Who is “Rebekah Roth”?

Submitted by Allen William Powell

[Over the past several months a woman by the name of Rebekah Roth has been making the rounds on numerous alternative media programs, claiming that the information she has concerning the true perpetrators of 9/11 is so dangerous that she can only present it in fictional form. But who really is Rebekah Roth? Is she a single individual or a composite that has been assembled by one or more government agencies? Further, why is she so averse to debating veteran 9/11 researchers? Allen Powell discusses his recent encounter with the author.-JFT]

I think Ms Roth is a fiction talking and producing fiction about a fiction.

Screen Shot 2015-11-19 at 6.31.50 PM

She keeps the planes in the air. I don’t think they were there. She has no history of any kind and I don’t mean academic or research.

She has no Internet footprint that I can find and I would be grateful to anyone who can point me in any direction in that respect who has found anything indicating the presence of a Rebekah Roth, this Rebekah Roth on the ‘net. All I see are multiples of the same image when I google.

She throws Dov Zakheim under the bus for the Pentagon missing $2.3 trillion. He was already there. Rumsfeld threw him there the day before 9/11 in a congressional hearing. She points to the Israelis, the missing 28 pages points to the Saudis. So nothing points to the Bush mafia? Now we look at the two potential blameworthy culprits, the Israelis or the Saudis. We disregard the Bush mafia. We debate the blameworthiness. Who did it? We know it was not the Arabs claimed by the FBI, most of those characters didn’t exist. I think it’s all condensing down into a couple of lucrative insurance scams, the obfuscation of a missing $2.3 trill from the Pentagon and the starter’s pistol for PNAC.

Ms Roth wants to keep the Israeli aspect on its legs. Wherever she points, it is not Washington and that is her leitmotiv. Keep the eyes off Washington. It was the foreigners, whatever creed or colour. No foreigners were able to stand down the air defences, the fighter jets were not scrambled because there was nothing to find. Imagine sending in the fighter jets within six minutes as Ms Roth says they would be and the fighters finding no airliners heading for the towers. Ms Roth has the planes up in the air doing something, being hijacked, then landed and the passengers all killed and then, the planes take off and hit the towers?

And now she claims all she does is for the purpose of finding what happened to the aircrew of the planes. It’s a circuitous route to be doing so, writing a novel, setting up a profit making website, writing another novel, refusing to be questioned by the most serious 9/11 investigator, Jim Fetzer.

She has erred and she hasn’t realised it. Anyone can find the error and it is a large one. It is the error that only someone working from a script continually can make. She is unaware of it. Anyone listening to her dozen or so interviews on youtube will eventually realise it. I’m an exceptional dunce, it took me months to realise it. I’ve asked her to appear on the Fetzer show with me questioning her since she has such an antipathy to Jim, she refused. She claimed Jim launches ad hominems on anyone new to the “truther” movement, I have seen no evidence of that. She claimed to me in an email that “everyone” knows he is a fake.

Here is an extended quote from that email, received November 12, 2015:

No, I do not have time to argue with idiots, his accusations are insane. Ever since my second book came out he has attacked my character while completely missing WHAT IS EXPOSED in the books …

I have been told by numerous people that this Fetter [sic] character has done the same character assassination to everyone that has stepped into the 911 truth.

I will not argue with him, he is a proven liar … I am about finding the truth for the crew members and passengers that gave their lives that day, and nothing more.

I could care less what this lunatic conspiracy nutjob says, many people know he is lying and only using my name to get hits on his blog or you tube channel.

Don’t ask again, I am busy writing another novel to expose the new findings and a nonfiction book.

If they do, none of them have told me that. The truth is that I among others nagged him to get her on his show long before she launched her attack on him. He read the book first and was like me unconvinced. She refused my latest request for an interview a couple of days ago. She did so in the language of an angry youtube poster, evasive, vitriolic not like the Rebekah we hear in the interviews. Before the response I had no dog in the fight. Now I do.

Allen William Powell was born in the United Kingdom and presently resides in Canberra, Australia. He has conducted extensive research on complex political events, including the Sandy Hook School massacre and the Boston Marathon bombing. His recent work is featured in the new book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (Moon Rock Books 2015), edited by Jim Fetzer and Mike Palecek.


89 thoughts on “Who is “Rebekah Roth”?”

  1. RR is a wig wearing Jew with a Langley area code… what else do you need to know? … I have listened to her diarrhea mouth “facts” like Rain Man on more than 15 hours of interviews, but she slips up with the hanger deaths and people standing on platforms outside the plane.

    Certain things she says are bullshit, mixes in her 90% truth to keep eyes off the ball. Why wear a wig and change your name?

    “By the way of deception we shall wage war.”

    RR = Mossad asset.

  2. you have to give them credit, they’re thinking all the time. or possibly just an individual effort.

    1. Glad someone said it. We are seeing apologists (or, more likely, the person under scrutiny) posting obvious rebuttals under new aliases. I’m guessing we could implement a tally system like arstechnica that shows how many comments have been posted by each user so credibility can be assessed. I definitely think the “like” button is beneficial for those of us that sift the wheat from the tares.

  3. I’ve read both her books, the 1st book is a single chapter of interest, the 2nd book is a single chapter and some interesting stuff in the references. I think she has provided some good info. Why do these things always digress into pissing matches? No discussion of the points she’s made, nothing of the pertinent chapter. I listen to Fetzer often and he certainly does offend people with his frequent editorial comments. Nobody likes to be told who’s smarter, and I’ve learned long ago that those who brag about credentials need them badly. I learned Atta was an AA million miler from a couple of her radio interviews – I’ve never heard that discussed anywhere, why not? The Westover airfield is plausible, switching drones has been proposed by many researchers. I take everyone seriously until I get thru their research – even “new” people to the effort.

    1. Well Marv, many people devoted thousands of hours of diligent research to the 9-11 story. “Rebekah” sweeps (pun intended) in and takes full credit, not only for “solving” the alleged puzzle on her own, but to the exclusion of any other possibility.

      Many of us have studied, debated and tried, each in their way, to understand how this was done. I appreciate each and everyone of them.

      Jim Fetzer is anything but an “idiot”. There is disagreement within the various groups and individuals who study this, but most are not “idiots”. They have their reasons for their opinions and I have mine.

      Ms. Roth does not bring anything new to the party. She claims that her theory of the airport selected for landing the planes is the magical revelation. It is even more magical if there were no planes.

      Unfortunately, even given the sheer volume of interviews she has roared through, I am not aware of one in which she actually discussed an alternative theory or entertained another’s theory.

      As Mr. Powell more graciously adduces, her sudden arrival on the scene and attendant publicity and initial “success” is suspect. It is not due to anything presented in the book as it is all information that has been out there for quite some time.

      So yes, if she were merely adding her theory or politely offering her version of events with due respect to others who have devoted significantly more time and attention than is possible in her book, it might be worthy of discussion. As it is, it is dismissive of others and her statements are very insulting to some.

      1. I just watched the interview with this lady posted by legioncult below and I will say that I did learn a few new things from her. Now, I haven’t read her book and I’m not endorsing her in anyway, never heard of her until just today. I consider myself pretty well versed in most angles of 911…..Israel and Mossad involvement, planes vs no planes, commission report cover up, etc, but I hadn’t really heard anything new in quite some time until I just learned in this interview about the Israelis that were actually living in the towers for 4 years and these drawings of theirs that have been published. Of course I have known about the dancing Israelis for years, the Israelis in the moving van, the Israelis that were posing as art students around the country, but the specific detail of Israelis that were living in the towers was pretty impressive to find out.

        My point is, I still don’t get what all the fuss is about with this woman. Is it because she called Fetzer an idiot that people are all in a flap? I mean, I’m sure that all kinds of 911 researchers have duplicate information covered by others in their work like she does, so that can’t be her great offense. But if she has put the time in and put out a book that adds at least some credible additional aspects, isn’t that a positive thing? It seems that in his intro to this piece, Tracey was suggesting that she is possibly some kind of dis-info plant……..but would anyone among the PTB plant someone that points squarely at Israel and the Jewish people? That just doesn’t seem credible at all. If anything, a plant would do the exact opposite.

        And why do people on the same side want to debate her? I mean, if I were a 911 researcher and let’s say, I believed there were no planes, I wouldn’t really be interested either in debating someone on my side that believes that there were planes…..cause in the end, none of us know for sure. But what we do know is that the official story is a total hoax. So shouldn’t all 911 researchers be looking to debate and debunk those that push the offical narrative? Wouldn’t that be much more constructive than bickering with this woman?

        I’m asking honestly because I’m very confused at what all the “mystery” or scandal is about this woman. She just looks like another 911 researcher that has uncovered some more damning evidence against the official story, nothing more. I would say that is a good thing for our side.

        1. AServant, you stated: “It seems that in his intro to this piece, Tracey was suggesting that she is possibly some kind of dis-info plant……..but would anyone among the PTB plant someone that points squarely at Israel and the Jewish people? That just doesn’t seem credible at all. If anything, a plant would do the exact opposite.”

          I disagree. When the evidence is too strong to ignore, those who’ve committed the crime will invariably insert agents who will admit the true aspects of the info, AS WELL AS INSERT falsities and tangents to put people off track and get them squabbling over details that ultimately don’t matter.

        2. It is NOT uncommon for jews to say less than complimentary things about other jews. It’s a device to dilute angst or anger or negativity against the jew in some carefully chosen cases. . It shows that “jews can be criticized and rightly so”. It legitimizes the credibility of the critic, after all, he/she is being critical of his/her own group, itself a noble and humanitarian gesture.

          There is much to be gained, at the right times, from criticism of one’s indigenous group if it is done correctly and in the proper “tone”. There is nothing to be lost by criticizing one’s group, it’s often a very effective device.

        3. That, my friend, is PRECISELY the point. This isn’t about internecine rivalry among “truthers”. I am deeply suspicious of her whole schtick. In fact, I doubt very much that she did the “research” for this book.

          There are developments in the 9-11 research that are gaining an audience. It is absolutely irrefutable that Israel played a large part. It is also irrefutable (in my opinion) that nukes were used. People are dying from the effects of that.

          I think the book, and her, are a sort of preparation for a limited hangout. In other words, “yeah, we helped, but we’d NEVER use a nuclear device…..”.

          That said, as I stated before, there is nothing new in the book that I haven’t read elsewhere other than naming the supposed airstrip that the planes allegedly were flown to. That, by the way, is not physically possible, even if there WERE planes. At least at that location.

          Compounding this is the smug attitude and quickness to criticize those who have actually done the leg work on this. To see her lauded as some sort of guru for the work of others is annoying.

          As to the art students in the buildings, that has been out there for a very long time. All of those things are interesting, but she did not “discover” them.

          Whoever aggregated the book simply grabbed information from numerous sources on the internet. Then a rather weak tale was developed involving “foreign” bad guys and a wonderful leader figure who would sort it all out in the end.

          While I’m thrilled that she knows how to order beer in Japan, and absolutely overwhelmed with the knowledge that she was a flight attendant, I’m afraid that even with those credentials nothing new has been added. Further, she doesn’t have it “right”.

          If there is a saving grace in this it may be that it gets some to do more research on their own. I sincerely hope they don’t take this as the “Gospel of Roth” and stop there.

        4. To clarify – I was referring to the initial comment from Aservant – not to any subsequent comment, but my note was placed below comments that I do not agree with. Is there a way to ensure that a comment will appear where you intend it to?

      2. New from Roth: 1) Atta was an AA million miler. 2) The National Guard locked out of Westover. 3) “Gelatin” on the 91st floor. 4) the fuse switches. 5) the corp chain from the fuse switches to Halliburton. 6) the witness of UAL 175 very low in the sky in western MA. 7) the unorthodox behavior of the flt attendants. Actually, I think Roth has added a whole new perspective. Sedated Princess is right: This info. has become territorial; I’d give up a shit load of “truth” for a speck of “unity”. Nobody knows! The only certainty is the lie – and we cannot find consensus on that single truth. Human nature and the real terrorists know this about us. I don’t think Roth works for the CIA becuz her address is Langley, VA. I think many people who have added “Truther” to their resume envy Roth for finding a way to make some money writing a dime novel and getting all this attention. Good for her. The novels are horrible but I’m always shocked at the numbers of people who love to read shit – in the 2nd book we have a chapter on buying a gown for a state dinner with the President – ugh!

        1. Gelatin is old news. One of the first (but not the first) to put it out there was “Let’s Roll” Years ago. She could verify about Atta being a million miler, but she doesn’t. We must have faith in her. She could verify about the National Guard being locked out of Westover, but she does not. Again, we must have faith in Rebekah. She doesn’t even try to persuade us it is true; UAL 175 being very low? That was another anonymous woman or man who she said wrote to her. The woman told her that she would swear in open court, but Roth will not give us her name because the woman does not want her name used. Do you believe that this is the same woman who told her she would swear in open court? Yeah, well if you do, I’ve got some snake oil from Phixyourheath to sell you.

      3. Lophatt, I don’t believe there were any planes either. The videos that came out years ago proving that what we were shown on 911, with planes that were able to penetrate deeply into towers made of steel, and one plane’s nose even protruding out the other side, was enough to convince me that it was done by CGI. I can’t imagine that any logical thinker watching those videos could believe that planes could do that. There are things that truly ARE impossible, and that feat is impossible!

        I watched quite a few of Ms. Roth’s videos and she is very interesting. She is very intent on pinning the nose on those 26 Israelis, but for me it is very simple, maybe even too simple for some to believe. It is the same as solving any other whodunit: who benefited from this event and who had the means and ability to pull it off? The answer is obvious; only those in the most powerful seats of authority in this country, including political and military authorities, could have even possibly made this happen. Just considering that NORAD obeyed stand-down orders from someone is very damning, and that is just one of the many tell-tale clues that point directly to Bush, Cheney, and company. And of course, the media has been bought and paid for a long time ago, making them more than happy to skew the story to achieve the desired result. I really don’t understand how they were able and continue to be able to convince the majority of the American people with their charade.

        I don’t read fiction at all, but I did get a Kindle sample of the books Ms. Roth has written. I got the distinct impression that she is trying to deflect the blame off the truly guilty, and swing it over to a shady group of Israelis (that didn’t have the capability to commit this crime either). There also seems to be a sort of push to convince Americans that if Congress would open a new investigation into 911, they would get to the bottom of this terrible event and we could all live happily ever after. That is laughable to me; I don’t believe Congress is ever going to investigate its own crimes. But that’s just me. 🙂

        1. 911 Whodoneit

          Who? American,Israeli,Saudi and British Intelligence.


          They “divvied up” about 8 Trillion Dollars and counting amongst themselves.

          Started a “soft” WWIII war on Terror. $$$$

          Neutered the American people. Don’t bother writing or calling Congress.

          Started the Police State (DHS) that will enslave the American people and maybe EU too?

          Stole the America Military and turned it into a “World” Army if you will.

          And the Money just keeps rolling in…….and it only cost 3000 lives!
          8 Trillion divided by 3000 lives…not a bad deal

          Please feel free to add to all of the benefits of 911 and the continuing Cash that funds all the Drills and Police State.

          This is how they sleep at night if they even sleep. Do Lizards Sleep? Haha

        2. Oh, I forgot about all the Insurance money for the buildings and the “Free” demolition job and also All the pending incriminating records that were destroyed, also not mention a Whole lot of Debts coming due on Bonds and such.

        3. Mary, I understand your points. I’m not doing an adequate job of stating mine. The 26 Israelis is an interesting detail, along with many others, that confirm what many of us already know.

          Asking Congress (ha!) to investigate themselves is a waste of time. It’s like asking a kid with chocolate all over her face “who stole the cookies?”.

          I think the success and promotion of this book are more suspicious than the contents. We just received an example of what happens when someone writes a serious book with supporting documentation.

          So, one is suppressed while the other is hyped with accompanying interviews, breathless praise, etc.. One is shallow, with glimmers of other’s work thrown into a fictitious plot, while the other is logical, developed and professionally presented.

          In short, I’m suspicious. I’m also a little offended.

    2. Just what are you trying, albeit miserably, to say? That humanity is imperfect? That our response to different people is highly variable?

      Do you expect people to routinely apologize to you because you have been offended?

      Where do you get off, fella? If you are asking for some kind of extra-special respect, take a long dive off a short pier.

      Obnoxious is as obnoxious does. What year did you graduate from Shill School?

      1. Who are you talking to Gil? Whose offended? I’ve read all the comments and still can’t figure out who your comment is directed at.

        1. Toni, while I have your ear. I think her pictures of the so called Artists on the 91st floor and all those weird drawings are very interesting.

          How she got them, I don’t know but it is very incriminating and could be used in a court of law if we had one..haha

          Her interview with SGT was very good and he seems like a good man to me and made it clear he’s not “Jew” bashing which I think is misguided because it’s much more complicated than “the Jews did it”

          We know the story of the Tares.

          I think you know what I’m trying to say.

        2. I’m going to give up. I confess, I truly do not understand the attraction to Ms. Roth and her book. Moreover, I would rather take a saltwater enema than listen to another of her interviews. They are monologues.

          There is nothing new here. To me it is suspicious. Compare what is happening with this to what just happened with the SHES book. Please don’t tell me it is due to her Cleopatra wig.

          As to alleged Jew bashing, I say what I think needs to be said. If someone takes offense at that I understand. It won’t affect my findings. I wish it were Samoans. It would be much easier to discuss.

          My instincts tell me to run away from this like a three-card monty game. As an example, I think Judy Wood did marvelous research and produced a wonderful book. I don’t agree with her conclusions, but there is much to praise there. Rebekah Roth is no Judy Wood.

          There are problems with virtually every presentation of 9-11 information and theory. I use what seems plausible and fit the pieces together accordingly. Obviously, the details vary between theorists. That’s OK. I am very satisfied with my theories and some others. I know that most are just that, details.

          The initial success that her book enjoyed is what made me suspicious enough to look into it. As you can see from the hatchet job given to the recent SHES book it is quite a contrast. I doubt that even her most ardent fans will consider her a great writer. So that doesn’t account for its success.

          I have not seen a series of interviews like hers, ever. Many of them made me suspicious of the interviewers themselves. The slavish praise and sycophantic adoration was hard to take. They are perfectly canned. There is no interaction. There is “The Speech”.

          I think that if I wanted to float a control figure out there for later use it would look a lot like this. This is a lot like the Peter Sellers movie “Being There”. Those that have seen it will get my drift.

  4. then we have Rebecca Roche from Boston Marathon.. the green tshirt runner, throwing something to Bill Iffrig at the finish line when the fake bombs went off…..co incidence? Bill iffrig might have connections to Tim Dooner and Jessica Ressler Massachusetts

  5. From Rebekah Roth….

    “Next week on my radio show, Saturday at 6pm eastern, we will be joined by a senior flight attendant /Purser for the entire two hours. We will share with you some insights and also share with you some of the internet troll crazy nonsense theories from the airline perspective.

    TalkNetwork.com – Talk Radio Without Corporate Collusion
    If you’re tired of the corporate controlled, left/right paradigm, song and dance that dominates the dial — your home is here”

  6. 1) Would the author please educate me, extreme, that is: even more exceptional, dunce, how Rebekah “has erred and she hasn’t realised it”? I could not read about the error in the text nor could I come up with one myself (,extreme dunce).

    2) Could the author educate me (, extreme etc.) about the “they” and the “that” in his sentence: “If they do, none of them have told me that.” I really don’t get it.

    3) What am I supposed to understand about “the dog in the fight” that the author has? I mean what are his grievances, if any?

  7. Thank you Allen. I looked into Rebekah Roth a few months ago and found about the same thing that you did. I even read the other offering at her self-publishing site called “Windsweeping”. Did you know that the dog’s name in that tale is the same?

    At any rate, she has no apparent problem taking complete credit for “cracking” the whole 9-11 business. Her interviews are like nails on a chalkboard. There is one opinion only, hers.

    She seems quite comfortable in interviews so long as she is in complete charge of them. Those who question elements of her “research” are treated harshly, indeed.

    I have not read the new book. The first was a ridiculous story of imaginary hero figures cast against a backdrop of “foreign” enemies, ala James Bond. The flight attendant heroine of the first is now married to El Presidente in the second, or so I’m told.

    I think it may be her “Nancy Grace” certainty about her information that is so galling. I truly cannot make some of the elements of her theory work, as they appear contradictory, but I definitely support your version, i.e., no planes.

    As to who she is I was unable to find anything concrete. It is obviously at least a pseudonym. As you say, it may even be a composite. I read the other book listed with hers to see if they were written by the same person. There are some similarities in parts, but that one seems written by someone else in the main.

    The only certainty I can determine is that she is a tireless self-promoter.

  8. Just as Rebekah Roth, or whatever her name is, has exposed nothing new about 9/11, you have exposed nothing new about her. The tone of her email is no surprise to anyone who has listened to her and she is still a mystery.

  9. And no-one who writes in the comments here rise above the “dunce” level and actually realise the error in the script? Or is it an insider secret? Come on, tell us.

  10. Allen,

    I agree with your premise here.

    Who is Rebekah Roth?

    She seems to have come from way out in left field with all this what seems to be plagiarized “research”.

    So you have every right to be suspicious.

    I watched one of her videos on youtube and was unimpressed. Nothing new here folks. Yet she seems to think it is.

    Maybe Methodical Delusion should be the title of her next book.

  11. I have read her first book and listened to several of her interviews. Her “back story” and admission of pseudonym use does explain why she is rather new to it all. Maybe it’s the truth, maybe it’s not.

    I do think her fiction approach is what she has mostly brought to the table. I personally found it sophomoric and unsophisticated but I can see where it might appeal to some who would NEVER, under any circumstance, even contemplate questioning the official version much less doing any 9/11 research on their own. My sisters come to mind.

    But perhaps enough time has passed, more people have become distrustful of what the MSM spews and this approach wraps it up in a bow – presenting what some find impossible to envision in a palatable, comfortable manner.

    My concern is that is blurs the line – even more – between reality and fiction. I did find the idea that Israeli students might have actually lived in the towers for months/years prior to 9/11 to be highly revelatory. I would think that was easy enough to confirm.

    Her email was troubling but to be honest I find Jim Fetzer difficult to listen to as well.

    1. “My concern is that is blurs the line – even more – between reality and fiction.”
      You’ve hit the nail on the head. It is very likely her SOLE purpose is to blur the lines. This is the same modus operandi run after any major event. Muddy the waters until the general public won’t even TRY to untangle the web of information/disinformation. Ordo Ab Chao.

      As for Rabbi Dov Zakheim having previously been thrown under the bus, it obviously didn’t do him ANY damage. His star is always ascendent, for instance, at the Defense Business Board, of which he is a founding member. See this: http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/612787

      National Defense Magazine recently quoted him in relation to the current DoD comptroller’s budget proposal:

      Zakheim is also with CNA Corporation. “CNA is a nonprofit research organization that operates the Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for Public Research.” It is a federally funded think tank.

      Interestingly, the biography of Zakheim found at the Jewish Virtual Library doesn’t mention that he is a founding member of the Defense Business Board, nor that he is a rabbi and a dual citizen.

      TTM Technologies has Zakheim on their Board of Directors:
      Here is their history:

      Zakheim is also a board member of Chemonics International, whose ‘mission statement’ is: “By promoting meaningful change around the world we help people live healthier, more productive, and more independent lives.” But, it had its origins in Afghanistan, (something to do with fertilizers) then Mali and Egypt. So they are a ‘consulting’ firm founded by “Tony Teele” in the 1970s and in a voice over for the company Teele states their goal is to work in developing countries to help them ‘improve one thing or another’. (What that level of non-specificity means is, it’s very likely an intelligence services front company.) http://www.chemonics.com/ourstory/ourleadershipteam/pages/our-board-of-directors.

      This is Zakheim’s ‘bio’ on the Chemonics site:
      “Dr. Zakheim is currently serving as the vice chairman of both the Center for the National Interest and the Foreign Policy Research Institute, as well as being a member of the DOD’s Defense Business Board and the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and Chatham House/The Royal Institute of International Affairs; and is a fellow of the Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences.”

      This is from Zakheims’ bio from the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, wherein it states rabbi Zakheim is Senior Adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Corporate Vice President of System Planning Corporation and Chief Executive Officer of SPC International Corporation, formerly Senior Vice President of Booz Allen Hamilton, where he led the firm’s support of the U.S. Combatant Commanders, member of the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Vice Chairman of both the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Board of Trustees and of the Board of Directors of the Center for The National Interest.


      A bit of deciphering done here:

    2. Fetzer is nothing if not an intense student of complex phenomena regarding crimes and various intrigues, tasks often bastardized by those who call him the master of conspiracy theory. Jim has done a lot for this country in his stellar career, far more than the average schlub. For that reason alone, we must at least acknowledge his contributions and realize that we are all different, imperfect, and we are not universally loved by every human on the planet.
      Jim Fetzer is an American hero, where would we be without him?

  12. There is a 20/30 vision requirement to being a flight attendant – looking at her age, it was probably 20/20 when she applied as they have relaxed the regulations. If you look at the distortion between her face in the glasses – lenses correcting nearsightedness make your eyes look smaller and “moves” the edge of your face closer inwards, it shows that she is nearsighted. She has more distortion than I do with my glasses and I am closer to 20/40. Unless her vision has deteriorated quite a bit, it is unlikely that she would have been accepted as an “airline hostess” or whatever they call stewardesses today.

    1. Ms Roth, up until recently, had a radio program on the Truth Frequency Radio but the program director has severed all ties with her due to her inflammatory comments and the use of hate speech. She now has a program on http://talknetwork.com/. When I first became familiar with her work I too thought it was odd that she chose to write a fictional account if the information was true. I soon opted out of anything to do with her information because of a pervasive anti-semitic posture and the use of hate speech regarding gays. She became a divisive personality on TFR but I believe that the station learned only recently of her vitriol, thus ending their association. She also uses the same photo there as well.

      1. I had the same thoughts about this caricature as I did the guy named Stanley, William Stanley, who appeared on MHB some time ago as the progenitor of a trillion dollar lawsuit against various and sundry perpetrators of various crimes against truth.

        I get the same queasiness when I listen to the ex-nurse called Riley, don’t remember her first name. Too many things have ominous malodorousness with her, too. She has a radio show and is also a smooth operator, too smooth.

        Roth struck me as way too confident, way too smooth, way too practiced, she never stuttered in her thoughts and was always totally sure of her theories. I felt right away that she was very, very suspect.

        Shills, one and all. I’m delighted that so many MHB’ers caught on to these people in short order.

  13. I know this is not the right topic, but it’s too priceless not to post:

    What a joke…keep milking it baby! “American Airlines has found the luggage belonging to Boston Marathon bombing survivor Adrianne Haslet-Davis, after she took to Twitter Thursday calling out the company for losing luggage containing some important equipment.”

    1. “Turn off the fireworks.” Look at her vamping for the camera and keening like a sick dog. Who in their right mind would film or tape this nonsense. I nominate Adrianne Haslet-Davis for worst crisis actor of the year.

      1. Truly pathetic! Someone please send her a “tweet” that nobody is buying her crummy act. I could only endure it for 25 seconds…….

  14. I’m not going to spend the next week trying to figure out what her big error is. Does Mr. Powell intend to elaborate?

    Also, I’d be interested to know the background on Roth using a pseudonym. Did she admit to that herself? From the outset it has struck me that someone named Rebekah Roth would very likely be Jewish. She seems to hint at being a religious Christian (and maybe she has spelled that out somewhere). Interesting that she would use a Jewish pseudonym and emphasize the Jewish/Israeli role in the event.

    1. I have listened to maybe half-a-dozen of her interviews and I recall hearing during one of the later ones either her interviewer or herself stumble over the word “pseudonym” – and I remembered thinking it was probably a good thing to not use her real name. While that might not matter to the NSA et. al., the average person might be stymied.

      And yet at the same time I also wondered why she would choose a name that sounded Jewish when she makes the case that it was Israelis.

      Like so much of 9/11 – the cover-up – all the distractions/misinformation/red-hearings etc. pretty much tells me all I need to know. Me thinks they protest [lie] too much.

      As for JF – I didn’t intend to question his patriotism – I’m questioning his understanding of how the messenger [delivery] can kill [turn-off] the message.

      My two cents.

    2. Hello rj:

      After I listened to her first extensive Skype interview on a radio program, I also was puzzled at a name that certainly seems to be of Jewish origin. I was certain it was a pseudonym and wasn’t quite sure why she would choose a name which most people would think she is Jewish.

      You must be aware that there are literally hundreds of thousands (or maybe more) of Christian Zionist congregations. Many by their affiliated name are obviously pro-Zionist. I have no problem whatever her religion is or whether she practices no religion at all.

      What struck me is how enthralled the hosts of the radio programs were, especially since her books are fiction and she claims she only came out of her “cognitive dissonance* while “needing a name for an Arab character”, she Googled the names of the supposed hijackers. Personally, I wouldn’t think it would be difficult for a fiction writer to create a man with an “Arab name” quite easily.

      Also, the radio hosts tended to warn her of possible “threats” she may receive due to all the disclosures and accusations she made regarding Zionist involvement.

      While her “expertise” was that of an experienced flight attendant and steward for decades, I was shocked that it appeared that not one host had vetted this woman.

      1.) I doubt very much that she has “inside information”; yet she claimed that she needed her book to be fiction to protect her. I made a comment that she isn’t in any danger as her book is fiction.

      2.) I commented that what information she had exposed is absolutely nothing new and that many other legitimate writers, independent journalists and researchers had been working on possible Zionist (there is a big difference between Zionism and Judaism) involvement along with the complete complicit treason in the entire executive branch; rather like keeping their eyes “wide shut”.

      3.) I was frankly up front that while the angle of her novels is to “solve” the sticking point of “what happened to the passengers in the flights”, that it was not researched and is simply postulating a theory with not many facts to support it. Thus, fiction is the ideal way of not needing any documented evidence.

      4.) Lastly her “research” regarding partial or total planning and cover-up by Zionist hard-liners (frankly genocidal zealots), the Zionists who have controlled Israel since 1976, that other researchers really had “paid the price”; i.e. Christopher Bollyn.

      Obviously, she didn’t like my comments and rebuttals, although I’m sure you can see by reading this commentary, that I am quite intelligent enough to raise valid questions and critiques without ad hominen attacks directly aimed at her her personally.

      I posted my comments on her Web Page and was blocked. This was the only “red flag” that I needed.
      Now, reading her vitriolic and sophomoric responses from Mr. Powell’s e-mail inquiries, I don’t believe for a minute that the name and face on the book and her preference to present herself publicly via Skype (with full make-up and hair styled), that she is in any danger (though the hosts out-and-out made statements that she should be fearing for life).

      Ms. Roth certainly popped up onto the truth movement cause so quickly (and with two novels written in such a short time span), I believe she is much more interested in the great sums of money she has earned from both books and paid speaking engagements.

  15. For those who actually are honest, decent, and do have some integrity. It is important to remind yourself that there are others that are the exact opposite. Controlled opposition and subversion/infiltration clearly demonstrate the lengths to which those who live by deception will go to defend their deception. Based on this assumption, but imho a ‘fact’, then one has to conclude that the alt/truth media is thick with shills/disinfo agents/frauds. The mind bender is that some of these folks don’t realize what they are, they’ve been deceived themselves and are being played. The road to the truth is littered with lies, with countless false trails and dead ends. The best lies are always wrapped in truth.

    We also have basic human nature issues. People want to be ‘right’, they want to be ‘liked’. People naturally defend their positions. People also tend to show their worst side (maybe the real side?) when this occurs. Personal attacks, baseless accusations. We’ve all experienced this in religion, clubs, science. The Internet is rife with this conflict. Otherwise honest well meaning people can go to ‘war’ defending their positions… or their ‘rightness’. Some persons will NEVER admit their wrong, regardless of the circumstances. I’m certain all of us have experienced this to the point where it destroyed a club, group, org, community. Whether in person, or on the Internet. And this is with zero conspiratorial issues.

    Regardless of my perception of another persons honesty, if they devolve to personal attacks then they lose my respect, and raise my suspicions.

    I think it is important to identify and call out the frauds. But how one does this is critical. Especially if it’s based more on intuition than any possible facts. No one wins in a shouting match, it’s always counter productive to engage with a troll.

    Mr Powell’s response should have stuck to the ‘proof’ of Roth’s deception. The posting of a private email in a public forum is inappropriate. Period. I understand why this was done, but disagree with the decision to do so.

    As for Rebekah Roth. I read her first book. It was poorly written. The first half was terrible. The 9/11 part was at least interesting. Regardless of assertions regarding if the planes were real or not. The viewpoint that the actions of the pilots and flight attendants were completely inconsistent with ALL training is compelling, and evidence that the official narrative of their actions is false. And this was my primary take away from her book/narrative. As for my personal feelings towards her legitimacy. I offer no ‘proof’… but my intuition, after a few exposures to her, gave me reason to doubt, something was just ‘off’ about her. I decided after the last interview I heard with her to no longer expose myself to her narrative.

    Dr Fetzer. I have to chuckle. He is such a character, and has such a strong dominant personality. I get why people are turned off by him, I was initially because of this. Can’t discount someone just because their personality rubs you the wrong way. Fetzer’s work speaks for itself.

    We’re all human (well with the exception of the psychopaths) and we all have our faults. Just as we’ve all been deceived by practiced manipulators, we’re also going to make the mistake of identifying authentic folks as frauds. At the end of the day each individual must rely on their own judgement. We each must separate the wheat from the chaff. And there’s a bunch of chaff. But it does make you appreciate the good kernels when you find them.

    1. “Fetzer’s work speaks for itself.”

      Your spot on, Sir!

      He teamed up with a troubled Judy Woods to launch some fantasy 9/11-lawsuit with the aim of derising citizens who seek a logic reconstruction of the 9/11 event and with the aim to block future sound lawsuits by creating a frivolous precedent.

      Guess what?
      With the same aims in mind he teamed up with troubled William Shanley to launch a lawsuit in the Sandy Hook event that a judge in court dismissed as “frivolous”. In this suit he allowed himself to abuse the name of Wolfgang Halbig. He does this again in the book that is being advertized on this very webpage by “featering Wolfgang Halbig”. Wolfgang, who warned, adjured him to NOT go to court, has broken with this crook, oh pardon MBH-ers, this intellectually dishonest character, in december last year.

      So your exactly right, Sir: this is his work that says it all and qualifies him as a damage control agent aka “gatekeeper”, something the like of Chomsky.

      1. My reaction is a comment on Kevin Scott King’s “Fetzer’s work speaks for itself.” So the “he” is Jimmyboy Fetzer.

    2. Yeah, not my “comment at will”.. Now. Why James are you not controlling this BTW, in some fashion? Curious? I was studying for a PhD by then at 30 and was in the hospital and saw that repeat of a plane and it was so strange. It looked black that day as it does now and strange and disappearing into the building and I always thought it was BS. Without going into much else, I listen to Petroleum Broadcasting radio to get me out of bed it is that bad now, and they’ve been saying, “we have to turn cops into medics now to stop that blood flow, and we have to increase funding immediately to train cops and blah blah blah. Because the stranger around the corner is going to get us… What I’ll leave with is that they must have data on how many fools have watched their films and TV. There is no way under the sun anyone would begin to believe that ridiculousness unless they felt sure people had watched these shows over and over. The story lines are that bad.

      1. PS: I meant that last night it did not appear to allow me to post under the Sandy Hook story.. (I want to defend Jim Fetzer here in that it is very disturbing to realize how misinformed Americans are and that the “be calm and show no emotion, in my opinion, is direct WASP brainwashing writ large.)

      2. That posted, huh? Anyway I added that I understand why Jim Fetzer acts like that sometimes, it is very frustrating how misinformed Americans are and even more irritating that they perceive themselves as knowing everything. And that “always be calm and collected” is brainwashing in my opinion. Social-control mechanism honed writ large.

    3. “the lengths to which those who live by deception will go to defend their deception.”

      Once indoctrinated, deception(or it’s use) may become truth to the individual or High Demand Group(HDG). True believers, see themselves as the vanguards of truth, even if it means using deception, because for the true believer, the ends justifies the means. (eg:Bolshevism/Fascism/Dispensationalism/Climatism/Fatalism/DAESH/Fanaticism)

      The Gladio Bologna train bombing wasn’t looked at by the perpetrators as deception, but deception used in the support of THEIR ultimate truth, fascism and the “mythos of the state”. Murdering the Russian Czar and his children, wasn’t murder for Bolsheviks, but a righteous cause to “liberate” labor. Killing Muslims, to promote wahabism is truth for the DAESH cult, because they don’t believe non-wahabbists are Muslims.

      Is Roth just an indoctrinated useful idiot? Using deception in support of her ultimate truth? or just a nobody trying to sell books to those desperate for TWOOF!

      I suspect the latter given the public relations techniques she seems to be familiar with on her “landing” pages, however the defensive nature of her anti-social rhetoric, hints at totalism. She’s not the first to exploit mass murder for financial or political gain. Have you heard about what hitler did to the jews? It was pretty bad, but have you heard what the new hitlers, who only kill muslims by the thousands, will do to the Jews in the future? lulz

      In the “Going Clear” documentary, we learn how Scientologists infiltrated the FBI, operation “snow white”, in order to neutralize one of their critics. They also have their own internal “intelligence”, that seeks to find “suppressive persons”(SPs) within their HDG.

      Political, Spiritual, and/or Ideological Totalism…AKA, group-think.

      Roth sounds more like she’s having an identity crisis, borderline schizophrenic, which is what many members of closed high demand groups(CHDG) exhibit when confronted with information that does not fit within their “sacred science”, so they “dispense with it’s existence”.

      Thought Reform and The Psychology of Totalism:
      8 traits/criteria of the psychological totalist (Robert Lifton)

      1.Milieu Control-
      2.Demand for Purity:The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
      4.Sacred Science: The group’s doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
      5.Mystical Manipulation
      6.Loaded Language: The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members’ thought processes to conform to the group’s way of thinking.
      7.Doctrine over person
      8.Dispensing of Existence:The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group’s ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.


      “Our swollen budgets constantly have been misrepresented to the public. Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.” General Douglas MacArthur address to Sperry Rand Co shareholders (1957)

      Iran is a threat in 5,4,3,2…(^_^)

  16. I haven’t read Rebekah Roth’s book and only heard a couple of interviews she did a few months ago so I’m not really in a position to criticize her work.
    On the flip side, I have read Jim Fetzers articles quite often in the past and came to a conclusion about a year or so ago. I would not trust Jim Fetzer to investigate his way out of a wet paper bag.
    This is my personal opinion and if Fetzer doesn’t like it well that’s just to darn bad. Nothing he could say would change my mind at this point.
    Do I think Israel did 9/11 all by themselves? No. But the sheer amount of dual citizen Jews in key positions of control leading up to, during, and after 9/11 cannot be dismissed out of hand.
    A comprehensive list of names can be found here:

    As an example: I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff has dual citizenship with Israel.
    Just Sayin.

    1. You may like the theory that the Israelis were behind it, but that is not a good reason for trusting Rebekah Roth. I am not sure what kind of message she wishes to convey, but she, like Eric Hufschmidt, tries to besmirch alot of people, and for thosewho trust her negative message about the Israelis, may very well trust her negative message about alot of 911 researchers, eg. Griffin, Fetzer and a host of others she has spoken of very disparagingly . For those who trust her, they would particularly trust her statements about the airline personnel allegedly aboard those planes. I say, you should not trust her so quickly, no matter how much you like her talk about the Israelis.

      Look what she has said about Jim Fetzer. Jim Fetzer may be wrong about a few things, but he is an educated and intelligent man and has been right about many things. And he is able because of his background and native intelligence to synthesize all the reasons for not believing the gov’t’s story about 911, JFK, Sandy Hook, etc Jim Fetzer has been around too long to be a faker.

      Someone said in a review of one of his books that he has not said anything new about Sandy Hook, as he if had done something wrong in writing it. But I salute him for writing a book and documenting all he knows about Sandy Hook (and he knows alot) in a hardcover. This is one of the reasons why people like Fetzer and Griffin and Daviddson (another person Roth criticized) are important. They are the ones writing books- not fiction books either.

      The only criticism I have of Jim Fetzer is that he may be too nice a guy and too open to different theories, and too soft in his cricitisms of some people.. Sure, he has criticized others here and there, but it is always done in a civilized and gentlemanly like manner. For instance, his criticism of Stephen Jones and architects and engineers is that their website is a “limited hangout”, to use Jim’s words. However, I disagree with the negative implication of that description because I believe that Jones and Architects and Engineers have a very good reason for being a “limited hangout.” It is a part of their strategy, and it is because they have forensic evidence about the dust, and they do not wish to allow anyone they are trying to reach to become distracted by other theories that are vulnerable to manipulation and ridicule by those on the outside. One of the things the government does well is they keep changing the facts, but one thing they cannot do is change the composition of that dust, and Jones and his group are well aware of this propensity by the government and therefore do not wish to adopt a theory that is subject to “change.”

      1. Are you replying to my comment? If so, maybe you can clear a few things up for me.
        Exactly where in my comment did I state that I trust Rebekah Roth? I’m asking because I don’t see where I wrote that. Should I get my vision checked? Is there a part of my comment that didn’t get posted and for some strange reason I can’t see that part? You know, I distinctly remember typing that comment yesterday and I’m pretty doggone sure I didn’t type anywhere in it that I trust Rebekah Roth. I distinctly remember typing…well you know what? I’ll just copy and paste it down here in this comment so we can go over it together.

        “I haven’t read Rebekah Roth’s book and only heard a couple of interviews she did a few months ago so I’m not really in a position to criticize her work.”

        There we go. Now, I would like for you, to point out for me, exactly where in that sentence do the words appear.Because, to be honest, I’m just not seeing them.
        So my first question to you is why would you take my comment so far out of context as to infer I said something that I clearly did not say?
        Maybe I can clear something up for you. I don’t know enough about Rebekah Roth to form an opinion about her one way or the other and I certainly don’t give a flying tootie fruity what she said about Jim Fetzer. It couldn’t have been anything worse than I myself have said about him. I believe the words I used were “bloated, slimey, pus-filled bag of rotting excrement” or something to that affect. It was a couple of years ago, so you’ll understand if I’m paraphrasing just a little.
        As for my believing the “theory that the Israeli’s did it”… did you even read the part of my comment where I stated “Do I think Israel did 9/11 all by themselves? No.”
        Did you not see this part of my comment? Is the capital N not capitalized enough? Is the little o too small? Is there a bit of a smudge on your computer screen that blurred out the word No?
        I do believe that Israeli’s were involved. Their hands aren’t clean. 9/11 couldn’t have happened without their assistance. It would have been impossible.
        And while we’re on the subject, if someone wants to be a dual citizen then they can go to a different country and be a dual citizen with two other different countries. If they do it here in America then their a traitor. Period.
        It seems to me that you took my initial comment, put it through the Fetzerizer and Fetzerized it to make it seem that I said things that I clearly didn’t say. It’s a Fetzerization of the truth and will not be countenanced.
        Anyway, it was nice commenting with you and maybe we can comment together again in the future. Have a nice day.

  17. For anyone who trusts her, what she is effectively doing is vouching for the innocence and deaths of the airline personnel, as well as the passengers. For anyone who trusts her, she is effectively bringing her audience to distrust alot of good researchers. Jim Fetzer is not the only person she has bad-mouthed. There have been alot of other reputable people, eg. Griffin, who she is trying to bring to disrepute.

  18. I can’t agree with many of the comments above. I read her book, listened to many of her interviews, and had an uncle who was an airline Captain. She makes sense to me albeit repeated. How some above can claim she has a “Jewish name” is beyond me. It can also be Christian German decent. Regardless, it doesn’t matter, and just prove prejudice’s. Dr. Fetzer has his own opinions, which I also respect, but Roth has uncovered some incredible information no one else has. Her knowledge of the airline industry few other bloggers have. Nobody uncovered the ‘Israeli artists’, and it took Gordon Duff of VT to discover the towers were nuclear demolished. Her tying Mossad into 9/11 makes sense to me. Going on her lead, I’d LOVE to know who paid Larry Silverstein all those billions for very sickly buildings. Insurance companies don’t pay out those sort of sums without serious investigations. My guess today is certain governments paid him off. Roth is doing true investigative reporting. A compliment I can’t pay to many other ‘9/11 Truthers’, who haven’t a clue.

    1. oh yes they did disclose the Israelis artists well before she did – in fact infowars unveiled that bit of information back in 2009 and if you did your research before spouting your mouth off how wonderful this psychopath is, then you would have found that infowars disclosed that bit of info with all the photos that she used in her presentation and interviews, also, that terabit bit of info she claims to have was in fact allegedly stolen from another person and truth frequency radio has disclosed the theft and the guys name whom it belonged to…go and google Israelis artists and fuse wire and you will pull up the article from infowars posted way back in 2009 ! DUH!

      1. RR did not steal the 1TB of FOIA records. This is a myth. See updates on TFR. The records will become public very shortly. Everybody will have access to the same thing and can check the math.

  19. Rebekah is blaming the Israelis because it gives her credibility (their involvement is real) but she then shifts blame to every disinformation specialists favorite false target the “Luciferians”. Bill cooper, Stan Monteith, Alex Jones, all to divert from any Zionist involvement in anything, blamed this spectral, amorphous enemy. It gets you chasing shadows.

  20. Mr. Powell, are you saying there were no planes flown into the World Trade Center? If so you must answer the following questions:

    What did Stanley Praimnath see approaching his office in WTC2?
    What did hundreds of cameras located all around the WTC capture, and sometimes hear?
    What caused steel box columns in both towers to be pushed inwards?
    What caused the towers to sway?

    There is no doubt that we could discover more evidence. Is there any desire to do so?

    Making bare assertions about someone else’s research without presenting credible information is just entertainment. Have you studied the radar records to try to figure out what happened?

    You can start here: http://www.911datasets.com/index.php/NARA_FOIA_36411_FAA_RECORDS_Aug_19_2011

    Compressed version: http://www.911datasets.com/index.php/NARA_FOIA_36411_FAA_RECORDS_Aug_19_2011_-_mp3_Compressed

  21. .
    .. consistent with cincimo radar and arcade findings no? Recently had on her show a retired a a purser confirming much of what she’s said thus far.

  22. RR is a plain Jane psychopathic drug peddler who wanted to jump onto the truth movement 9/11 band wagon to earn a few bob, with her side kick ‘RAMJET’ ? aka..ram the jet into the twin towers..get it RAMJET?.;.’methodical illusion’ aka wipe the wool over the stupid public’s eyes cos i was never a flight attendant …get it now? she talks coquettishly in her interviews but talks brashly and very aggressively in her retorts of other peoples accusations, out of character befitting a true author, also it may be that she didn’t write that drivel anyway but had some other ‘berk’ write it for ‘them’ [ her and ram the jet into the twin towers sidekick] she could well have been a crisis actor pulled out from the crowd by the CIA to have a go at muddying the waters even further she is in total disregard of any deceit employed by herself and is in total denial of who she really is – a real life psychopath. although i dont think she was employed by the CIA because RR is too ‘thick and brash’ to have been coached by that organization, just a common drug peddler onto a good thing using others peoples research, nothing else. [ the israelis art students were already reported by infowars back in 2009] LOOK IT UP SHE DIDN’T DISCLOSE THAT FIRST

Comments are closed.