9/11 Bombshell: Methodical Deception -- Rebekah Roth

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

It was possible long before then. They were remote flying bombers in WWII that were loaded with explosives and crashing them into targets.

But to do it required extensive modification to the flight control system that would be obvious to anyone. That 720, and the others they've used over the years have been almost redone to allow for the remote system to be added. The 757 and 767 use a mechanical control system, meaning a control has to physically move, which pulls on a cable that runs to that control surface and moves it.

So there would have to be actuators added, and mechanical systems to move the cables, as well as ways to communicate with the system.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flatcoat

Did you pay attention to the media that day? They had at least six crashes, four hijackings above the ones that actually were hijacked, and two or three truck bombs going off in DC.

And I suppose the FBI and 9/11 commission are using the same excuse/excuses about the phone call story flip-flopping.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hmm but from what you're saying it would actually be possible
It is said in various places that the reported "lump" underneath one of the planes that crashed into the towers, that can be seen in numerous pictures and also was mentioned by eye witnesses, was this very system and that the plane in fact wasn't a 757 but a 767 and had been swapped at Cleveland airport. Supposition I know but one has to bounce all ideas

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

It wasn't supposed to be a 757. The only aircraft that was seen on was UAL175, which was a 767. There were claims it was a KC-767, but the first of those didn't fly until 2005, and wasn't built until 2004.

The bulge seen on 175 though was the main landing gear wheel well, and center wing box. It sticks down slightly below the fuselage, and when the gear is retracted it appears to be something sticking down.

Taking it a bit further......if it is proven that the planes that landed at cleveland at 10.10 Delta 1989 and Unknown at 10.45 that morning, where the passengers were lead to NASA Glenn Research Building, then if someone with a lot of spare unmarked 767's in storage who had recently done some very dodgy deals with Israel and the US Defence Dept as consultant to the Dept of Defence and was contracted to send 32 767's to an airbase in Florida by Boeing who were upgrading their fleet of tanker planes, could then have swapped planes with said system his company supplied and remotely flown them into their various targets, containing a huge quantity of fuel as these tanker refuelling planes were able to carry...but no passengers? If we also bear in mind that this very same person also ran/supplied airport security and as yet after all this time there is still no video evidence of passengers boarding these flights nor any evidence of any arabs boarding nor on the passenger manifest.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Except that isn't right either. They weren't upgrading existing 767s to tankers, they were going to be newly built aircraft. The initial deal called for a lease of 100 aircraft instead of a buy, and negotiations didn't start until 2002. They ended up not getting any of them after the deal was canceled for legal reasons in 2006.

The first KC-767 didn't fly until the 2004 time frame or so. I forget the exact date off the top of my head, but it was well after 9/11, and the US didn't order any until 2011. They still haven't received their first aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Can you point me in the direction of the information that states the missing trillions were in fact located please? I cannot find it. I have found that various sites state the accountants who were looking into this missing cash were killed in the pentagon crash together with all of the documentation

Flight 175 photos do show a rather large cylindrical section attached at the rear which looks like a refuelling system together with the FTS fixtures surely this would account for the many eye witness accounts and pictures showing not landing gear at all and could also account for the perfect flying & handling of these planes in some very tricky manoevres that even experienced pilots state they couldn't carry out? Is it not possible that this 767 was merely made to resemble a civilian plane which again would account for the many eye witness testimonies that said the planes looked nothing like civilian planes?

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

It still hasn't all been accounted for, but a c very large portion of it has been.

It was down to $700B by 2002.

web.archive.org...://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/n02202002_200202201.html

They had 674 computer systems for accounting, and most didn't talk to each other. They were having to manually go to each program and account for the money. So it took time.

ETA: You'll have to quote my reply and copy and paste it into the browser. I'll fix it when I'm on my laptop.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

The bulge was located under the wing area. There was nothing under the tail.

Why would there be landing gear? They'd only be down if they were trying to land. At that speed they'd be damaged if they were lowered, and possibly damage the aircraft as well.

I haven't seen any evidence that makes me think it was anything but a commercial 767 that hit the towers. The timeline doesn't fit a KC-767.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I would have to wonder how this unaccounted money was found and tracked considering that all paperwork relating to this and other accountancy matters were destroyed in the pentagon hit. I appreciate that it was slow going in those days with antiquated computer systems but as all the systems and records were destroyed I would think it would be nigh on impossible to account for $1 never mind 2.3 trillion!

Despite Rumsfelds' announcement the day before 9/11 it seems that this "missing" money was discovered as far back as March 2000 as quoted by John Donelly of Associated Press dated 3/3/00

Pentagon's finances in disarray
By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.
The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.
Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said

In January 2001 Rumsfeld himself who already knew about the unaccountable funds, stated that locating the paper trail of the money would take years and years! He again mentions the state of the Pentagon's accounts in July2001 before the House Appropriations Committee. Thereafter, the Army announced that they were unable to provide year end accounts due to loss of information and personnel during the attacks so the Department of the Army was never audited.

With all this information already being public knowledge, what reason would Rumsfeld have to announce it to the public the day before 9/11? Strange

a reply to: Zaphod58

Apologies but I thought in a previous response you said that the bulge I referred to was the landing gear

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Because it wasn't only kept at the Pentagon, and it was all on computers, with multiple backups. Every company involved had copies of the records of payment for their programs. So it was a matter of comparing their records to the Pentagon records and matching them.

It has taken years. They have found more that needed to be accounted for as the years went on and their records were improved. They're still tracking down a lot of it.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

It was the wheel well that the landing gear retracts into, which is then covered by doors to reduce drag, not the actual landing gear itself. Due to the center wing box, the wells and doors stick down slightly below the fuselage. At the angle the aircraft was at, you could see it sticking down, like it normally does. From most angles it's much harder to see.

I have to say I have watched this whole thing and there is quite a bit of information within the interview that is new to me but at the end of the day we only really have this woman's word for overall I found it quite underwhelming.

I really do like how she talks about cognitive dissonance then seems to demonstrate it throughout the interview, she talks about so much its not really possible to pick out every point she makes so my comments will be quite general.

Firstly she really seems to be grasping at straws with the connections she is making and as is all too often on with alternitive media basically boils it down to "it was those Jews again", even talking about Barbara Olson she points out she has a "Jewish name". I think in the context of any conspiracy theory when you make that connection you are showing your true colours, this whole theory seems to be built around anti-Semitism and a whole load of assumptions being made by Mrs Roth.

Her theory is so disjointed, she talks about this technology that can be used to remotely control the planes, which is fine, one would assume that she is going to argue that they used this technology to fly the planes into the buildings via remote control. But she doesn't! She then goes into this absurd theory about how four planes were actually flown to Otis airbase. When you boil it all down she is basing this of a few sentences spoken by the air-hostesses that she claims only another air-stewardess would pick up on.

Its utter crap, because for this to be true then she has to stray into the "fake planes" theory (one which i am personally not stupid enough to lower myself to discuss). Honestly when you really think about what she is saying objectively its total bollocks.

But this is ATS and I just know that there are loads of members who will agree with everything she has to say and dismiss me as a Jewish Shill because they refuse to look past the grandiose 9/11 false flag conspiracy to get to the truth.

The way she dismissed the missing 28 pages at the end of the interview left me shocked.

a reply to: Salander
Like I said, 14 years of research that did not involve listening to idiots like Richard Gage or Rebekah Roth. Do i blindly accept everything the politicians say? No. But it does not change the facts that 19 terrorists hijacked four airliners and flew them into three buildings, causing the destruction of ten or eleven buildings. The problem is, you look for conspiracies and I look for facts and reason.

Someone tells you that the jets flew around for an hour without being intercepted and you think NORAD must have been shut down. And I know that NORAD spends its time looking outside the borders for the most part.

Someone tells you the US Air Force has 2,000 fighter jets and you think that it must mean someone told them to stand down. And I know that at any given time there was only 14 fighters on alert for North America.

You look for conspiracies and intrigue, I look for reality.


Hell, I could sit down and write a book drawing lines and placing blame for 9/11 all the way back to the Church Commission. You think there was some fantastical conspiracy with PNAC, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Halliburton. And I know the sad reality is 9/11 was the culmination of a terrorist group taking advantage of a situation created by forty plus years worth of decisions made by our politicians that some were good, some were bad, and some were utterly horrendous, but most were made with good intentions.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Reread the article, it was accounting corrections made that did not have sufficient receipts to justify. It was not missing cash. And no, Flight 77 did not destroy all the records. There were over a dozen different computer systems scattered around the Pentagon with the information and records at every damned unit and every damned base around the world. The idea of hitting any one section of the Pentagon and taking out all the records is so utterly ridiculous that the idea of people believing it just shows how dumb society has beco.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Well thanks for insinuating I'm dumb!
If you have read my post relating to the Pentagon finances you will note that I refer to it also as unaccountable and I make reference to the terrible state of the Pentagons' financial system. I didn't say it had disappeared or had been spirited away I'm intelligent enough to be able to differentiate and quite capable of reading reports that clearly mark numerous amounts year in year out as unaccountable. Missing is a word that has been used however and I suppose until all receipts and records come to light missing is as good a word as any

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

The idea of hitting any one section of the Pentagon and taking out all the records is so utterly ridiculous that the idea of people believing it just shows how dumb society has beco.

You are correct. I was on duty at Travis AFB on 9/11 and my paychecks from that point on, were never affected.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

It's what happens when you have almost 700 different types of systems for accounting without one to oversee everything.