Methodical Deception - 911 Very Interesting Inside The Airline Persective

[Drew Phipps]

I did say that it was a poor analogy.

My main point is that when things start breaking, you introduce an extra degree of magnitude (maybe) of factors affecting the outcome, and you will get more of a chaotic distribution of broken material than a well ordered distribution.

To flog my poor analogy to its breaking point (ha hah), if I snap a single strand of spaghetti, I might get 2 pieces, or 3, or more, and there is no way for me to know that outcome in advance. If I get only 2, they both stay in my hands. If there are three pieces, I can guess that the extra one will fly off in a direction commensurate with the force applied, but the distance it will fly depends partly upon the size of the broken off piece, which I cannot possibly know in advance. If there are more than three pieces, there is no way to predict where or how far they will go.

Now if I break several strands of spaghetti, not only do I have the uncertainties above (times the number of strands in my hand) but also the probability that the little bits will interact with each other. The problem quickly devolves from a high school textbook solution into a completely indeterminate and chaotic one.

Now I concede that gravity tends to work along the length of a steel beam (assuming its vertical) and my analogy has a force that works sideways to the spaghetti. However, Newton's Second Law, though it does have a vector component as to direction, makes no distinction between the kinds of force used. The acceleration and the resulting movement won't depend on if the force applied is by hand, by gravity, magnetism, or by telekinesis, or tractor beams.

Although I've never tried this, I assume that if I managed to balance a brick on an upright strand of spaghetti, I'd probably, eventually, get spaghetti all over the kitchen, just as if I'd snapped it by hand.

[Drew Phipps]

Maybe a better analogy would be a Jenga game. Even if you make the same moves, the stack never collapses in exactly the same way.

[Ty Carpenter]

Instead of balancing the brick on the spaghetti, turn it around and stand the spaghetti on the brick. That is more likely the proper scale for what happened. We had a small piece of the building that supposedly demolished the entire lower portion. Also, if you use the Jenga analogy that does not jive. In a building we have an amount of pieces that are all joined together one way or another to complete the structure. In Jenga we have several pieces stacked together to create the structure. I would fathom that the Jenga pieces would blow out and fall in different areas but with everything being fastened together in a building I believe the outcome would be different. More force would be needed to eject the beams since they are tied together than the building collapsing could provide.

[Dawn Meredith]

This very perceptive former flight attendant has found new 'coincidences' and anomalies about 911! She also knows from her years as a flight attendant that some of the scenarios we've been told are false. :: Have a look!

Her website is not bad either. Clever researcher on 911! I haven't yet read her books, but from her interviews [several are online], while I think her research is right on, generally; I think she sees Israel as the mastermind in the events of 911 - I see some Israeli agents and companies involved, for sure, but doing this under the direction of American 'planners' and 'coordinators', without doubt. The tail was not wagging the dog on 911.

http://www.methodicaldeception.com/resource2.html

I recently became facebok friends with this author and only had a chance to view this particular video late yesterday. Great stuff, a lot of new stuff to me also, and that it's from an insider's viewpoint a lot more about the calls from the attendants now makes much more sense. They were trying to send a message. All of the videos posted here are must viewing.

Dawn

I am now having some doubts about this woman's authenticity. On facebook she mainly just PUSHES her two books in way I have never seen another author do. Additionally she has developed the Judy Baker syndrome of saying she is being threatened and her family is being is being threatened. I have never seen a 9-11 truther say this. I've done a bit of digging and several are questioning her MO. I emailed with one such person yesterday and he emailed back that someone asked her which airline she had worked for and she blocked that person on facebook. She and I emailed some when I first discovered her and in those emails she also mostly PUSHED her books. In this vid she talks about Otis Air Force base, which is small, so no way any of the planes were taken there. At no point does she mention it allegedly occurred at MUCH larger Westover Air Force base. THAT is only in her book. So she chided my husband and I for not knowing this just by watching the video. Very odd that she would only talk about Otis in the video.

[Peter Lemkin]

Her books are listed as fiction.....don't know what that means, as I have not looked at them, only the video. Maybe she is a mockingbird or mole into the 911 Truth movement...don't know. ::pullhairout::::fury::

[Peter Lemkin]

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2015

Rebekah Roth's METHODICAL ILLUSION: Pros and Cons


by Jim Fetzer http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.cz/2015/09/r...-pros.html

It has taken me some time to come out about Rebekah Roth and her book, METHODICAL ILLUSION (2015), which has now been supplemented by her second,METHODICAL DECEPTION (2015). I learned of her book six months or so ago from my friend, Dennis Cimino, who was the Navy's top electronics trouble shooter before he left and joined Raytheon. Rebekah had contacted him in an effort to gain his support for her work, where they spent some time (around six hours) in conversation.



Dennis told me that he had been bothered by some of the technical aspects of her account, including that turning off a plane's transponder (which emits a signal identifying the flight) does not take its blip off a radar screen (which is created by radio waves bouncing off an aluminum aircraft in the air). And he told me he was also concerned that she was maintaining that, were a plane taken over by a "flight termination system" (a remote control manager), then there would be no way for the crew to notify the FAA of a hijacking in progress. So he sent it to me and I read it instead.
A question on a talk show

A few weeks ago, I was on a talk show and a guest called in to ask about Rebekah Roth. Knowing that she did not have everything right, I replied that I had read her book and liked a lot of what she had to say (especially in her analysis of the purported "phone calls from passengers") but that she did not have everything right, that I had planned to compose a review of her book but had not done it yet, which I thought was a fair statement of my position about Rebakah. The next thing I knew, she had launched an attack on me from her facebook page as follows:

This was disconcerting, since she had not even bothered to determine what I had said about her work before attacking me. That suggested to me that she was not receptive to criticism, which is inevitable in 9/11 research. And I had pointed out when I replied to the question that, indeed, I had read her book.
My response to her attack

When I discovered she was attacking me, I took the opportunity to post some replies, which were all very professional and straightforward. Here is an example, where she responded by turning her page "PRIVATE" to make it impossible for me to continue to comment, which I found revealing by itself:

All the crash sites were fabricated or faked

I thought it was important to cite my interview with General Stubblebine, USA (ret.), because, given he was in charge of all US military intelligence during his career and agreed that all four 9/11 crash sites had been fabricated or faked (albeit in different ways), a crucial aspect of Rebekah's position is that all four of the planes were diverted to Westover, MA, Air Force Base, the location from which she claims the "passenger phone calls" were made, where some were killed before and some after making them:



That has caused me some concern over the prospect that she had taken "data points" that have been raised by students of 9/11--the faked phone calls, the fabricated "crash sites", and so on--in order to account for them--to "explain them away"--as part of a novel theory that reasserts the role of real planes on 9/11, where the evidence that I had reviewed with Gen. Stubblebine suggested planes were not involved. As Hollywood knows, it can be easier--often, much easier!--to fake events than to carry them out, especially when their performance would entail violations of laws of aerodynamics and of physics.
"The Covert Report" Interview

A few days ago, Susan Lindauer, a former CIA asset who was the liaison between the agency and Saddam Hussein, invited me and Dennis to come on her show and, in part, if we were willing, to address our issues with Rebekah Roth, where Susan was open about being one of Rebekah's supporters. We both liked the idea and went on her show on Friday, 19 September 2015. Here is Susan's summary with a link to the show, which makes our concerns about METHODICAL ILLUSION (2015) conspicuous and clear:

AERONAUTICS FRAUD ON 9/11 W/Dennis Cimino & Jim Fetzer covertreport | Sep 19, 2015

Two awesome guests today, top Naval electronics troubleshooter, Dennis Cimino and Jim Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, provide a deep analysis of glaring deficiencies and outright mechanical inconsistencies of the airplane theories on 9/11.

Whether the listening audience believes in holograms or drones in New York, these two experts prove why commercial airline jets played no role on 9/11, either at the Pentagon or at the World Trade Center.

As Fetzer puts it, there are four faked crash sites on 9/11, using different means and methodologies, but all with the same result. Fetzer and Cimono have co-authored a series of articles on Veterans Today. This is a great show! Hope you will enjoy it!

To listen to our interview with Susan Lindauer,click here: The Covert Report 19/09/2015

Rebekah was not a happy camper

My impression is that Rebekah was not pleased by our conversation with Susan Lindauer on Truth Frequency Radio and has apparently gone so far as to quit her own show on that network in protest. But that would seem to be another over-reaction, comparable to her attack on me for suggesting that "She doesn't have everything right!" As someone who had advanced theories of his own about 9/11, she cannot expect that her work will not be subjected to minute examination, where some will find her work impeccable and others may have certain reservations.

What I like the most about her research is that she has no hestitation in identifying Israel and the Mossad as key players in the 9/11 attacks. She addresses the key role played by the Gelatin Group, which was composed of Israeli "art students", who had (what appears to have been) complete access to the buildings and staged "performance art" on the outside of their structure. I am very much inclined to believe that they prepped the facades with explosives (or themite or nanothermite) to create the cut-out images of non-existent planes (faked using holograms) to convey the impression that they were real.
Richard Hall's 3-D Flight 175 Radar Study

Among the important points she brings out is that the Gelatin Group had boxes upon boxes of special fuses holders, which look very much as though they would have been appropriate to hold charges in place on the outside of the towers to create those cut-outs behind the smoke and haze that obfuscated what was going on--apart from those "points of light", Richard Hall has discussed in his fascinating study, where I have on occasion observed that this may be what George H.W. Bush was talking about when he refereed to "a thousand points of light":



There can be scant doubt that Rebekah has made a major contribution to 9/11 research by focusing attention on the role of Israel and the Mossad, especially in relation to the Gelatin Group. The kinds of questions her work raises about her include how someone who says she was a stewardess for 30 years could not know that turning off a transponder is not going to remove a blip from a radar screen and why she would suggest that, once a plane had been taken over by remote control, the pilots and crew would have no way to signal that their plane had been hijacked.
Figuring out the How, the Who and the Why

Dennis has a great deal of flight experience and, as he explained in our Friday interview with Susan Lindauer, her story of one of the planes coming in for landing at Westover AFB from 21,000' when it was only nine miles out and traveling eight miles a minute was unreasonable: it was not an approach that any pilot would have undertaken. And there is no way the FAA would have allowed P-tech to bypass all of the electronic methods the aircraft can use as duress signals or duress situation signaling capability. As Dennis is the first to acknowledge, after talking with her at length, he had decided not to read her book.



The image of the plane hit and the image of the gash occur in the temporal sequence of first/second, but the first did not CAUSE the second. This is an elementary fallacy known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Whatever other faults her work may display, Rebekah Roth has reignited a lot of interest in 9/11 and drawn new students to the case. It may take some time to distill the ultimate impact of her books, which appear intended to revive belief in the use of real planes on 9/11. The weight of the evidence is against that, but nonetheless we welcome her contributions to its study.

[Drew Phipps]

Roth's reaction to criticism seems quite common and ordinary to me, after having watched academics, authors, colleagues, family members, and otherwise seemingly reasonable people (including on this website and elsewhere) respond in similar ways: anger, insults, juvenile tactics, calling people "disinformation agents", etc,; when their ideas were questioned.

There must be a common medical term for this. If not, might I suggest "Anapyhlactic Critique-osis", a condition where even a small amount of criticism produces a violent and disproportionate reaction.

Let me say this about the underlying dispute here: Roth's scenario, despite a couple of flaws, seems to me eminently more probable than Fetzer's hologram idea. As far as the specific critical points raised by Fetzer, perhaps he (or "Dennis") could explain why it is impossible for a flight termination system (not necessarily an FAA-approved flight termination system) to disable radio communications. Or why it is impossible for a flight termination system to be "hacked" into disabling the radio. Or why it is impossible that normal radio communications systems on these planes simply had been disabled before the flights took place.

If we're going to visualize unknown technology, another scenario that seems to have been overlooked by both Roth and Fetzer is the idea that, just perhaps, technology that allowed cell phones to work that day at altitude was in play for the specific purpose of memorializing the passengers' last words. Seems easier to accomplish than space based disintegration beams or holograms that cast shadows and reflect off transparent air.

Edit: I do not mean to imply that Fetzer proposes death beams

[Peter Lemkin]

Just to make clear, by posting Jim's post I was not endorsing his ideas. While his and my ideas on 911 overlap, they do not agree in full. I DO think that someone prepped the building with nanothermite and that very specific floors on the towers were targeted [the planes were under computer control]. However, while I think some Israeli agents had a part, I do NOT think Israel was the lead in the magic show by any means. I also find the use of holograms most unlikely on such a large scale in broad daylight to have been used [and I used to do holography in my past - so I know a lot about them - and know that they will work in small spaces with a dark background. Holography has been used by the military and intelligence agencies on rare occasions to fake an opponent or their weapons system, under the right conditions]. That said, while I do not agree with Jim on this, it is not beyond the possible - simply unlikely, and I see no clear evidence of it. There are certain anomalies with the plane-shaped damage to the buildings, but this has not been fully studied enough, IMHO, by experts who would be able to unambiguously say. Yes, as with Dallas, there are as many viewpoints as there are researchers - and many are sensitive to criticism, and overreact to it. ::

[Lauren Johnson]

More books to come. Her story is that she is being attacked by trolls.

[Dawn Meredith]

Interesting video. She has a large fanbase on facebook.

Dawn