Is 9/11 researcher Rebekah Roth all she is cracked up to be?

[KINGSTON FRIZZ]

The reason I ask, is that just like Judy Wood, she attacks those that criticise her rather than defend herself or address their points:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.co.uk/20...sion-pros.html

[Dreamtimer]

Very good article (I haven't finished reading it yet). The first part reveals character. If I was her, I'd sure try to talk to Mr. Fetzer before reacting, especially in that way. And she did it in public. Not smart.

[modwiz]

The reason I ask, is that just like Judy Wood, she attacks those that criticise her rather than defend herself or address their points:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.co.uk/20...sion-pros.html

For the record, I do not buy the Judy Woods version of things. I also do not buy the official version but, we have a new world to move onto and into. All will come out at some point and we, the alternative community, need to find where we agree. Especially about the world we want to see in our future.

[bsbray]

I'm not always sure what to make of Jim Fetzer either but at some point people need to sit down and think, "Why should I take a minute out of my day to insult this guy when I could use the same minute to just respectfully give a reason why I believe he's wrong?" Why can't people just do that?

[TimeLab]

I'm not always sure what to make of Jim Fetzer either but at some point people need to sit down and think, "Why should I take a minute out of my day to insult this guy when I could use the same minute to just respectfully give a reason why I believe he's wrong?" Why can't people just do that?

That goes for the the vague comment about 'disagreeing with Judy Wood too'. Accomplishes absolutely nothing without the WHY, and only shows a lazy ego needing to make a pompous 'I know better' statement from cloak of superiority.

[modwiz]

That goes for the the vague comment about 'disagreeing with Judy Wood too'. Accomplishes absolutely nothing without the WHY, and only shows a lazy ego needing to make a pompous 'I know better' statement from cloak of superiority.

Hey, Judy. Welcome to the forum. Contributing to that unity I was focusing on, I see.

[bsbray]

That goes for the the vague comment about 'disagreeing with Judy Wood too'. Accomplishes absolutely nothing without the WHY, and only shows a lazy ego needing to make a pompous 'I know better' statement from cloak of superiority.

I never followed Judy Woods that much but what I was getting out of her work didn't make much sense to me. I remember at the time that she was saying that energy beams from a satellite in space destroyed the Twin Towers. There is a lot that would have to be explained to me for that to make any sense to me, like how this could cause the collapse to begin close to where the planes impacted rather than the tops of the buildings, why there was a eutectic "corrosion" on the steel samples analyzed in FEMA's report, appendix C, and a lot of other pieces of evidence that doesn't seem to fit this theory.

See? I gave a few reasons without making personal attacks and it really didn't take any longer than making the personal attacks would have.

[TimeLab]

I never followed Judy Woods that much but what I was getting out of her work didn't make much sense to me. I remember at the time that she was saying that energy beams from a satellite in space destroyed the Twin Towers. There is a lot that would have to be explained to me for that to make any sense to me, like how this could cause the collapse to begin close to where the planes impacted rather than the tops of the buildings, why there was a eutectic "corrosion" on the steel samples analyzed in FEMA's report, appendix C, and a lot of other pieces of evidence that doesn't seem to fit this theory.

See? I gave a few reasons without making personal attacks and it really didn't take any longer than making the personal attacks would have.

Exactly, thank you. Most of my conclusions about 9-11 methods are still in observation mode, but I think Judy's research is especially helpful for pointing out anomalies that need explaining like the burned out cars blocks away and many other significant anomalies totally ignored in the official story.

The only stable unity is truth or it's got a crack in the foundation that will get worse and either severely weaken or bring down the house. I think a lot of progress has been made in having good evidence to back up and/or refute many sincere efforts/contributions to the big puzzle. We're not done.

[bsbray]

I know this still sounds crazy to a lot of people but I looked into those two building collapses over the course of several years and my best conclusion in the end was that some type of modern miniature nuclear devices were used in conjunction with a form of nanothermite near where the planes hit and probably more conventional bombs in the basement that appear to have went off when the planes hit.

I could go into a lot of detail on this if anyone wanted the lines connected for them but I'll go over these facts briefly:

1) In an analysis of the WTC dust, there are two patterns that fit the particle size distribution: one pattern where most of the particles are larger, and the smaller the particle size becomes, the less frequent they are. This is consistent with mechanical destruction. The other pattern is consistent with molecular dissociation, where most particles are smaller and the larger they are, the less frequent they are. With both of these patterns present the WTC dust particle size analysis showed a kind of "U" shape when graphed, as there were spikes for both large particles and extremely tiny particles indicating both mechanical destruction and molecular dissociation.



2) Heavy debris falling from the towers appears at first glance to be giving off this dust, as if the dust was already collected on the falling debris and is just coming off as it falls. However upon closer inspection this is not what is happening, as any dust separates nearly instantly and the smoke-like material that continues to come from falling pieces of debris is consistent with sublimating materials like you see here:



Sublimation like this occurs when the material is bombarded with neutrons, for example, which heat steel so quickly on the molecular level that it goes straight to gas, skipping the liquid molten state. The steel continued to give off gray "smoke" as it smoldered in the debris pile even after each building collapsed, and of course after that molten metal was still being dug up for months, until December if I remember correctly.

So far all of this is more or less consistent with what Wood shows too, except that I still can't make sense of the physics of how an energy wave could produce what was actually witnessed, from a satellite.

3) There were numerous signs of radiation at the WTC site. As far as I recall, either no one brought a Geiger counter to Ground Zero in the aftermath of the attacks or else no one thought it prudent to publish results. I remember that what evidence of nuclear radiation that was acknowledged was discounted by "debunkers" as coming from the exit signs in the building which apparently have some minimal amount of radioactive material in them. Nonetheless there were billions of gallons of water sprayed on the debris pile and weeks later this water run off was tested and found to still contained a large amount of tritium, which is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. The idea is that the hydrogen from the water (H2O) absorbed radiation from the pile and became tritium before running back into the water table/sewer in Manhattan.

The whistleblower Indira Singh who worked with the triage centers set up in Manhattan also testifies that she say many first responders lose hair in large clumps and later come down with terrible forms of lung cancer. She attributed this generally to the large amount of pollutants in the air, including asbestos (not to mention the vaporized steel and concrete), but we all know what hair coming out in lumps is also a sign of.

The apparent sublimation of the steel as it fell is another sign of radiation, as were all of the cars around the bases of the buildings which spontaneously combusted. People running from the bases of the towers recall that the dust cloud behind them was very hot and was even setting paper and other materials on the street on fire, and melting peoples' shoes.

4) The miniature earthquakes that registered at the beginning of each collapse were much stronger than the remainder of those collapses, even when the bulk of the buildings' masses should have theoretically been finally hitting the ground.

5) Conventional explosives such as C4, military-grade bombs or even nanothermites can not explain the various characteristics of the collapses. It should be stated here also that there has been talk in physics and conspiracy circles for over 10 years that a nuclear weapon which achieves near 100% efficiency in converting mass to energy (little to no residual radioactive material left) and could have a controlled emission in terms of the amounts of alpha/beta/gamma/neutron radiation, could be nearly impossible to detect.


There are other things that are interesting to observe. FEMA appendix C already proved a eutectic reaction analogous to nanothermite had eaten through steel recovered from the WTC debris pile, and this was before there was ever talk of nanothermite and before Steven Jones ever published his paper first popularizing the idea. FEMA's report was on behalf of the federal government and even they found that this stuff really was on the columns, though they simply called it a eutectic reaction (which thermite). They also noted that the substance on the steel was able to lower its melting point so that it could be melted more easily than could normally be achieved. Thermite is virtually silent and could have done a lot of "pre-cutting" to the steel to ensure that the structure fell in an orderly way once the main supports were apparently instantly vaporized.

Also if you watch the footage from the Naudet brothers when they approach the WTC buildings after the first impact, the lobby windows are already blown out, there are people lying burnt alive (but not grotesquely splattered from a fall -- meaning they were severely burned from a fireball from the lobby), and the lower elevators were already blown out. Firefighters also testified to this, that when they first arrived, the lower elevators were blown out. There were only 2 elevators that ran continuously from the top to the bottom of the buildings but these were not the ones that were destroyed. Rather something from the basement had exploded simultaneous with the aircraft impact. Philip Morelli was a construction worker and also said that it sounded as if something exploded in the basement, and there were other testimonies to this effect as well. There is also at least 1 picture showing that the outside of WTC6 was scorched, apparently also from the fireball that erupted from the lobby of WTC1 when the first plane hit.

The "official story" (official as in, what the History Channel and some internet debunkers are claiming -- the government has not touched this as far as I know in the official reports) claims that some jet fuel came down the elevator shafts and then exploded and made a fireball that came out of -- of all places -- the ground-floor lobby, causing major damage even in the basement. The elevator shafts were made of gypsum board according to the official reports so how in the hell a fireball can be safely channeled down gypsum board shafts to destroy concrete in the basement is beyond me, let alone the fact that a fuel aerosol has to be of a very exact mixture with air to explode in the first place, and definitely not in a running liquid form.


I could go on and on about this but I'll stop here. I was very interested in this stuff for years but became burned out on it. There is so much information indicating that 9/11 was an inside job that it's ridiculous.

[KINGSTON FRIZZ]

Hmm. Looks like I might have called it...

Is she 2 people? http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.co.uk/20...on-may-be.html

[dlipter]

Dr Wood never uttered the term "particle beams from space" in her analysis. She only refers to "directed energy". She also never strays far from the evidence. I find it hard to refute her logic. She has a remarkable mind.

[KINGSTON FRIZZ]

Kurt Haskell has exposed Rebecca Roth. If you don''t know who he is, I am sure you all remember the underwear bomber.
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-kur...er-sentencing/

Here is his expose in 2 parts:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/kurt-...4709?pnref=lhc

https://www.facebook.com/notes/kurt-...53784402099709

doc on roth and her lies:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Po8NgBllQw

[KINGSTON FRIZZ]

I see Paul and Bill and others on Avalon are still defending her in the face of overwhelming evidence that she is a liar not to mention they seem to have no problem with someone who is happy using the term "fags" to address gay people.

[bsbray]

Whoever did her wardrobe was pretty terrible. Looks like something an actress would wear in a B movie.

[scibuster]

http://www.911-archiv.net/Debunking-...-entlarvt.html

But i think the fire brigade has radiation detectors.