply a matter of a well thought-out powerpoint presentation. Maybe for you it is, but for the vast majority, something else is needed – something less, along with something more.

You have the same issue with Edward Snowden’s material. Edward who? John Oliver has a highly unorthodox interviewing style that caters especially for the thousands and millions whose only concern is over who gets their grubby hands on their precious “dick pics”. It may be rather sad and unsavoury that this is how it works, but hey, let’s just get the job done. This is not “hopium”: we are talking about getting a job done, which means joining in as opposed to watching from the sidelines.

Posted by giovonni (here)
the latest ...

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Government Surveillance

"There are very few government checks on what America’s sweeping surveillance programs are capable of doing. John Oliver sits down with Edward Snowden to discuss the NSA, the balance between privacy and security, and dick-pics."

Published on Apr 5, 2015

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M

[awakeningmom]

Posted by araucaria (here)
Thank you awakeningmom.
I personally don’t need to have worked out every element in such exquisite detail as a prosecution lawyer might need to, but you reach a point when you are beyond any reasonable doubt and know there are people who know more. William James said that for verification, verifiability is usually enough. The next step when democratic processes are involved is to build up a sufficient constituency to move forward, which is what I see Rebekah Roth as contributing towards. Getting the bullet points across is not simply a matter of a well thought-out powerpoint presentation. Maybe for you it is, but for the vast majority, something else is needed – something less, along with something more.

You have the same issue with Edward Snowden’s material. Edward who? John Oliver has a highly unorthodox interviewing style that caters especially for the thousands and millions whose only concern is over who gets their grubby hands on their precious “dick pics”. It may be rather sad and unsavoury that this is how it works, but hey, let’s just get the job done. This is not “hopium”: we are talking about getting a job done, which means joining in as opposed to watching from the sidelines.

Posted by giovonni (here)
the latest ...

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Government Surveillance

"There are very few government checks on what America’s sweeping surveillance programs are capable of doing. John Oliver sits down with Edward Snowden to discuss the NSA, the balance between privacy and security, and dick-pics."

Published on Apr 5, 2015

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M

Yes, but details still matter quite a bit when it comes to 911. They mattered to me when I was first exposed to the alternative version of 911, a version which I could not believe at first exposure. But it was the details that slowly made me change my mind. Watching the AE911truth video about Building 7, reading about each alleged crime scene, discovering how there were “put options,” how the Pentagon was conveniently struck in the area where the Office of Special Investigations was located, etc. etc. These details mattered to me 2 years ago, and they matter to most people who are just awakening to the truth. And I would think details matter even to those who have been researching this from the start. Isn’t that why Roth’s new information is causing so much excitement? She’s providing us with new details about how it could have happened.

I’m definitely beyond a reasonable doubt, and yes sometimes getting bogged down on the details can derail the larger picture (e.g, fighting over whether it was nanothermite, or DEW’s or nuclear weapons, etc.) or fail to move the world forward to a more positive future. But the details still matter in helping to solve the whole whodunnit – and isn’t that key here? For example, don’t the details about the military base lead us to important questions that might actually have answers? Like who ordered the base closed that day? What was the official reason for closing it? Who was still permitted on the base? How many were on the base? Since the evidence clearly suggests that certain factions of the military, FAA, NORAD, CIA/FBI etc, were in on this entire psy-op, do the details get us a bit closer to who those factions actually are? I certainly believe most of us want to believe it was ONLY a faction of each of these agencies/organizations that were part of this -- and thus that a clean-up on some level is still possible. Indeed, unless we believe that it was only certain factions, factions that can be weeded out/brought to justice/transcended, we might as well give up -- because Roth's Joel Sherman doesn't exist without that scenario.

I’m not sure what your point is about Snowden here? Guess I’ll have to watch the entire video. In general, I avoid both John Oliver and Jon Stewart these days. While I used to like them, I realized they are nothing more than left gatekeepers. For example, roughly 3 and a half minutes in to his shtick, Oliver makes the false claim that the Patriot Act was written soon AFTER 911. Yeah, ok.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
... or fail to move the world forward to a more positive future. But the details still matter in helping to solve the whole whodunnit – and isn’t that key here?...

I used to think so. Solve 9/11, indict and prosecute the perps, live happily ever after. Right?

First of all, enough of it has been solved (as was the case with the JFK hit) where something drastic should already have been done. Enough, that is, IF we lived in a world where most of the people in power were really good, high-integrity people, and that there is just a small malevolent cadre, a rogue element to be dealt with. Reality is quite a bit uglier than that. There may be a small handful of good people (good, but utterly ineffective) in positions of high office in the USA, but no more than a handful. There are around 1500 people in the US government at or near the top tier of governance - approximately 500 in each of the 3 branches - that make and enforce and adjudicate policy. These people were virtually ALL hand-selected by the corporatist-militarist-bankster Elite as compliant puppets (and it will remain this way until and unless a drastic citizen's movement changes the rules.) These people are all guilty of 911, all are complicit in the role of cover-up if they were not also involved is planning and execution (most of those involved in planning and execution are now out of office, other than the military and black-ops people who are not subject to election cycles.)

Figure out 9/11 - the whole damn thing. Figure out where the mini-nukes were placed and who placed them, and who made them (or DEWs if you insist on believing in them.) Figure out what type of missile hit the Pentagon and what type of military aircraft shot it. Figure out exactly which passengers now reside in underground D.U.M.B bases, and which ones got a bullet to the head and are decomposing underground. Figure out any details you want. It won't matter. Too few care, too many are too dumbed-down to notice. Most are afraid to do anything about it - and quite frankly, there is no existing mechanism to bring them to justice.

There is no sweat dripping from the brows of the corporatist-militarist-bankster Elite or any of their minions. They are in complete control. Their guilt is meaningless in a system of their design and under their control, where they control the police, the FBI, the CIA, the federal prosecutors, and the entire judicial branch of government (as well as the legislative and executive.) They control what is said in the mass media (and what is unspoken), and they control what is written in the history books.

With all due respect and a tip of the hat to Rebekah Roth, none of it matters. The perps are "going to Disneyland!", not to prison. Even the political dissidents and activists in the US are either completely confused about what it would take to oust the malevolent minions of the Elite and change the system so the corporatist-militarist-bankster Elite cannot simply hire a new cadre of puppets, or are left gatekeepers (wittingly or unwittingly.)

Figure it out - ALL IF IT, EVERY FACET of 9/11 - but do it knowing you did it for your own mind, not because "the truth will set us free." The truth is that we citizens have absolutely no control over anything, regardless what knowledge and insights we possess or how much of the truth we've uncovered. We made a HUGE tactical mistake: we let the bad guys gain complete control of the entire electoral paradigm, and so they filled, (and will continue to fill), every seat of high office with their lackeys. We ordinary citizens have no legislative representation, a judicial system that protects the Elite and persecutes ordinary citizens, and a Zionist-Nazi-militarist-globalist-corporatist-bankster cluster of sockpuppets we call "our" executive branch.

Truth isn't power.

[ulli]

Waking up means dropping one's illusions. And that brings automatically a new attitude- one which brings changes in one's habits. Even if we don't go marching the streets carrying banners our new habits will still impact the elite and even ruin their plans. Ok, the economy will suffer, jobs will be lost, and eventually people will form new groups at the grassroots level where barter becomes the norm. New inventions in food production, inner city rooftop farming, and then comes the discovery that a united vision of a united community can produce some interesting results, to do with metaphysical phenomena.
Consciousness is then the key to the new world. As each person becomes more aware of the forces battling around them they will seek and find their inner place of balance, from where their creativity will pour, and they can rejoice in creating their utopia. I know it works. Let the break-away civilization break off and be gone. Good luck to them.

[awakeningmom]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
... or fail to move the world forward to a more positive future. But the details still matter in helping to solve the whole whodunnit – and isn’t that key here?...

I used to think so. Solve 9/11, indict and prosecute the perps, live happily ever after. Right?

First of all, enough of it has been solved (as was the case with the JFK hit) where something drastic should already have been done. Enough, that is, IF we lived in a world where most of the people in power were really good, high-integrity people, and that there is just a small malevolent cadre, a rogue element to be dealt with. Reality is quite a bit uglier than that. There may be a small handful of good people (good, but utterly ineffective) in positions of high office in the USA, but no more than a handful. There are around 1500 people in the US government at or near the top tier of governance - approximately 500 in each of the 3 branches - that make and enforce and adjudicate policy. These people were virtually ALL hand-selected by the corporatist-militarist-bankster Elite as compliant puppets (and it will remain this way until and unless a drastic citizen's movement changes the rules.) These people are all guilty of 911, all are complicit in the role of cover-up if they were not also involved is planning and execution (most of those involved in planning and execution are now out of office, other than the military and black-ops people who are not subject to election cycles.)

Figure out 9/11 - the whole damn thing. Figure out where the mini-nukes were placed and who placed them, and who made them (or DEWs if you insist on believing in them.) Figure out what type of missile hit the Pentagon and what type of military aircraft shot it. Figure out exactly which passengers now reside in underground D.U.M.B bases, and which ones got a bullet to the head and are decomposing underground. Figure out any details you want. It won't matter. Too few care, too many are too dumbed-down to notice. Most are afraid to do anything about it - and quite frankly, there is no existing mechanism to bring them to justice.

There is no sweat dripping from the brows of the corporatist-militarist-bankster Elite or any of their minions. They are in complete control. Their guilt is meaningless in a system of their design and under their control, where they control the police, the FBI, the CIA, the federal prosecutors, and the entire judicial branch of government (as well as the legislative and executive.) They control what is said in the mass media (and what is unspoken), and they control what is written in the history books.

With all due respect and a tip of the hat to Rebekah Roth, none of it matters. The perps are "going to Disneyland!", not to prison. Even the political dissidents and activists in the US are either completely confused about what it would take to oust the malevolent minions of the Elite and change the system so the corporatist-militarist-bankster Elite cannot simply hire a new cadre of puppets, or are left gatekeepers (wittingly or unwittingly.)

Figure it out - ALL IF IT, EVERY FACET of 9/11 - but do it knowing you did it for your own mind, not because "the truth will set us free." The truth is that we citizens have absolutely no control over anything, regardless what knowledge and insights we possess or how much of the truth we've uncovered. We made a HUGE tactical mistake: we let the bad guys gain complete control of the entire electoral paradigm, and so they filled, (and will continue to fill), every seat of high office with their lackeys. We ordinary citizens have no legislative representation, a judicial system that protects the Elite and persecutes ordinary citizens, and a Zionist-Nazi-militarist-globalist-corporatist-bankster cluster of sockpuppets we call "our" executive branch.

Truth isn't power.

Dennis,

I’m afraid everything you say is likely true – and it’s what I fear I believe deep down as well. That the game is already lost and the truth will get me/us nowhere.

But perhaps that’s why I’ve now started to look into consciousness, energetics, and the metaphysical. And perhaps that’s why others have as well? It seems that the metaphysical is the only potential game changing move we may have left. So I come to places like PA where I can read posts from people who claim they have had these supernatural/metaphysical experiences/insights and who seem to think we still have a fighting chance if we can collectively raise our consciousness, change our reality, understand and then exit the Matrix, etc. Not sure what that means exactly or how to make it happen, particularly since, as you say, most people don’t care or have been too dumbed down to care….But there are certainly quite a few people (many of them are on PA, it would seem) who believe that thoughts can become manifest and that changing/affecting reality in this way is possible.

Is it all a PTB-initiated trap to keep us docile and unorganized? My own current inability to have OBE’s, to see UFO’s, to communicate with aliens, etc. tells me maybe it is. I certainly have not yet seen any real evidence of my own power to change reality with my thoughts or intentions (but maybe I’m just doing it wrong ). But, given that the bad guys are in almost complete control now (perhaps through our “tactical errors,” as you say, although I kind of believe we never had any real say-so in who would run the country long before the Diebold machines or hanging chads or any other fairly modern illusions of choice), I figure it’s worth a shot to look into this energetic /metaphysical /consciousness solution a little further.

Maybe it is just false hope. I don’t believe in Blue Avian beings coming to rescue us or savior gods returning to sort this whole ugly mess out. But there does seem to be a long-history of prophets, sages, occultists, shamans, and scientists who have insisted that all is not what it seems, that mankind only sees a sliver of the entire reality, and that energetics/frequencies mean something important that we are being prevented from fully understanding.

And there does seem to be a heck of a lot of effort to monitor us and to dumb us down – which to me suggests some level of fear on the part of the PTB (in addition to their psychopathic desire for total control). Is it simply their rational fear of our numbers? Or our potential ability to make our own world-ending weapons and become rival “gods” if we were smart enough to understand physics on the level that they do? Perhaps.

Or is there something else going on here? Is this whole ”PTB’s fear our awakening” just another deception to keep us powerlessly practicing meditation or learning the tarot while they complete the take-over of Planet Earth – or is there something to this "fear our awakening" assertion? I have no answers yet, but since I basically agree with you that we’ve already lost the game to the military-industrial-bankster Elite, and they aren't sweating our mass discovery of 911 or any other horrific false flag/assassination, I’m still hoping there are other levels of awakening that truly have the power to alter this clearly uneven chess match.

[araucaria]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
and it’s what I fear I believe deep down as well. That the game is already lost and the truth will get me/us nowhere.
(…)
Or is there something else going on here?

Either you haven’t overcome the cognitive dissonance as much as you think, or you are otherwise clinging on. Imagine a cheating partner. The big lie is established; how much detail needs to be sifted through in the light of this one highly disturbing fact will depend on who you are, but there comes a point when you don’t want to know any more horrifying detail, you are thoroughly sick, and you just walk out.

There was a time when I had a recurring nightmarish dream in which I ended up dying. Then I started having a lucid moment that woke me out of the dream: I knew where it was heading and had had enough. This happened earlier and earlier until I stopped having the dream altogether. Presumably this was reflecting something I had been becoming lucid about in waking life. This is what we are doing on a collective basis, and the awake and aware are that streak of lucidity stirring the body out of its slumber. Whether, or rather how quickly, we wake up will decide how uncomfortable the awakening is going to be, but one thing is sure: the dreamer is going to wake up because he simply cannot die (maybe he is perversely rebelling against, or momentarily tiring of, his immortality. )

The hopium, you say, is wearing off: yes, and the despairium is about to run out too. The nuts and bolts of the ‘cabal’istics will suddenly fade into meaninglessness when you fall out of bed

[awakeningmom]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
and it’s what I fear I believe deep down as well. That the game is already lost and the truth will get me/us nowhere.
(…)
Or is there something else going on here?

Either you haven’t overcome the cognitive dissonance as much as you think, or you are otherwise clinging on. Imagine a cheating partner. The big lie is established; how much detail needs to be sifted through in the light of this one highly disturbing fact will depend on who you are, but there comes a point when you don’t want to know any more horrifying detail, you are thoroughly sick, and you just walk out.

There was a time when I had a recurring nightmarish dream in which I ended up dying. Then I started having a lucid moment that woke me out of the dream: I knew where it was heading and had had enough. This happened earlier and earlier until I stopped having the dream altogether. Presumably this was reflecting something I had been becoming lucid about in waking life. This is what we are doing on a collective basis, and the awake and aware are that streak of lucidity stirring the body out of its slumber. Whether, or rather how quickly, we wake up will decide how uncomfortable the awakening is going to be, but one thing is sure: the dreamer is going to wake up because he simply cannot die (maybe he is perversely rebelling against, or momentarily tiring of, his immortality. )

The hopium, you say, is wearing off: yes, and the despairium is about to run out too. The nuts and bolts of the ‘cabal’istics will suddenly fade into meaninglessness when you fall out of bed

Sorry, Araucaria, I'm not sure what you mean here -- did I say I that I had overcome cognitive dissonance somewhere ("as much as I think")? Hardly. But the "incongruous" beliefs or attitudes that cause whatever psychological conflict I have have changed. It went from: "There's no way our own government could be behind 911-- it had to be the 19 Muslims as we have been told" conflicting with "the evidence certainly suggests the government was behind 911" in 2013 -- to my current internal conflict, which is: "finding out who was actually behind 911 might help us weed out the bad guys, turn this world around, and help me with my own closure over this event" conflicting with "but this thing has gone unchallenged and unpunished for almost 14 years -- it seems like the people behind 911 control everything and will never be brought to justice -- and I will never know the truth."

With respect to the desparium over never finding out the truth or bringing the murderers to justice, I guess my current coping mechanism is clinging to the hope (which is not yet anything resembling belief) that there's something else going on here that can transcend this entirely corrupt system -- i.e., a change in vibration, frequency, consicousness, etc. It could be bunk, but I think turning to this metaphysical possibility is a natural stage for many who have started to "awaken", although you may be far beyond this stage yourself.

But why do I personally cling to wanting to know the details even if a larger part of my brain believes that this was pulled off by too many high-ups in government/military/etc to ever unravel completely or bring consequences? Perhaps because, as I said, the event was very personal to me, having lost a very dear friend on one of the planes that day. I haven't reached the point of completely walking away from wanting the details of this "sordid affair" yet, though perhaps I will get there -- in my own time.

I don't know what you mean by your last sentence: "The nuts and bolts of the ‘cabal’istics will suddenly fade into meaninglessness when you fall out of bed" -- can you explain? Is this a higher state of awakening that you have experienced, where none of it matters anymore? I guess I'm confused by your belief that Roth advanced some positive change by her fictional solution -- and your thoughts here. Does inventing fictional happy endings change reality at some point, in your view?

[Slorri]

TSC EPISODE 011: METHODICAL ILLUSION WITH REBEKAH ROTH: THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11
APRIL 16, 2015 PATRICIA LANGER

http://thesupernaturalchristian.com/...uth-about-911/

[Tangri]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
[QUOTE


So I’m trying to work out the kinks to that theory, first based on the oddities of the calls.

I can’t see how handlers could make the calls to close family members and not have the family member recognize the caller as a fake – although I suppose handlers could make calls to “reservations” or 911 operators (but again, wouldn’t the recorded voices be analyzed later by those who knew the victims well? I think that’s why Griffin focused on existing voice morphing technology). I also agree you cannot control every syllable that comes out – but why would a flight attendant say: “I see buildings, I see water” or a passenger say: “we’re over Ohio” to his mother, minutes from impact into the WTC? If these were scripted to be intentionally confusing/illogical calls (either by willing or forced participants), what’s the point of this? Why not tell a story that supports the official narrative? Was it to buy time? To make sure that whatever actually hit the WTC actually got there? Clearly no-one is seeing unidentifiable water/buildings when/if they are tucked away in a hangar on a military base.

I believe, operation wasn't smooth as it's original plan as, and needed to be edited few times after the event. Phone calls were at earliest stage and couldn't predicted it's effects, on last edition end.(producer's cuts, not director's)

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)

I don’t have all the details of the phone calls, but it seems to me the simplest solution would be in some cases at least for the handlers to confiscate cellphones and make the calls themselves.

What happened, according to Rebekah Roth (and I completely agree with all her deductions) is this:

1. All four planes landed soon after take-off at Westover Air Force Base, very near Boston and Newark.
2. The passengers were told by handlers on each plane that this was all a drill.
3. The calls were made on the ground from inside a large hangar.
4. They were made under instruction (possibly coercion), and were at least semi-scripted. (That this was so very poorly done has enabled all this to be pieced together now.)
5. Some of those who made the calls realized something was badly amiss, genuinely feared for their lives at the time (but for different reasons!), and left significant clues — hoping others would pick them up. This has now happened, at last.
6. No voice-morphing was involved. The calls were really made... but outside of the plane, in upstairs offices in the hangar.
7. All the passengers were killed very soon after. (Rebekah Roth speculates that this was done with hydrogen cyanide in the sealed fuselages.)
8. All the planes were replaced with drones or dummies of some kind, for the remainder of the planned incident.