CCR 090: 9/11 Methodical Illusion with Rebekah Roth

Play

ep090

ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1991, DURING THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS, George H.W. Bush called for a ‘New World Order.’ Some nine years later in September of 2000, a report was published entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century. In the document, put together by 28 of the most qualified minds in military and tech operations [which included Rabbi Dov Zakheim], it stated “…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.One year later, they got their wish. The event, traumatized and burned into the collective mind of American society, engraved by the numbers “9-11.” The following years were swamped with the motto “9-11 was an inside job,” along with the flurry of conspiracy theories, from controlled demolitions, to the “Directed Energy Weapons” thesis presented by Dr. Judy Wood, to shape-shifting fallen angels crashing into the towers as presented by super intense YouTube guy. Rebekah Roth, has a unique perspective on 9/11 given her thirty year experience as a flight attendant, and proprietary knowledge of airplanes, universal FAA protocols, standardized flight crew procedures and all hijacking policies. She’s the author of the best selling book Methodical Illusion, where she outlines her investigation into 9/11 in novel format. What she uncovered in her journey is nothing less than the disturbing truth about the Pearl Harbor event of our generation.

LINKS

Rebekah Roth Website (http://methodicalillusion.com)

LOFI File of the episode (Click HERE)

31 comments… add one
  1. Brian

    It’s nice to hear her perspective and I learned some interesting new things. However, I lean more towards the no planes theory now. The whole thing with planes seems to have been fabricated and it was bombs that exploded the towers. There’s a really good documentary about this view and it is clear that all of the video footage of the planes hitting the buildings are fake.

    I don’t think you should apologize about the flat-earth episode at all. I can’t say I’m 100% convinced either but there really does seem to be something to it and it opened my mind again and caused me to do more research. And that’s why I like listening to you guys. As long as you don’t start claiming the Bible is a conspiracy and have people like Rob Bell on your show, then I’ll always keep listening and “thinking outside the cage.” 😉

    1. Carolyn

      Agreed, the heretical Rob Bell and all those at the helm of the emergent church movement are the Last Days church that Scripture warns us about; we are foolish to think otherwise. True believers in God’s Word have to contend for the faith and not get swept up into the “feelings” that trump solid Biblical teachings, the nonsense that is promulgated by those “pastors” of mega churches as well as those with best selling books and their “new” revelations. Living in O.C. as I do, I am stunned at the flock (not just here in amazing California – my sister in Wisconsin knows plenty that are even more gullible and she’s in a small community) that follows New Age paradigms, such as the Daniel Plan which is led by New Age gurus vs. solid Believers (that are also reputable physicians) that know the Word. Christian Yoga? Contemplative prayer and prayer circles? Jesus Calling? Wait, check your caller I.D. on that one! Telemarketers aren’t the only ones engaged in deceptive scams…

      1. Brian

        Thanks for the reply. I kinda wish I still lived in O.C. I mean, it was a ridiculously expensive place to live as a single person and had so many stupid laws but despite all the negatives and nutters, there still seems to be a growing Christian community that I would actually be able to have logical and fruitful conversations with. I’ve tried many churches around here and all they seem to do is spread false doctrine and act just like the world that is more concerned about the latest sports scores than the spiritual battle we are facing.

      2. The Bible is not a reliable source as it was written by many different humans at different times and was often transcribed incorrectly and mistranslated. You might as well read tea leaves or throw bones on the ground. Better yet eviscerate a rooster and study its entrails.

  2. Possibly one of the very best CCR episodes of all time.

    Indeed, Christian “Truthers” cannot be afraid to follow the evidence to the places it leads, regardless of whatever cherished eschatological traditions it might chaffe against…

  3. Spychiatrist

    Much of what Rebekah relates has been done by a handful of other researchers namely Christopher Bollyn. Her work is important and I’m glad she’s bringing it out, but giving credit where credit is due, there are other trailblazers who’s work has been essentially ignored by even the Christian community, because of the Israeli connections.

    I admire you gentlemen for going where the truth leads as we all know that even Christians can sometimes give in to a certain political correctness concerning certain things. Go where the evidence leads always and let the chips fall where they may.

  4. Hopefully this gets approved, few of my posts in the past disappeared.
    Anyways, I just wanted to state while I do generally agree 9/11 is likely an inside job or at the very least orchestrated by some sinister force and feel Mrs. Roth brings some quality information to the table, one of the issues I have always been bothered with is the Pentagon, no plane, claims. She didn’t specifically come out and say this, but I know some do.

    Reason I say this is because I worked at the Pentagon for about three years and had the chance to question people who experienced it. One testimony stuck with me in all this when I was investigating 9/11 truth and I worked with the guy for 3 years and had no reason to disbelieve his testimony. He said he saw the plane flying over highway 95 as he was stuck in traffic on the way to work that day. He said it was so vivid he could see the faces of the people in the plane. Again, I had no reason to disbelieve this guy’s statement. Other people corroborated and their personal testimonies made me put the Pentagon plane issue on the fence, at least…I’m sure there are a lot of possibilities to explain how this could have been a plane, etc.

    Just thought I’d share that.
    God Bless,
    Roy

    1. “Again, I had no reason to disbelieve this guy’s statement…”

      Just to clarify, this was a guy who was also working at the Pentagon, after the 9/11 attacks..? Gee, can’t think of any reason why anyone working at the Pentagon might have incentive to corroborate the official story…

      If an airliner truly did crash into the Pentagon as they insist, why in the world were we not subjected to endless replays of the footage of the crash, as we were with the second tower, from any one of the dozens of security cameras that would have captured it…? instead they were all immediately seized and the public has been privy to nothing but a vague blue flash…

      In the end though, the specific details of something like “what exactly hit the Pentagon” is ultimately pretty irrelevant in the grander scheme of things, since there is nevertheless overwhelming evidence that the entire affair was absolutely a false flag. All that really matters is that innocent people really died, the shadow government got their “war on terror”, and it wasn’t because of some Saudi terrorist cell…

      1. “Just to clarify, this was a guy who was also working at the Pentagon, after the 9/11 attacks..? Gee, can’t think of any reason why anyone working at the Pentagon might have incentive to corroborate the official story…”

        Your knee jerk accusation about a guy I knew for three years which assumes he had a leg in the whole 9/11 conspiracy is part of the big problem in the truth movement and very unfortunately, even the Christian portion of the alternative truth movement.

        1) Did you completely miss the part where I said I knew this guy for three whole years…
        2) I guess because I was working at the Pentagon with said individual, I’m also suspect too? Correct? Another issue I have with the alternative truth movement. Like Mrs. Roth said, you have a whole lot of people making left field theories without taking the time to gain any true understanding of the organizations they are attempting to critique. I was in the U.S. Air Force for 8 years and I’ve been a government contractor for the last 10. I don’t believe in their missions, but I have a lovely stay at home wife, four children to feed and I got bills to pay and my attempts to get out have not panned out. However, you’re tone here and many like it are complete arguments from ignorance. Complete fallacy. “Oh, he worked in the Pentagon, he might be a plant and just feeding you the official story” No, these were worker bees, cogs in the wheel and from my experience I can tell you even Special Agents are sometimes just pawns on the board without any comprehension of their mission beyond what they were told or indoctrinated into.
        3) Now before you say my point #2 proves your tone on the matter, this guy wasn’t one of those brainwashed Special Agents I’ve worked with. He was a regular Joe Schmoe with no incentive to push the official story beyond well we knew each other for three years, I had been investigating 9/11 truth at the time and I asked him what he saw and if he was there. He told me. The ones who weren’t there told me. None of these people were high level Special Agent with an ulterior agenda, etc. But of course you’re inclined to get super fringe and believe what you want about people you never met, talked to or had the chance to vet through experience with them to determine whether or not they were fibbing or not.

        As to your second paragraph. I dunno. I’m not here to pretend I have all the answers. I don’t. I just shared my experience through my own investigation and because I got to know, work with, and break bread with these people. I had no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. THEY SAW A PLANE. Whether they saw the actual planes, I dunno, whether they saw the real people I dunno. It could have been remote control like Mrs. Roth said, backed up with explosives or loaded with explosives. I tend to lean towards that position. Maybe the it was a mass hallucination, a holographic image of a plane while the powers that be shot a missile at the Pentagon. Whatever the case, these people were honest in their testimony regarding what they saw an experienced. Take it how you want it.

        As to your final paragraph. I agree it was a false flag and I tend to lean largely towards Mrs. Roth’s theory here. It’s more reasonable and plausible considering some of the other wild theories I’ve heard. I just wanted to point out in a round about way sometimes it seems easier for us to sit on or keyboards, in our libraries or among those who think like us and play investigator and forget there were real people who had real experiences on these horrible days (9/11, Boston Marathon, etc) and saw real things that may not chime with our pet theories of what went down. If we are in it for truth we have to be willing to know when our pet theories may not be panning out because all the circumstantial evidence may not be pointing in that direction.

        So for me, the no plane hit the Pentagon theory has been a hang up, what hit the Pentagon may seem moot at this point, but it’s part of the whole scenario so it’s still an important topic.

        Roy

      2. Truth,

        I had typed a long response to you, dunno what happened to it. It may have gotten caught up in moderation or deleted, no fault of Basil or Gonz, or something. Not sure.

        Thus I’m not really inclined to retype it all up. I had copied it and attempted to paste it in a Word document, but unfortunately the last copy was your first line which I primarily responded to. I will attempt to capture all the vitriol and shillism I’m sure was in the original. 😉

        You said: “Just to clarify, this was a guy who was also working at the Pentagon, after the 9/11 attacks..? Gee, can’t think of any reason why anyone working at the Pentagon might have incentive to corroborate the official story…”

        Initially I hit this with about five points, but I will try to summarize and pray this goes through. Basil, Gonz, if this turns out to be a double post, feel free to delete one.

        Truth, I guess you missed the part where I said I knew the guy for three years. This means I again knew him, worked with him (meaning I worked at the Pentagon so I must be a undercover shill right, riiiiiiight?) and I broke bread with this individual. As well as all the ones I asked. I didn’t just haphazardly ask around random people about their experiences. I asked the people I had worked with for a while, felt I vetted and felt comfortable asking the question considering the agency I was working for. They told me their story, the were upfront, the ones who were there told me what they saw and experienced, the ones who weren’t there just straight up said I wasn’t there, I wasn’t on shift. Period.

        This brings me to one of the biggest issues I have with all facets of the truth movement, the knee jerky reaction to immediately assume without knowing someone, spending time with someone, vetting someone, etc that because Person A works at Government Organization A, “Oh he/she must be a plant and has an incentive to keep the official story.”

        The guy I’m speaking of eventually left that agency for another so he had no particular loyalty to it. Like me, it was just a job to pay the bills. Like me, he probably could’ve found another gig before the whole economic crisis occurred and it was at this time I asked him and the others these questions. All of the people I asked didn’t have problems questioning authority, they did it regularly. They pretty much loathed the agency they worked for because of internal treatment and hostile work environment. They would all jump at the opportunity to “gossip” about the internal issues of the agency amongst each other. So when I asked, I had experienced all this, but of course you are free to cross examine everything in disbelief. I’m sure you will.

        Lastly, I dunno what they might have saw in reality, but they said they saw a Plane. After working with them, breaking bread with them, talking about families, etc. I had no reason to disbelieve them. I’m sure you want to fire back with their incentive was their paycheck. I wasn’t going public with this information or threatening their careers with it. We’d talk about politics, religion, etc. all the time and these people were always upfront with me. But then again, like I said, this is one of my biggest issues with all facets of the truth movement. It’s far easier to sit behind a keyboard, in a library, where ever, anywhere other than actually talking to people who experienced these events first hand (9/11, Boston Marathon, etc.) and fish out wild theories like Mrs. Roth said. Often times people who talk about military issues (I served in the Air Force 8 years) government contract issues (I’ve been one 10 years, but guess I”m a shill, riiiiiight?), etc. often miss out on key elements that they would know makes their pet theories false if they had actual experience or did actual leg work. Just saying.

        Anyways, I’m going to end this here so I don’t get frustrated if it happens to disappear. I just want to conclude with I also guess you miss the part where I said I agree the false flag position about 9/11, but then again I’m one of those government insiders riiiight?

        Sorry if my response comes off as hostile, I’m just tired of this knee jerk response from truthers. Like Mrs. Roth said, I don’t need the truth movement to be for truth and if we are for truth we should be for all facets of the truth and not just our pet theories.

        Roy

      3. I’m going to try this a third time, maybe there is a limit on the length of the post so I will break this up:

        Truth,

        I had typed a long response to you, dunno what happened to it. It may have gotten caught up in moderation or deleted, no fault of Basil or Gonz, or something. Not sure.

        Thus I’m not really inclined to retype it all up. I had copied it and attempted to paste it in a Word document, but unfortunately the last copy was your first line which I primarily responded to. I will attempt to capture all the vitriol and shillism I’m sure was in the original. 😉

        You said: “Just to clarify, this was a guy who was also working at the Pentagon, after the 9/11 attacks..? Gee, can’t think of any reason why anyone working at the Pentagon might have incentive to corroborate the official story…”

        Initially I hit this with about five points, but I will try to summarize and pray this goes through. Basil, Gonz, if this turns out to be a double post, feel free to delete one.

        Truth, I guess you missed the part where I said I knew the guy for three years. This means I again knew him, worked with him (meaning I worked at the Pentagon so I must be a undercover shill right, riiiiiiight?) and I broke bread with this individual. As well as all the ones I asked. I didn’t just haphazardly ask around random people about their experiences. I asked the people I had worked with for a while, felt I vetted and felt comfortable asking the question considering the agency I was working for. They told me their story, the were upfront, the ones who were there told me what they saw and experienced, the ones who weren’t there just straight up said I wasn’t there, I wasn’t on shift. Period.

        This brings me to one of the biggest issues I have with all facets of the truth movement, the knee jerky reaction to immediately assume without knowing someone, spending time with someone, vetting someone, etc that because Person A works at Government Organization A, “Oh he/she must be a plant and has an incentive to keep the official story.”

      4. This is my fourth time attempting a response to Truth,

        Truth,

        I had typed a long response to you, dunno what happened to it. It may have gotten caught up in moderation or deleted, no fault of Basil or Gonz, or something. Not sure.

        Thus I’m not really inclined to retype it all up. I had copied it and attempted to paste it in a Word document, but unfortunately the last copy was your first line which I primarily responded to. I will attempt to capture all the vitriol and shillism I’m sure was in the original. 😉

        You said: “Just to clarify, this was a guy who was also working at the Pentagon, after the 9/11 attacks..? Gee, can’t think of any reason why anyone working at the Pentagon might have incentive to corroborate the official story…”

        Initially I hit this with about five points, but I will try to summarize and pray this goes through. Basil, Gonz, if this turns out to be a double post, feel free to delete one.

        1. Truth, I guess you missed the part where I said I knew the guy for three years. This means I again knew him, worked with him (meaning I worked at the Pentagon so I must be a undercover shill right, riiiiiiight?) and I broke bread with this individual. As well as all the ones I asked. I didn’t just haphazardly ask around random people about their experiences. I asked the people I had worked with for a while, felt I vetted and felt comfortable asking the question considering the agency I was working for. They told me their story, the were upfront, the ones who were there told me what they saw and experienced, the ones who weren’t there just straight up said I wasn’t there, I wasn’t on shift. Period.

          1. This brings me to one of the biggest issues I have with all facets of the truth movement, the knee jerky reaction to immediately assume without knowing someone, spending time with someone, vetting someone, etc that because Person A works at Government Organization A, “Oh he/she must be a plant and has an incentive to keep the official story.”

            The guy I’m speaking of eventually left that agency for another so he had no particular loyalty to it. Like me, it was just a job to pay the bills. Like me, he probably could’ve found another gig before the whole economic crisis occurred and it was at this time I asked him and the others these questions. All of the people I asked didn’t have problems questioning authority, they did it regularly. They pretty much loathed the agency they worked for because of internal treatment and hostile work environment. They would all jump at the opportunity to “gossip” about the internal issues of the agency amongst each other. So when I asked, I had experienced all this, but of course you are free to cross examine everything in disbelief. I’m sure you will.

          2. This brings me to one of the biggest issues I have with all facets of the truth movement, the knee jerky reaction to immediately assume without knowing someone, spending time with someone, vetting someone, etc that because Person A works at Government Organization A, “Oh he/she must be a plant and has an incentive to keep the official story.”

            The guy I’m speaking of eventually left that agency for another so he had no particular loyalty to it. Like me, it was just a job to pay the bills. Like me, he probably could’ve found another gig before the whole economic crisis occurred and it was at this time I asked him and the others these questions. All of the people I asked didn’t have problems questioning authority, they did it regularly. They pretty much loathed the agency they worked for because of internal treatment and hostile work environment. They would all jump at the opportunity to “gossip” about the internal issues of the agency amongst each other.

          3. I’ve been trying to post my response in parts. I’m gong to leave it alone because I got an error saying I duplicated a message. I dunno what’s going on, must be the settings in the post length or something. Anyways, I hope what I said so far will suffice. Hopefully this goes through as a closer. I wanted to say more, but, oh well.

            Roy

          4. admin

            Hey BrotherRoy, you posted so much that the site considered it spam. I had to unfilter stuff from the spam box. it should all be posted now. Thanks.

      5. Guess I discovered the problem, must be a limit on post length so I’m breaking this all up:

        Continued:

        Truth, I guess you missed the part where I said I knew the guy for three years. This means I again knew him, worked with him (meaning I worked at the Pentagon so I must be a undercover shill right, riiiiiiight?) and I broke bread with this individual. As well as all the ones I asked. I didn’t just haphazardly ask around random people about their experiences. I asked the people I had worked with for a while, felt I vetted and felt comfortable asking the question considering the agency I was working for. They told me their story, the were upfront, the ones who were there told me what they saw and experienced, the ones who weren’t there just straight up said I wasn’t there, I wasn’t on shift. Period.

        This brings me to one of the biggest issues I have with all facets of the truth movement, the knee jerky reaction to immediately assume without knowing someone, spending time with someone, vetting someone, etc that because Person A works at Government Organization A, “Oh he/she must be a plant and has an incentive to keep the official story.”

    2. Spychiatrist

      Hi Roy.

      Go here http://thepentacon.com/ and read what these folks have to say about that. There was a C-130 that actually did a near flyover just before the missile (or whatever) hit the Pentagon. NO commercial airliner ever hit the Pentagon as far as I’m concerned. Give that site a good read and let us know what you think. Blessings.

      1. Spychiatrist,

        Thanks for the site. I never said it had to be a commercial airliner, I just said this particular guy’s testimony stuck with me because he said he saw the faces of the people. I don’t know what he really saw in light of everything that has come out, but I had no reason, after knowing, working with, and breaking bread with this individual for three years to disbelieve what he saw. What it was actually, we may never truly know. Whether it was a C-130 dropping explosives, I dunno. Whether it was a remote control plane loaded with explosives like Mrs. Roth alludes to, I dunno, but I find that more plausible than a C-130 launching a missile. I dunno, I do have issues with that theory tho. Having served in the Air Force for 8 years I know a little something about C-130’s. I don’t pretend to know everything, but I do know they were designed to be cargo planes and not pay load planes. To have a precise hit from a missile pay load, that would seem to be more inline with a Fighter Plane rather than a huge cargo plane. I’m not saying that I don’t believe one could be modified, but history has shown that the larger planes are usually incapable of having pin point precision accuracy when releasing payloads on targets. Just my experience and understanding of planes speaking here. Again, what it was, I don’t know.

        As I alluded to, I do not dispute the false flag belief about 9/11. I actually believe it.

        Roy

        1. Spychiatrist

          Roy,

          I think the second plane was a decoy doing a near flyover and the ordinance or explosives were shape charges already PRE-PLACED within the only section of the Pentagon that was under construction at the time. I don’t think the second aircraft dropped anything at all, it was only used as a diversion because no actual aircraft hit the Pentagon. I’m writing this in a spirit of friendship not trying to argue, just don’t know if you’ve ever considered this particular scenario or not. Check it out.

          Check this link for the second aircraft scenario: http://thepentacon.com/Topic5.htm

          1. Spy,

            I don’t mean to come off as argumentative or anything. Just voicing my experience and opinion. A large aircraft flying over with pre-placed charges already placed is highly plausible. You’d probably have to talk to a pilot about whether or not a plane flying that low without crashing is actually feasible tho. That’d prob be my first question…of course saying this off the top of the head without thoroughly reading the site yet.

            On another note, the side of the Pentagon in the third photo on the site is how we all used to drive in. That’d be the side he, and many others I work with said they saw the plane fly over 395/95 North highway which goes into Washington D.C. He would’ve been sitting in traffic or probably driving down the high way at that point as well as the others.

            Just pointing out, I feel the site and his story both line up.

            Roy

          2. My fault, Spy, the second photo.

      2. A.Wright

        There were about 100 people who were near the Pentagon who said they watched a plane heading towards the building and those who were closest to it saw it crash into the building. There is no doubt about it. There were more witnesses to this plane crash than to almost any other plane crash that has ever happened. Most fatal plane crashes are witnessed by no one. Here is a plane crash witnessed by hundreds and somehow it is made into some mysterious myth where not only are people being sold a load of baloney about it not being AA77 but that there wasn’t even a plane crash. Imagine a plane crashes into the middle of Washington and people can be mislead into thinking a plane didn’t crash into the middle of Washington. Imagine someone thinking of a plan to make people think a plane had crashed into the middle of Washington by not crashing that plane into the middle of Washington. By not even crashing a plane. A plane crashed into the Pentagon. It was American Airlines flight 77. There is no doubt about it. It happened almost 14 years ago. Stop perpetuating the utter inane myth that it didn’t. Stop calling yourselves the ‘truth movement’ if you have no interest in the truth. Grow up. Stop acting like you are 10 years old and haven’t got 2 brain cells to rub together.

  5. pat

    That was really good, thank ya’ll. Would love to hear an interview with Carolyn Hamlett soon

  6. Basil, Gonz

    Dude you could’ve deleted some of that. Don’t want to seem like I’m going off or something. I just didn’t see it pop up so I kept trying that’s all.

    Roy

  7. Jerry

    I apologize if this has already been brought up at some point. I listened to this episode several days ago, but got side-tracked a bit. The idea that has been returning to me since 9-11 and no less so today: First, my sense is that regardless of the specific agencies involved, it was a pro-globalist action. I sincerely believe that those who are responsible for the attack want (and planned for) us to tumble onto the fact that it was a false flag event–even to the point of operating within the “truther” movement, guiding us in our frustration with our governing bodies. Why? It’s a time-tested method for leading a public to abandon the system that reinforces their own national sovereignty and to embrace a new (in this case, global) system.

    1. Jerry

      Oh, and God Bless!

    2. Spychiatrist

      Absolutely true.

      The conspirators knew that their fiasco would be uncovered. Here’s a good article on exactly what you’re talking about Jerry.

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-walls-are-crumbling-down-around-the-official-911-story-why/5394984

  8. Joe Guzman

    Anyone ever see the video for Bang a Gong by Powerstation. The background shows planes with the twin towers. The video is from the 80’s. Interesting.

  9. Nick

    Hey Basil and Gonz,

    I don’t know if it has been brought to your attention, but Rebekah Roth has been proven to be a fraud in the last six months. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Don’t want you guys to be caught unawares. She had a lot of people fooled.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.